 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2011)] [Notices] [Pages 39976-39977] [FR Doc No: 2011-16981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2011-30]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief

from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to

improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of

FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the

inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to

affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATE: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket

number involved and must be received on or before July 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2011-

0457 using any of the following methods:

     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.

     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West

Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.

     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at

202-493-2251.

     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management

Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to

http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you

provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can

find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including

the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment

for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's

complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on

April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to

http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management

Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Staples,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Keira

Jones,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Tyneka L. Thomas,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of

Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20591.

    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 30, 2011.

Dennis R. Pratte,

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2011-0457.

    Petitioner: Gama Charters, Inc.

    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 135.151(h).

    Description of Relief Sought: Gama Charters, Inc. requests relief

to operate Gulfstream G350/450/550 type aircraft with Controller Pilot

Data Link Communications (DLC) capability that were manufactured after

December 6, 2010 without meeting the datalink recording requirements of

Sec.  135.151(h).

[FR Doc. 2011-16981 Filed 7-6-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53754-53761]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21943]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2019-0007]

Online Delivery of OSHA's Outreach Training Program 10- and 30-
Hour Courses

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA requests information, comments, and documents that would
assist the agency in determining whether to adopt a new online delivery
model for OSHA's Outreach Training Program. The OSHA Outreach Training
Program is a hazard awareness training program that educates
participants on the recognition, abatement, and prevention of job-
related hazards in the construction, general, and maritime industries,
and at disaster sites. The potential new model would be limited to
OSHA's 10- and 30-hour Outreach courses for the construction, general,
and maritime industries. The new model would not include the disaster
site worker training program. OSHA plans to use the information
collected from this request to determine whether the new model would
address issues associated with the existing model. If the new model
were implemented, the agency would develop policies and procedures for
the online Outreach Training Program courses to ensure that online
providers meet OSHA's expectations for program quality and consistency.

DATES: Submit information, comments, and documents on or before
December 9, 2019. All submissions must bear a postmark or provide other
evidence of the submission date.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and additional materials, identified by
Docket No. OSHA-2019-0007 by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically to
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 963-
1648.
    Regular mail, hand delivery, express mail, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments and any additional material (for example,
studies or journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA-2019-0007, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-
5627). All additional material must clearly identify your electronic
submission by name, date, and docket number so that OSHA can attach
them to your comments. Due to security procedures, there may be delays
in receiving materials that are sent by regular mail. Deliveries (hand,
express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted during the
Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this Request for Information (RFI) (OSHA-2019-
0007). When submitting comments or recommendations on any of the issues
raised in this RFI, commenters should explain their rationale and, if
possible, provide data and information to support their comments or
recommendations. Comments and other material, including any personal
information, will be placed in the public docket without revision, and
will be publicly available online at https://www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting statements they do
not want to be made available to the public, or submitting comments
that contain personal information (either about themselves or others)
such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, and medical data.
    Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. The https://www.regulations.gov index lists all
documents in the docket. All submissions, including copyrighted
materials, are available for inspection at the OSHA Docket Office.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket
submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: David Serra, Outreach Training
Program Coordinator, Training Programs, Office of Training Programs and
Administration, Directorate of Training and Education, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, by email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Copies of this Federal Register notice: Electronic copies are
available at https://www.regulations.gov. This Federal Register notice,
news releases, and other relevant information are also available on
OSHA's web page at https://www.osha.gov.
    References and exhibits: Documents referenced by OSHA in this
request for information, other than OSHA standards and Federal Register
notices, are available in Docket No. OSHA-2019-0007. Additional
references are OSHA Outreach Training Program

Requirements [April 1, 2019], OSHA Outreach Training Program
Construction Industry Procedures [April 1, 2019], OSHA Outreach
Training Program General Industry Procedures [April 1, 2019], OSHA
Outreach Training Program Maritime Industry Procedures [April 1, 2019].
The docket is available at https://www.regulations.gov, the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. For additional information on submitting items to,
or accessing items in, the docket, please refer to the ADDRESSES
section of this RFI. Exhibits are available at https://www.regulations.gov. All materials in the dockets are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Background
    A. Overview of OSHA's Outreach Training Program
    B. Online Outreach Training Program Consortium Model
III. Request for Information, Data, and Comments
    A. OSHA's Current Model for In-Classroom and Online Delivery of
OSHA Outreach Training
    B. Modifying the Current Online Outreach Training Program Model
    C. Scope of Online Offerings
    D. Delineating Consortium Collaborator Distinctions Under the
Consortium Model
    E. Responsibilities of the OTI Education Center Under the
Consortium Model
    F. Responsibilities of the Online Provider Under the Consortium
Model
    G. Responsibilities of OSHA Under the Consortium Model
    H. Responsibilities of the Optional Stakeholder Under the
Consortium Model
    I. Termination of Consortium Agreements
    J. Expiration Dates of Consortiums
    K. Whether OSHA Should Adopt Minimum Technical Specifications
for Online Delivery of Training Content
     Online Provider System Requirements and Capabilities
     System Controls
     User Authentication
    L. Whether OSHA Should Adopt Requirements for Validating Online
Curriculum and Training Content
     Maintaining Curriculum Content
     Timelines and Processes To Ensure Content/Curriculum Is
Updated as OSHA Implements Policy Changes
     Student Assessment Strategies
     Ensuring Appropriate Levels of Interactivity
     Ensuring Student Engagement While Meeting Required
Training Timeframes
     Ensuring Adult Learning Principles Direct the Design
and Development of Content
    M. Ensuring Program Management and Strengthening Program
Oversight
     Setting of Course Tuition and Card Processing Fees
     Potential Prohibition on Resellers, Pass-Through
Agreements, Multi-Branded Offerings
     Program Administrative Requirements
    N. Additional Information
IV. Authority and Signature

I. Introduction

    The OSHA Outreach Training Program is a hazard awareness training
program that promotes workplace safety and health. The program educates
workers and employers on how to recognize, abate, and prevent job-
related hazards in the construction, general, and maritime industries,
and at disaster sites. Training is conducted in both classroom and
online formats. The federal government does not mandate participation
in the OSHA Outreach Training Program, and the program is not intended
to meet employer responsibilities for safety and health training of
their employees. The program is voluntary and does not meet the
training requirements contained in any OSHA standard.\1\ Nevertheless,
some states and local jurisdictions have enacted legislation mandating
OSHA Outreach Training Program training, and some employers and unions
require workers to complete this training to work in certain job sites
or fulfill their own safety training goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For information on OSHA's training-related requirements, see
OSHA Publication #2254, Training Requirements in OSHA Standards
(https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha2254.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA has concerns related to a number of issues associated with the
existing online program, including inconsistent training quality,
insufficient monitoring and oversight available to the agency, and
public confusion regarding the OSHA-authorized Outreach Training
Program. OSHA will consider any comments received in response to this
Request for Information (RFI) to determine whether a new online
training model called the OSHA Online Outreach Training Program
Consortium should be adopted to address these issues.

