[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23724-23726]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0858]

Permit-Required Confined Spaces; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
contained in the Standard on Permit-Required Confined Spaces.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
July 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0858,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the OSHA Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2011-0858) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Christie Garner
at<PHONE_NUMBER> to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Thomas Mockler or Christie Garner,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance process to provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the
desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal,
collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of
the information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires OSHA to obtain
such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in obtaining information (29
U.S.C. 657).
    The purpose of the information collection requirements specified in
the Permit-Required Confined Spaces Standard (29 CFR 1910.146) is to
ensure that employers systematically evaluate the dangers in permit
spaces before entry is attempted, and to ensure that

adequate measures are taken to make the spaces safe for entry. Section
1910.146(c)(2) requires the employer to post danger signs to inform
exposed employees of the existence and location of, and the dangers
posed by, permit spaces.
    Section 1910.146(c)(4) requires the employer to develop and
implement a written ``permit-space program'' when the employer decides
that its employees will enter permit spaces. The written program is to
be made available for inspection by employees and their authorized
representatives. Section 1910.146(d) provides the employer with the
requirements of a permit-required confined space program.
    Section 1910.146(c)(5)(i)(E) requires that the determinations and
supporting data specified by paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A), (c)(5)(i)(B), and
(c)(5)(i)(C