II. Background

A. Overview of OSHA's Outreach Training Program

    OSHA's Outreach Training Program is taught by authorized safety and
health professionals who complete an OSHA Outreach Training Program
trainer course that enables them to teach 10- and 30-hour Outreach
Training Program classes for workers in construction, general industry,
maritime, and disaster sites. The 10-hour Outreach class is designed
for entry-level workers, while the 30-hour Outreach class is more
appropriate for individuals with experience in issues related to
workplace safety or whose job responsibilities include ensuring
workplace safety.
    After participants have completed training, trainers request and
receive Outreach Training Program student course completion cards
through their Authorizing Training Organization (ATO). An ATO is the
organization that sponsored the trainer's most recent trainer course or
trainer update course, which is either OSHA's Directorate of Training
and Education (DTE) or an OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education
Center.
    The OTI Education Centers are a national network of nonprofit
organizations authorized by OSHA to deliver occupational safety and
health training to private and public sector workers and employers,
other federal agencies, and occupational safety and health
professionals. The primary focus of each OTI Education Center is to
provide OSHA training courses throughout OSHA's ten regions in support
of the OSH Act and OSHA's training mission. Additional information on
the OTI Education Centers is available on OSHA's web page at https://www.osha.gov/otiec.
    In 2001, OSHA began an Online Outreach Training Program, which
provides online, rather than classroom, delivery of training courses
for its 10-hour and 30-hour construction and general industry programs.
Prior to 2001, all authorized OSHA trainers were required to conduct
in-person training. OSHA also implemented an application process for
becoming an authorized online training provider.
    OSHA recognizes the benefits of having access to an online platform
for training. However, the agency has a number of concerns with the
existing model that it would like to address, including inconsistent
training quality, insufficient program monitoring and oversight
available to the agency, and public confusion regarding OSHA-authorized
Outreach Training Programs. OSHA has received numerous complaints
regarding online training, including:
    [ssquf] Individuals completing online courses on behalf of another
registered student;
    [ssquf] Individuals accessing and completing online courses from
outside the geographic jurisdiction of the agency;
    [ssquf] Publicly posted video clips, media, or other information
instructing individuals on methods to complete an Online Outreach
Training Program 10-

or 30-hour class in less than the minimum required time;
    [ssquf] Late submissions of card processing requests;
    [ssquf] Failure of online providers to issue student course
completion cards after receipt from OSHA within required time limits;
    [ssquf] Failure of online providers to issue course completion
cards;
    [ssquf] Significant customer service issues, including poor
technical support, inadequate responses from customer service staff,
and difficulty reaching the authorized Outreach trainer;
    [ssquf] Issuance of course completion cards and course completion
certificates for classes not affiliated with the Outreach Training
Program, but appearing to be offered by OSHA;
    [ssquf] Misleading advertising including the use of department and
agency logos, and prohibited terms (e.g., certification, accredited);
and
    [ssquf] Difficulty distinguishing by the general public between
OSHA-authorized online Outreach providers and resellers, pass-through
entities, and other online safety and health offerings.
    Because of these issues, on October 31, 2009, OSHA instituted a
moratorium on receiving or approving any additional applications for
online training providers. As a result, only nine previously authorized
online providers currently provide training.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In 2011, OSHA developed a plan to replace the existing
online providers through a new competitive model (see 76 FR 17451
(Mar. 29, 2011)). Under the competitive model, OSHA would select a
limited number of providers through non-financial cooperative
agreements. While OSHA awarded cooperative agreements on January 12,
2012, the agreements never went into effect because of litigation in
the United States Court of Federal Claims. In its most recent
decision, the court permanently enjoined OSHA from making awards
under the competitive model unless it corrected certain defects in
its solicitation under the Competition in Contracting Act. OSHA has
taken no further action to make awards under the competitive model,
and if OSHA adopts a different model, it will no longer attempt to
use the competitive model to make awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Online Outreach Training Program Consortium Model

    OSHA's Directorate of Training and Education (DTE) is considering
an alternative online model that provides safeguards against some of
the issues facing the existing model. This approach is referred to as
the Online Outreach Training Program Consortium Model (Model). Under
this Model, a consortium would be a voluntary agreement between
interested organizations, as opposed to a contract or non-financial
cooperative agreement.
    Under this approach, OSHA would not limit the number of consortiums
that could provide online training. Instead, a consortium would be
authorized to provide online training if it met OSHA's requirements to
become an authorized consortium.
    Authorized consortiums would consist of either three or four
collaborators, who would enter into a consortium agreement. Each
collaborator would have designated responsibilities detailed in the
agreement. The consortium agreement would outline technical,
curriculum, and program responsibilities.
    Consortiums with three collaborators would include OSHA, an OTI
Education Center, and an online provider. Consortiums with four
collaborators would include OSHA, an OTI Education Center, an online
provider, and a stakeholder.
    Under the model, the OTI Education Center would have oversight and
student course completion card processing responsibilities for the
consortium. The online provider would typically be the course content
developer, provider of the training, and advisor on the technical
aspects of offering online training. The stakeholder would be an
organization (e.g., a labor union or employer) that is interested in
developing and offering online Outreach training to only its members or
employees. The stakeholder would most likely enter into the agreement
as a fourth member, rather than an online provider, because the
stakeholder would likely not have the information technology experience
and resources to act as an online provider. Section III contains a
description of each consortium member's responsibilities.
    Whether the consortium is comprised of three or four collaborators,
OSHA would require that all actions taken by an authorized consortium
be consistent with OSHA requirements. OSHA also would have final
programmatic authority over the consortium and its members. OSHA would
review the consortium agreement and ensure the agreement is in
compliance with Outreach Training Program requirements. These
requirements would include, for example, the existing OSHA Outreach
Training Program Requirements and Outreach Training Program Industry
Procedures, as well as a new OSHA Directive for Online Outreach
Training Program Consortiums that OSHA would develop if it adopted the
consortium model. In addition, OSHA would have final authority over
termination and expiration of consortium agreements.

III. Request for Information, Data, and Comments

    OSHA would like data, information, and comments on the below
questions. Commenters are asked to clearly delineate which question
number related to their comment(s) or other submission(s) is intended
to address.

A. OSHA's Current Model for In-Classroom and Online Delivery of OSHA
Outreach Training

    A.1. What are the benefits to the current model?
    A.2. Are there any issues associated with the current model other
than those discussed by OSHA in this Request for Information? If so,
please list these additional issues. Provide details and examples where
possible.

B. Modifying the Current Online Outreach Training Program Model

    B.1. Are there any approaches that OSHA should consider adopting
other than the consortium approach (for example, the competitive
approach described in footnote 2 of this RFI)?
    [ssquf] If you believe OSHA should adopt another approach, please
describe the alternative approach and explain why you believe it should
be adopted.
    [ssquf] If you believe OSHA should leave the existing application
process in place or, alternatively, that OSHA should adopt the
consortium approach, please explain why.
    B.2. What are the benefits of the consortium approach?
    B.3. What are the weaknesses of the consortium approach?
    B.4. Does online delivery of the Outreach Training Program
effectively meet OSHA's mission to educate the public on workplace
hazards? If so, please explain why. If not, explain why not, and also
outline methods of educating the public on workplace hazards you
believe would effectively meet OSHA's mission.

C. Scope of Online Offerings

    OSHA is considering requiring consortiums to offer the 10-hour and
30-hour OSHA Outreach Training Program courses for each of the
following three industries: Construction, general, and maritime
industries (i.e., a total of three separate 10-hour courses and three
separate 30-hour courses).
    C.1. Do you believe a requirement that consortiums offer the 10-
hour and 30-hour OSHA Outreach Training Program courses for each of
these three industries (construction, general, and maritime) would pose
a challenge to online providers? If so, please explain the nature of
those challenges.

    C.1.a. If you believe there are challenges, how can these
challenges be resolved?
    C.1.b. Can OSHA resolve these challenges? How? Please explain.
    C.1.c. Can online providers resolve these challenges? How? Please
explain.
    OSHA is considering requiring consortiums to offer the 10- and 30-
hour OSHA Outreach Training Program courses in languages other than
English.
    C.2. Do you believe the OSHA Outreach Training Program classes
should be offered in languages other than English?
    C.2.a. If so, what challenges do you foresee with developing OSHA
Outreach Training Program classes in languages other than English?
    C.2.b. Can the consortium collaborators resolve these challenges?
How? Please explain.

D. Delineating Consortium Collaborator Distinctions Under the
Consortium Model

    To prevent conflicts of interest, the appearance of conflicts of
interest, or self-dealing, OSHA is considering prohibiting consortium
collaborators from serving in a `dual-role' within the same agreement.
That is, OSHA would require that each partner in a consortium agreement
be a separate, distinct entity, filling a specific collaborator role
within that agreement, and an OTI Education Center could not serve as
both the OTI Education Center collaborator and the online provider
collaborator within the same consortium. Thus, if OTI Education Center
A wishes to be an online provider collaborator, OTI Education Center A
would have to enter into a consortium agreement with a different OTI
Education Center (e.g., OTI Education Center B), which would serve as
the sole OTI Education Center collaborator for that consortium. OTI
Education Center A could also serve as the OTI Education Center
collaborator in a separate consortium or consortiums.
    D.1. Do you agree that consortium collaborators should be
restricted to filling only one partner role within the same consortium
agreement? Why or why not?
    D.2. How broadly should OSHA define the term ``separate, distinct
entity?'' Should a subsidiary component of a parent organization (for
example, a subsidiary business, franchise, or division, or a distinct
department within a college or university) be considered a ``separate,
distinct entity'' from other subsidiary components of the same parent
organization? Why or why not?
    D.3. Are there any additional restrictions OSHA should consider or
incorporate to prevent conflicts of interest, the appearance of
conflicts of interest, or self-dealing?

E. Responsibilities of the OTI Education Center Under the Consortium
Model

    Under the Consortium Model, the OTI Education Center (a required
consortium collaborator) would have oversight and processing
responsibilities. Thus, the OTI Education Center would:
    [ssquf] Oversee course curriculum and content. This might include
curriculum development, and/or curriculum evaluation, and audits of
online training delivery. The OTI Education Center could also act as a
content advisor.
    [ssquf] Conduct monitoring (through, for example, record audits and
training observations) of the authorized Outreach trainer(s) that
work(s) for the online provider.
    [ssquf] Process Outreach Training Program Reports (OTPRs) and
requests for 10- and 30-hour Outreach student course completion cards.
    [ssquf] Oversee online providers to ensure compliance with OSHA
requirements. These requirements include, for example, the existing
OSHA Outreach Training Program Requirements and Outreach Training
Program Industry Procedures, as well as a new OSHA Directive for Online
Outreach Training Program Consortiums that OSHA would develop if it
adopted the consortium model.
    E.1 Do you agree that the OTI Education Center should have the
responsibilities listed above under the consortium model?
    [ssquf] If so, do you believe OSHA has adequately stated all
responsibilities the OTI Education Center should have? Please explain.
    [ssquf] Explain any other, or different, responsibilities you think
the OTI Education Center should have.

F. Responsibilities of the Online Provider Under the Consortium Model

    Under the Model, the online provider (a required consortium
collaborator) would typically be the course content developer,
provider, and advisor on the technical aspects of online training.
Thus, the online provider would be responsible for:
    [ssquf] Technical aspects, including system capabilities and
requirements, system controls, data security and privacy, user
authentication, and IT customer support.
    [ssquf] Curriculum and training content, including development and
delivery method, along with ensuring training content is current,
relevant, and complies with OSHA Outreach Training Program requirements
and procedures and industry-specific procedures.
    [ssquf] Program management, including administering registration,
maintaining records (e.g., student training record retention),
reporting training to and requesting Outreach student course completion
cards from the OTI Education Center, ensuring compliance with
geographic jurisdiction and authorized Outreach trainer status
requirements; collecting tuition and fees, and providing customer
service. Program management would also include hosting registration and
other student records on a Shareable Content Object Reference Model
(SCORM) or Aviation Industry CBT Committee (AICC) compliant Learning
Management System (LMS).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Electronic learning (e-learning) software applications use
industry-recognized technical standards to ensure interoperability
between online learning content and learning management systems
(LMS). Both SCORM and AICC are technical specifications widely
accepted within the e-learning community. OSHA training content is
SCORM-compliant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] Establishment and maintenance of a permanent website
landing page dedicated solely to the online provider's authorized
online Outreach course/class offerings. This requirement would not
limit or restrict the provider's ability to use media other than the
landing site (e.g., other websites) to market or advertise either OSHA-
authorized Outreach courses or other occupational safety and health
training available through the provider. Rather, the landing page would
serve as a one-stop portal or point of entry for the public to access
OSHA-authorized online Outreach training. OSHA might also require that
the landing page contains copies of the OSHA approval documents
authorizing the course, or other verification mechanisms (hyperlinks to
https://www.osha.gov), to assure the public of the authenticity of the
course.
    F.1. Do you agree that the online provider under the Model should
have the responsibilities listed above?
    [ssquf] If so, do you believe OSHA has adequately stated all
responsibilities the online provider should have? Please explain.
    [ssquf] Explain any other, or different, responsibilities the
online provider should have.
    [ssquf] What common elements should be required on an authorized
online provider-landing page?
    [ssquf] What additional verification mechanisms that demonstrate
the training is recognized as an OSHA

Outreach Training Program should OSHA consider requiring online
providers to make available to interested students?

G. Responsibilities of OSHA Under the Consortium Model

    Under the Model, OSHA (a required consortium collaborator) would
have final authority over the consortium and its partners in accordance
with OSHA requirements. Requirements include, for example, the existing
OSHA Outreach Training Program Requirements and Outreach Training
Program Industry Procedures, as well as a new OSHA Directive for Online
Outreach Training Program Consortiums that OSHA would develop if it
adopted the consortium model. Thus, OSHA would:
    [ssquf] Be responsible for approving and authorizing consortiums
providing online training.
    [ssquf] Conduct monitoring and investigations of all consortium
members to ensure compliance with OSHA Outreach Training Program
requirements and procedures.
    [ssquf] Have authority to take corrective action and adverse action
(up to and including dissolution of the consortium) for violations of
OSHA requirements.
    [ssquf] Design, develop, and host the sole, official dedicated page
on the OSHA website, that is clearly identifiable and easily accessible
to the public, to direct and link the public to a comprehensive list of
all OSHA-authorized online Outreach training providers.
    G.1. Do you agree that OSHA should have the responsibilities listed
above under the consortium model?
    [ssquf] If so, do you believe OSHA has adequately stated all the
responsibilities OSHA should have? Please explain.
    [ssquf] Explain any other, or different, responsibilities you think
OSHA should have.

H. Responsibilities of the Optional Stakeholder Under the Consortium
Model

    Under the Model, the Stakeholder (an optional consortium
collaborator) would be an organization (e.g., a labor union or
employer) that is interested in developing and offering online Outreach
training to only its members or employees. Thus, a stakeholder, if
there is one, would:
    [ssquf] Develop and/or review curriculum content specific to its
industry/organization. The stakeholder might develop the industry-
specific or targeted audience curriculum, collaborate with, or act as
an advisor to, the online provider who would develop the content.
    [ssquf] Ensure only the stakeholder's members or employees have
access to the training.
    [ssquf] Oversee all elements of student training.
    H.1. Do you agree that the optional stakeholder should have the
responsibilities listed above under the consortium model?
    [ssquf] If so, do you believe OSHA has adequately stated all the
responsibilities the optional stakeholder should have? Please explain.
    [ssquf] Explain any other, or different, responsibilities you think
the optional stakeholder should have.

I. Termination of Consortium Agreements

    Under the consortium model, OSHA might permit any member of a
consortium to request OSHA to terminate the agreement. For example, a
consortium member might request OSHA to terminate the agreement because
of non-compliance by one or more members. After an investigation, OSHA
would determine whether to terminate the consortium agreement. OSHA
would terminate the agreement in accordance with the procedures it
adopts for dissolution of consortiums.
    I.1. Do you agree with OSHA's intent to allow any member to request
OSHA to terminate a consortium agreement?
    [ssquf] If so, please explain.
    [ssquf] If no, please explain why a termination provision is not
recommended.
    I.2. Under what conditions should OSHA terminate a consortium
agreement? Should OSHA terminate an agreement whenever any consortium
member requests termination regardless of the reason? Should some
requests for termination be rejected depending on which member requests
termination or the reason given for the request? Should some reasons be
cause for termination if proffered by certain members but not by
others? Please explain.
    I.3. What concerns/issues may arise with terminating a consortium
agreement prior to its expiration date? Please explain.

J. Expiration Dates of Consortiums

    OSHA is considering requiring each consortium agreement to have an
initial expiration date of one or two years from the date of the
agreement. OSHA might permit consortium members to renew the agreement
in up to five (5) year increments.
    J.1. Should there be an initial expiration date for consortium
agreements? Please explain.
    J.2. If you believe there should be an initial expiration date for
consortium agreements, what should the initial expiration date be?
Please explain.
    J.3. Should OSHA allow agreements to be renewed? Please explain.
    J.4. If you believe OSHA should allow agreements to be renewed,
what should be the renewal period? Please explain.

K. Whether OSHA Should Adopt Minimum Technical Specifications for
Online Delivery of Training Content

    OSHA is considering minimum technical requirements for online
delivery of OSHA Outreach classes to ensure accessibility and
consistently reliable delivery of training to end users. These minimum
technical requirements might follow training and industry best
practices for online delivery, while permitting providers the
flexibility to leverage emerging technologies. OSHA would have final
approval of consortium partners' recommendations for technology
changes. OSHA is considering minimum technical requirements in several
areas, including online provider system requirements and capabilities,
system controls, and user authentication.
Online Provider System Requirements and Capabilities
    OSHA is considering requiring online providers to:
    [ssquf] Ensure bandwidth is sufficient for a large volume of users.
    [ssquf] Ensure selected web-authoring tools have the capability to
program and publish responsive courseware to accommodate a variety of
electronic devices and operating system software.
    K.1. Are the above system requirements and capabilities reasonable
and sufficient? Please explain.
    K.2. What additional online provider system requirements and
capabilities are needed or should be considered? Please explain.
System Controls
    OSHA is considering requiring online providers to incorporate
specific system controls in their course offerings, including but not
limited to, the following:
    [ssquf] Ensuring OSHA-required instructional contact times (seat
times) are met (e.g., ensuring both minimum contact time(s) for topics
and overall course instructional time(s) are met; requiring a system
time-out after the student is inactive for a specific period of time;
and establishing a maximum of 7.5 hours of online training per 24-hour
period).
    [ssquf] Using lockout mechanisms to ensure compliance with OSHA
requirements (e.g., ensuring training

does not exceed 6 months and students cannot access training from
geographic exclusion areas).
    [ssquf] Ensuring users do not save, download, or conduct screen
captures of training content and testing screens.
    [ssquf] Incorporating system controls that detect and prevent
program intrusions, hacks, or workarounds. OSHA believes these system
controls are especially important because workarounds, such as video
clips that show how to circumvent training sessions, have been posted
on public social media and other websites.
    [ssquf] Prioritizing and ensuring user data security and privacy,
and having a written policy that explicitly prohibits selling or
transferring student information or data.
    [ssquf] Ensuring bookmarking functions and course mapping access
are operational.
    K.3. What system controls exist to ensure the above requirements?
Please provide as much detail as possible. Also, please indicate
whether the system controls listed in your response are industry-
recognized.
    K.4. Are there any weaknesses or vulnerabilities in the system
controls you discussed in question K.3.?
User Authentication
    OSHA is considering requiring online providers to incorporate
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) mechanisms for access to online
Outreach courses, and requiring end users to complete periodic MFA
checks throughout training delivery sessions. OSHA might also require
that MFA mechanisms meet industry best practices; that MFA ensures end
users' digital identity verification measures adhere to stringent
standards; and that MFA ensures training is completed by the student,
and not a surrogate.
    K.5. What level of MFA is appropriate for online Outreach classes
(e.g., banking, healthcare, retail business purchases, other)? Please
explain.
    K.6. What organization(s) should determine industry best practices
or certify MFA integrity? For example, should MFA criteria set by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) be employed to
determine industry best practices? Should MFA integrity be certified by
NIST? Are there any other organizations that should determine industry
best practices or certify MFA integrity? Please explain.

L. Whether OSHA Should Adopt Requirements for Validating Online
Curriculum and Training Content

    OSHA is considering requirements to ensure online training under
the Model is consistent with OSHA Outreach Training Program
requirements, procedures, and policies, and that authorized training
programs are revised in a timely manner when program or agency
requirements or policies change. These provisions would include, but
not be limited to, the following:
Maintaining Curriculum Content
    OSHA is considering requiring online providers and stakeholders to
be accountable for ensuring online training content is current,
relevant, and compliant with current Outreach Training Program
requirements and industry-specific procedures.
Timelines and Processes To Ensure Content/Curriculum Is Updated as OSHA
Implements Policy Changes
    OSHA currently requires authorized Outreach trainers to adhere to
routine policy changes within 90 days of a requirement and procedure
release date. Cases of emergent or priority policy changes may require
more immediate implementation. For example, OSHA revised the mandatory
Introduction to OSHA training module to reflect new reporting
requirements in OSHA's recordkeeping standard, 29 CFR part 1904
(including, for example, a new requirement to report instances of
workplace amputations within 24 hours of finding out about them), and
subsequently directed Outreach trainers to begin delivering that
revised content in an accelerated timeframe. OSHA regularly provides
course updates, revisions, and program policy and procedures that
include timeframes and implementation dates for instructor-led
training. OSHA is considering similar requirements for online providers
and stakeholders.
    L.1. Is 90 days a reasonable time for an online provider and
stakeholder to update/revise curriculum content to stay in compliance
with routine policy changes? Please explain.
    L.2. What accountability mechanisms or approach should OSHA
consider to ensure training content is current, relevant, and compliant
with agency timeframes? Please explain.
    L.3. What timeframes are reasonable for implementation of
immediate, priority, or emergent program or policy changes? Should
OSHA's timeframes for immediate, priority, or emergent program or
policy changes be set on a case-by-case basis (depending on the
particular priority or emergency)? Please explain.
Student Assessment Strategies
    OSHA is considering requiring online providers and stakeholders to
be accountable for ensuring online learning courses assess student
achievement of the learning objectives. If OSHA adopts such
requirements, OSHA is considering requiring that practice and test
questions/items be programmed as follows:
    [ssquf] Practice questions would be required; therefore, they would
need to be programmed so students cannot advance through the course
without providing the correct answer. Additionally, these items would
need to be programmed to provide immediate feedback to students for
both correct and incorrect responses. Students would need to be able to
determine how they are doing in the course. Note that because this
would be part of the learning, the correct answer would need to be
provided in the feedback prompt to get students back on the right path
as soon as possible.
    [ssquf] Knowledge test questions at the end of each lesson/module
would be required. Students would need to achieve a score of 100% to
successfully complete the online course. Remediation for each question
would need to be programmed so students could review the topic and
attempt the knowledge test question again, until answered correctly.
    L.4. Are the strategies listed above sufficient and reasonable to
ensure achievement of online learning objectives? Please explain.
    [ssquf] For example, is requiring practice questions/items to be
answered correctly sufficient to help students determine how they are
doing in the course? Please explain.
    [ssquf] As another example, is requiring a 100% test score a
sufficient way to confidently measure students' achievement of the
online learning objectives? Please explain.
    L.5. Are there any student assessment strategies, other than those
listed above, which can be applied to ensure the achievement of online
learning objectives? If so, please explain.
Ensuring Appropriate Levels of Interactivity
    OSHA is considering requiring online providers and stakeholders to
be accountable for ensuring an appropriate level of interactivity is
incorporated into online training. OSHA could structure this
requirement around the four levels of interactivity OSHA uses for web-
based training. The below table describes these levels of
interactivity:

                         Levels of Interactivity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Level                             Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level I--Passive............................  Student acts solely as a
                                               receiver of information.
                                               Student must read the
                                               text on the screen or
                                               view graphics such as
                                               illustrations, charts,
                                               and graphics and use the
                                               navigational buttons to
                                               progress forward through
                                               the program or move back.
                                              An example of this type of
                                               online product may also
                                               contain pop-ups and
                                               hyperlinks to web sites,
                                               materials, and other
                                               information interspersed
                                               between text and graphic
                                               presentations.
Level II--Limited Interaction...............  Student makes simple
                                               responses to
                                               instructional cues. The
                                               online product includes
                                               learning activities
                                               listed in Level I as well
                                               as multiple choices, drop-
                                               down lists, and labeling.
                                              An example would be an
                                               online product that
                                               includes these types of
                                               test items at the end of
                                               a unit of instruction to
                                               test student's grasp of
                                               the information.
Level III--Complex Participation............  Student makes a variety of
                                               responses using varied
                                               techniques in response to
                                               instructional cues.
                                               Responses would include
                                               those listed for a Level
                                               II--Limited Interaction
                                               as well as text entry
                                               boxes and manipulation of
                                               graphic boxes to test
                                               assessment of the
                                               information presented.
                                              An example is data entry
                                               online training where the
                                               process is displayed and
                                               then the user is
                                               challenged to complete
                                               the process by entering
                                               information into empty
                                               process fields instead of
                                               just selecting from a
                                               multiple choice answer
                                               list.
Level IV--Real Time Participation...........  Student is directly
                                               involved in a life-like
                                               set of complex cues and
                                               responses. This involves
                                               engaging the student in a
                                               simulation that mirrors
                                               the work situation with
                                               stimuli-and-response
                                               coordinated to the actual
                                               environment.
                                              Examples of this type of
                                               online product include
                                               virtual reality, or use
                                               of artificial
                                               intelligence similar to
                                               computer games and flight
                                               simulators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If OSHA adopts this structure for online training, OSHA would
require online providers to incorporate a certain percentage of higher-
level interactive training (e.g., Level IV as opposed to Level I) into
online training programs.
    L.6. Is the above structure feasible for ensuring there is
appropriate interactivity in online courses? Please explain.
    L.7. If you believe the above structure is feasible for ensuring
there is appropriate interactivity in online courses, what percentages
should be allotted for each level of interactivity? What percentage of
the course should be held at Level I? Level II? Level III? Level IV?
Please explain.
    L.8. Are there levels of interactivity, other than those listed
above, for ensuring online providers incorporate appropriate
interactivity in online courses? Please explain.
Ensuring Student Engagement While Meeting Required Training Timeframes
    L.9. Should OSHA consider requiring online providers and
stakeholders to include additional interactive activities to actively
engage students who quickly grasp the information to ensure they meet
minimum required seat times for the 10- and 30-hour courses?
    L. 10. Should there be technical requirements that measure total
topic activity in a way other than screen time?
Ensuring Adult Learning Principles Direct the Design and Development of
Content
    An adult learning principle is that adults learn by doing.
Therefore, OSHA is considering requiring online content to be developed
using the one-third to two-thirds (\1/3\:\2/3\) instructional strategy
approach. This approach allows for (\1/3\) of the course to be
presentation of the learning and (\2/3\) of the course devoted to
practice of the learning, with feedback to the learner indicating their
progress. Online content developers/providers would achieve this
requirement using the Levels of Interactivity described above as a
guide: Level I for the presentation portion; and Levels II-IV for the
practice portion.
    L.11. Should OSHA require online content to be designed using
specific adult learning principles, such as the principle that adults
learn by doing? Please explain.
    L.12. Is requiring the \1/3\:\2/3\ instructional strategy to
support an active training method feasible? Please explain.

M. Ensuring Program Management and Strengthening Program Oversight

    OSHA is considering a level of agency oversight of online Outreach
course delivery comparable to existing agency oversight of instructor-
led, classroom outreach course delivery. Specifically, OSHA is
considering implementing program rules that are specific to online
Outreach training in several areas, including, but not limited to
setting course tuition and card processing fees, prohibiting resellers,
prohibiting pass through agreements, prohibiting multi-branded
offerings, and establishing program administrative requirements.
Setting of Course Tuition and Card Processing Fees
    OSHA is not considering setting prices for online Outreach courses.
Thus, for example, an online provider would be able to set the overall
price for its online 10-hour general industry Outreach course offered
by its consortium. OSHA believes however, the fee charged by OTI
Education Centers for Outreach card processing must be the same for all
OSHA Outreach Training Program courses, whether those courses are led
by an instructor in a classroom or taken online. The fee for Outreach
card processing is currently $8.00 per card (subject to change).
    OSHA is considering enforcing assessment of identical card
processing fees--whether the cards are received through completion of
Instructor-Led Training (ILT) or online delivery--regardless of online
vendor, ILT class provider, or which OTI Education Center processes the
card request.
    M.1. Should card-processing fees be listed or identified during
online registration?
    M.2. How can consortium collaborators demonstrate to OSHA that the
card-processing fee per student complies with program requirements?
Potential Prohibition on Resellers, Pass Through Agreements, Multi-
Branded Offerings
    OSHA is concerned that certain practices could result in confusion
among customers as to the origin and content of online courses. OSHA is
considering adopting requirements that would reduce this confusion,
including, for example, prohibiting the use of reselling, pass through
agreements, and multi-branded offerings. Reselling and pass through
agreements allow a student to purchase and access an online course
through a secondary party or secondary-tiered provider (i.e., the
reseller, which in this context, might include any entity (e.g., an
affiliate or business partner)

other than the online provider or stakeholder itself, or any websites
operated by such entities). Multi-branded offerings include OSHA
Outreach-like training that is similar, but not equivalent, to OSHA
Outreach Training Program training. Multi-branded offerings do not
result in the student receiving a legitimate 10- or 30-hour Outreach
course completion card.
    M.3. Do you agree the practices discussed above generate confusion
for members of the public who wish to complete online OSHA Outreach
Training Program classes? Should OSHA prohibit these practices? Please
explain.
    M.4. Should OSHA consider incorporating requirements and other
controls to limit public misinformation or confusion? Please explain.
    M.5. What actions should OSHA take against consortium partner
practices that mislead the public? Please explain.
Program Administrative Requirements
    OSHA is considering requiring online providers to establish and
implement policies and procedures for administration of the Online
Outreach Training Program. For example, OSHA might require online
providers to establish and implement policies and procedures for:
Hosting online courses in a capable Learning Management System;
retaining student training records; compiling, collating, and
submitting training reports and other information or data; requesting
Outreach student course completion cards; administering the online
training registration process; ensuring compliance with geographic
jurisdiction requirements; and monitoring user experience.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OSHA Outreach Training Program classes may generally only be
conducted in training locations within the geographic jurisdiction
of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. The geographic
jurisdiction of the OSH Act is limited to the 50 U.S. States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, Wake Island, Outer Continental Shelf Lands defined
in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and Johnston Island.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA is also considering requiring customer service to be the
responsibility of the online provider through its authorized Outreach
trainer(s). To ensure satisfactory customer service, OSHA is
considering requiring responses to inquiries about the following types
of issues within 24 hours: Technical support; course curriculum; and
Outreach student course completion cards.
    M.6. Do you agree OSHA should institute the program administrative
requirements listed above? Please explain.
    M.7. What are industry best practices for a capable Learning
Management System? Please explain.
    M.8. What policies and procedures for a capable Learning Management
System should OSHA require? Please explain.
    M.9. What policies and procedures for student record retention
should OSHA require? Please explain.
    M.10. What types of training reports (e.g., reports on the number
of students trained, number of classes offered, average course
completion rates, etc.) will best serve the interests of the
consortium? Please explain.
    M.11. What policies and procedures for requesting Outreach student
course completion cards should OSHA require? Please explain.
    M.12. What policies and procedures for online training registration
process should OSHA require? Please explain.
    M.13. What policies for ensuring training complies with geographic
jurisdiction requirements should OSHA require? Please explain.
    M.14. What policies and procedures for ensuring timely and high
quality customer service should OSHA require? Please explain.

N. Additional Information

    OSHA has listed within this RFI the majority of issues the agency
has encountered with the current model of delivering online OSHA
Outreach Training Program courses, described an alternative to the
current model OSHA is considering, and also described additional
requirements OSHA is considering placing on the provision of online
Outreach Training Program training. The information OSHA discussed in
this Request for Information is not intended to be all-inclusive and
may not address all public or stakeholder concerns.
    N.1. Is there any additional information, or are there any public
or stakeholder concerns, not contained in this RFI, that OSHA should
consider? If so, please explain.

IV. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653 and 670(c)(1), and Secretary's Order
1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Signed in Washington, DC.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-21943 Filed 10-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11277-11278]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC21-9-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-725u); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on a renewal of currently approved
information collection, FERC-725U (Mandatory Reliability Standards:
Reliability Standard CIP-014-2), which will be submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due March 26,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on the information collections to OMB
through www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB Control
Number (1902-0274) in the subject line of your comments. Comments
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Please submit copies of your comments to the Commission. You may
submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. IC21-9-000) by
one of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov.
     U.S. Postal Service Mail: Persons unable to file
electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
     Delivery of filings other than by eFiling or the U.S.
Postal Service should be delivered to Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
    Instructions: OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Using the search function under the ``Currently Under Review''
field, select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit,''
and select ``comment'' to the right of the subject collection. FERC
submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission
guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance, contact FERC
Online Support by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:
(866) 208-3676 (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725U (Mandatory Reliability Standards: Reliability
Standard CIP-014-2).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0274.
    Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-725U information
collection requirements, with no changes to the reporting or
recordkeeping requirements.
    Abstract: On August 8, 2005, the Electricity Modernization Act of
2005, which is Title XII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005),
was enacted into law. EPAct 2005 added a new section 215 to the Federal
Power Act (FPA),\1\ which requires a Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Once
approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject
to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently. Section
215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory
and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and
approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by
the ERO subject to Commission oversight or by the Commission
independently. In 2006, the Commission certified NERC (now called the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation) as the ERO pursuant to
section 215 of the FPA. Reliability Standard CIP-014-2 requires
applicable transmission owners and transmission operators to identify
and protect transmission stations and transmission substations, and
their associated primary control centers that if rendered inoperable or
damaged resulting from a physical attack could result in widespread
instability, uncontrolled separation, or cascading within an
Interconnection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of information collection requirements, an applicable
entity must

create or maintain documentation showing compliance, when appropriate,
with each requirement of the Reliability Standard. This Reliability
Standard CIP-014-2 has six requirements. Transmission owners and
transmission operators must keep data or evidence to show compliance
with the standard for three years unless directed by its Compliance
Enforcement Authority. If a responsible entity is found non-compliant,
it must keep information related to the non-compliance until mitigation
is complete and approved, or for three years, whichever is longer.
    Type of Respondents: Intrastate natural gas and Hinshaw pipelines.
    Estimate of Annual Burden \2\ and Cost \3\: The Commission
estimates the total Public Reporting Burden for the FERC-725U
information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \3\ Commission staff estimates that the industry's skill set and
cost (for wages and benefits) for FERC-725U are approximately the
same as the Commission's average cost. The FERC 2020 average salary
plus benefits for one FERC full-time equivalent (FTE) is $172,329/
year (or $83.00/hour).

                                                                        FERC-725U
                                             [Mandatory reliability standards: Reliability standard CIP-014]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Number of     Annual number                                              Total annual burden    Average annual
                                         respondents    of responses    Total number    Average burden hours &     hours & total annual      cost per
                                             \4\       per respondent   of responses       cost per response               cost             respondent
                                                  (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).....................  (3) * (4) = (5)........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping...             336               1             336  32.71 hrs.; $2,714.93...  10,991 hrs.; $912,253..       $2,714,93
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total FERC-725U..................             336               1             336  32.71 hrs.; $2,714.93...  10,991 hrs.; $912,253..       $2,714.93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The total number of transmission owners and operators equals
336, this represents the unique US entities taken from October 2,
2020 NERC Compliance registry information.

    Dated: February 18, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03802 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 176)]
[Notices]
[Page 55594]
[DOCID:fr13se10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3314-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

North Carolina; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-3314-EM), dated
September 1, 2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 1, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 1, 2010, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of North Carolina resulting from Hurricane Earl
beginning on September 1, 2010, and continuing, are of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such an emergency exists in the State of North Carolina.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program. This assistance excludes regular time costs for
subgrantees' regular employees.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael
Bolch, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of North Carolina have been
designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Beaufort, Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Columbus, Craven, Currituck,
Dare, Gates, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank,
Perquimans, Pitt, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties for emergency
protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-22765 Filed 9-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 52673]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1997-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Indiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1997-DR), dated June 23, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 15, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of June 23, 2011.

    Clay and Lawrence Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-21427 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above background. After
5 calendar days, an instrument reading of 500 ppm above background or
greater is a violation.
    (2) If the pressure relief device consists of or includes a rupture
disk, install a replacement disk as soon as practicable after a
pressure release, but no later than 5 calendar days after the pressure
release. The owner or operator must also conduct instrument monitoring,
as detected by Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, no later than 5
calendar days after the pressure relief device returns to organic HAP
service following a pressure release to verify that the pressure relief
device is operating with an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background. After 5 calendar days, an instrument reading of 500
ppm above background or greater is a violation.
    (c) Pressure release management. Except as specified in paragraph
(d) of this section, the owner or operator must comply with the
requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section for
all pressure relief devices in organic HAP service. Any pressure
release from such a pressure relief device is a violation.
    (1) The owner or operator must equip each pressure relief device in
organic HAP service with a device(s) or parameter monitoring system
that is capable of identifying and recording the time and duration of
each pressure release and of notifying operators immediately that a
pressure release is occurring. The device or monitoring system may be
either specific to the pressure relief device itself or on an
associated process system or piping sufficient to indicate a pressure
release to the atmosphere. Examples of these types of devices and
systems include, but are not limited to, a rupture disk indicator,
magnetic sensor, motion detector on the pressure relief valve stem,
flow monitor, or pressure monitor. Regardless of the methodology
chosen, when the device or monitoring system indicates that a pressure
release has occurred, it shall be directly enforceable as a release
from the pressure relief device. If this instrument is capable of
measuring the concentration of leaks through the pressure relief
device, then the owner or operator may use this instrument to meet the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) If any pressure relief device in organic HAP service releases
to atmosphere as a result of a pressure release event, the owner or
operator must calculate the quantity of organic HAP released during
each pressure release event and report this quantity as required in
Sec.  63.1417(f)(13)(iii). Calculations may be based on data from the
pressure relief device monitoring alone or in combination with process
parameter monitoring data and process knowledge.
    (d) Pressure relief devices routed to a control device or process.
If a pressure relief device in organic HAP service is designed and
operated to route all pressure releases through a closed vent system to
a control device or process, the owner or operator is not required to
comply with paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) (if applicable) of this
section. Both the closed vent system and control device

(if applicable) must meet the requirements of Sec.  63.1034 of this
part.
0
18. Section 63.1412 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1412  Continuous process vent applicability assessment
procedures and methods.

* * * * *
    (c) Applicability assessment requirement. * * * Operations during
periods of malfunction shall not constitute representative conditions
for the purpose of an applicability test.
* * * * *
0
19. Section 63.1413 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (h)(4) introductory text; and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (h)(5) and (h)(6).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1413  Compliance demonstration procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Performance tests. Performance tests shall be conducted under
such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator
based on representative performance of the affected source for the
period being tested and in accordance with the General Provisions at
Sec.  63.7(a)(1), (a)(3), (d), (e)(2), (e)(4), (g), and (h), with the
exceptions specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown
unless specified by the Administrator or an applicable subpart. The
owner/operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. The owner operator must record the process information
that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and
include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions
represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to
determine the conditions of performance tests. Data shall be reduced in
accordance with the EPA approved methods specified in this subpart or,
if other test methods are used, the data and methods shall be validated
according to the protocol in Method 301 of appendix A of this part.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) Deviation from the emission standard. If monitoring data are
insufficient, as described in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (iii) of
this section, there has been a deviation from the emission standard.
* * * * *
    (5) Situations that are not deviations. If any of the situations
listed in paragraphs (h)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section occur, such
situations shall not be considered to be deviations.
    (i) Monitoring data cannot be collected during monitoring device
calibration check or monitoring device malfunction; or
    (ii) Monitoring data are not collected during periods of
nonoperation of the affected source or portion thereof (resulting in
cessation of the emissions to which the monitoring applies).
    (6) Periods not considered to be part of the period of control or
recovery device operation. The periods listed in paragraphs (h)(6)(i)
and (ii) of this section are not considered to be part of the period of
control or recovery device operation for purposes of determining
averages or periods of control device or control technology operation.
    (i) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; or
    (ii) Periods of nonoperation of the affected source (or portion
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the
monitoring applies.
0
20. Section 63.1415 is amended by revising the second sentence of
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1415  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) * * * The plan shall require determination of gas stream flow
by a method which will at least provide a value for either a
representative or the highest gas stream flow anticipated in the
scrubber during representative operating conditions other than
malfunctions. * * *
0
21. Section 63.1416 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(4);
0
b. Adding paragraph (g)(5);
0
c. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(1)(i);
0
d. Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii);
0
e. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (h)(1)(iii);
0
f. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (h)(2)(iii); and
0
g. Revising paragraph (h)(2)(iv).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1416  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Malfunction records. Records shall be kept as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) In the event that an affected unit fails to meet an applicable
standard, record the number of failures. For each failure record the
date, time, and duration of each failure.
    (2) For each failure to meet an applicable standard, record and
retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, an estimate of the
volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and
a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (3) Record actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with
Sec.  63.1420(h)(4), and any corrective actions taken to return the
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (c) * * *
    (4) Monitoring data recorded during periods identified in
paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section shall not be included in
any average computed under this subpart. Records shall be kept of the
times and durations of all such periods and any other periods during
process or control device or recovery device or control technology
operation when monitors are not operating:
    (i) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and
zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments; and
    (ii) Periods of non-operation of the affected source (or portion
thereof) resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the
monitoring applies.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (5) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, keep
records of the information specified in paragraphs (g)(5)(i) through
(v) of this section, as applicable.
    (i) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
that the owner or operator elects to equip with a closed-vent system
and control device, under the provisions in Sec.  63.1411(d).
    (ii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
subject to the provisions in Sec.  63.1411(a).
    (iii) A list of identification numbers for pressure relief devices
equipped with rupture disks, under the provisions in Sec.
63.1411(b)(2).
    (iv) The dates and results of the monitoring following a pressure
release for each pressure relief device subject to the provisions in
Sec.  63.1411(a) and (b). The results shall include:
    (A) The background level measured during each compliance test.
    (B) The maximum instrument reading measured at each piece of
equipment during each compliance test.
    (v) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to

Sec.  63.1411(c), keep records of each pressure release to the
atmosphere, including the following information:
    (A) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (B) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (C) An estimate of the quantity of total HAP emitted during the
pressure release and the calculations used for determining this
quantity.
    (D) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.
    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
    (h) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unrealistic or
impossible data during periods of operation (e.g., a temperature
reading of -200 [deg]C on a boiler) and will alert the operator by
alarm or other means. * * *
    (ii) The monitoring system generates, updated at least hourly
throughout each operating day, a running average of the parameter
values that have been obtained during that operating day or block, and
the capability to observe this running average is readily available on-
site to the Administrator during the operating day. The owner or
operator shall record the occurrence of any period meeting the criteria
in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. All instances in
an operating day or block constitute a single occurrence:
    (A) The running average is above the maximum or below the minimum
established limits; and
    (B) The running average is based on at least six 1-hour average
values.
    (iii) The monitoring system is capable of detecting unchanging data
during periods of operation, except in circumstances where the presence
of unchanging data is the expected operating condition based on past
experience (e.g., pH in some scrubbers) and will alert the operator by
alarm or other means. * * *
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) * * * For any calendar week, if compliance with paragraphs
(h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section does not result in retention of
a record of at least one occurrence or measured parameter value, the
owner or operator shall record and retain at least one value during a
period of operation.
    (iv) For purposes of paragraph (h)(2) of this section, a deviation
means that the daily average, batch cycle daily average, or block
average value of monitoring data for a parameter is greater than the
maximum, or less than the minimum established value.
0
22. Section 63.1417 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (d);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(9);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(11)(ii);
0
d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text;
0
e. Adding paragraph (e)(10);
0
f. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (f)(1);
0
g. Adding paragraph (f)(13);
0
h. Revising paragraph (g);
0
i. Revising paragraph (h) introductory text; and
0
j. Adding paragraph (h)(8).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1417  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Precompliance Report. Owners or operators of affected sources
requesting an extension for compliance; requesting approval to use
alternative monitoring parameters, alternative continuous monitoring
and recordkeeping, or alternative controls; requesting approval to use
engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP emissions from a batch
emissions episode as described in Sec.  63.1414(d)(6)(i)(C); wishing to
establish parameter monitoring levels according to the procedures
contained in Sec.  63.1413(a)(4)(ii); establishing parameter monitoring
levels based on a design evaluation as specified in Sec.
63.1413(a)(3); or following the procedures in Sec.  63.1413(e)(2),
shall submit a Precompliance Report according to the schedule described
in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
    (11) * * *
    (ii) Supplements to the Precompliance Report may be submitted to
request approval to use alternative monitoring parameters, as specified
in paragraph (j) of this section; to use alternative continuous
monitoring and recordkeeping, as specified in paragraph (k) of this
section; to use alternative controls, as specified in paragraph (d)(5)
of this section; to use engineering assessment to estimate organic HAP
emissions from a batch emissions episode, as specified in paragraph
(d)(6) of this section; or to establish parameter monitoring levels
according to the procedures contained in Sec.  63.1413(a)(4)(ii) or
(a)(3), as specified in paragraph (d)(7) of this section.
    (e) Notification of Compliance Status. For existing and new
affected sources, a Notification of Compliance Status shall be
submitted within 150 days after the compliance dates specified in Sec.
63.1401. For equipment leaks, the Notification of Compliance Status
shall contain the information specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart UU.
For storage vessels, continuous process vents, batch process vents, and
aggregate batch vent streams, the Notification of Compliance Status
shall contain the information listed in paragraphs (e)(1) through (9)
of this section. For pressure relief devices subject to the
requirements of Sec.  63.1411(c), the owner or operator shall submit
the information listed in paragraph (e)(10) of this section in the
Notification of Compliance Status within 150 days after the first
applicable compliance date for pressure relief device monitoring.
* * * * *
    (10) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service, a
description of the device or monitoring system to be implemented,
including the pressure relief devices and process parameters to be
monitored (if applicable), and a description of the alarms or other
methods by which operators will be notified of a pressure release.
    (f) * * *
    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of this section, a
report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2) of this section
or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and
(13) of this section, as appropriate, shall be submitted semiannually
no later than 60 days after the end of each 180 day period. * * *
* * * * *
    (13) For pressure relief devices, Periodic Reports must include the
information specified in paragraphs (f)(13)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
    (i) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
Sec.  63.1411, report confirmation that all monitoring to show
compliance was conducted within the reporting period.
    (ii) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP gas or vapor
service subject to Sec.  63.1411(b), report any instrument reading of
500 ppm above background or greater, more than 5 days after the relief
device returns to organic HAP gas or vapor service after a pressure
release.
    (iii) For pressure relief devices in organic HAP service subject to
Sec.  63.1411(c), report each pressure release to the atmosphere,
including the following information:
    (A) The source, nature, and cause of the pressure release.
    (B) The date, time, and duration of the pressure release.
    (C) An estimate of the quantity of total HAP emitted during the
pressure release and the method used for determining this quantity.
    (D) The actions taken to prevent this pressure release.

    (E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
    (g) Reports of malfunctions. If a source fails to meet an
applicable standard, report such events in the Periodic Report. Report
the number of failures to meet an applicable standard. For each
instance, report the date, time and duration of each failure. For each
failure the report must include a list of the affected sources or
equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions.
    (h) Other reports. Other reports shall be submitted as specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (8) Electronic reporting. Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2), the owner
or operator must submit the results of the performance tests, including
any associated fuel analyses, required by this subpart according to the
methods specified in paragraph (h)(8)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA-
provided software, the owner or operator shall submit the results of
the performance test to the EPA by direct computer-to-computer
electronic transfer via EPA-provided software, unless otherwise
approved by the Administrator. Owners or operators, who claim that some
of the information being submitted for performance tests is
confidential business information (CBI), must submit a complete file
using EPA-provided software that includes information claimed to be CBI
on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic
storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be clearly marked
as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE
Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The
same file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA by direct
computer-to-computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software.
    (ii) For any performance test conducted using test methods that are
not compatible with the EPA-provided software, the owner or operator
shall submit the results of the performance test to the Administrator
at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4.
* * * * *
0
23. Table 1 to subpart OOO is amended by:
0
a. Removing entries 63.1(a)(6)-63.1 (a)(8) and 63.1(a)(9);
0
b. Adding entries 63.1(a)(6) and 63.1(a)(7)-63.1(a)(9);
0
c. Revising entries 63.1(c)(4), 63.6(e), 63.6(e)(1)(i), and
63.6(e)(1)(ii);
0
d. Adding entry 63.6(e)(3);
0
e. Removing entries 63.6(e)(3)(i), 63.6(e)(3)(i)(A), 63.6(e)(3)(i)(B),
63.6(e)(3)(i)(C), 63.6(e)(3)(ii), 63.6(e)(3)(iii), 63.6(e)(3)(iv),
63.6(e)(3)(v), 63.6(e)(3)(vi), 63.6(e)(3)(vii), 63.6(e)(3)(vii)(A),
63.6(e)(3)(vii)(B), 63.6(e)(3)(vii)(C), 63.6(e)(3)(viii), and
63.6(e)(3)(ix);
0
f. Revising entries 63.6(f)(1), 63.7(e)(1), 63.8(c)(1)(i),
63.8(c)(1)(ii), 63.8(c)(1)(iii), and 63.10(d)(5); and
0
g. Removing footnote (a).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

     Table 1 to Subpart OOO of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart OOO Affected Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Reference                         Applies to subpart OOO                   Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
63.1(a)(6)..............................  Yes..................................  ...............................
63.1(a)(7)-63.1(a)(9)...................  No...................................  [Reserved].

                                                  * * * * * * *
63.1(c)(4)..............................  No...................................  [Reserved].

                                                  * * * * * * *
63.6(e).................................  Yes..................................  Except as otherwise specified
                                                                                in this table.
63.6(e)(1)(i)...........................  No...................................  See Sec.   63.1400(k)(4) for
                                                                                general duty requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)..........................  No...................................  ...............................

                                                  * * * * * * *
63.6(e)(3)..............................  No...................................  ...............................
63.6(f)(1)..............................  No...................................  ...............................

                                                  * * * * * * *
63.7(e)(1)..............................  No...................................  See Sec.   63.1413(a)(2).

                                                  * * * * * * *
63.8(c)(1)(i)...........................  No...................................  ...............................
63.8(c)(1)(ii)..........................  No...................................  ...............................
63.8(c)(1)(iii).........................  No...................................  ...............................

                                                  * * * * * * *
63.10(d)(5).............................  No...................................  See Sec.   63.1417(g) for
                                                                                malfunction reporting
                                                                                requirements.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
24. Table 5 to subpart OOO is amended by:
0
a. Removing entry 63.1417(g); and
0
b. Adding entry 63.1417(h)(8).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

   Table 5 to Subpart OOO of Part 63--Reports Required by This Subpart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Description of
           Reference                  report              Due date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
63.1417(h)(8).................  Electronic         Within 60 days after
                                 reporting.         completing
                                                    performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-30132 Filed 1-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P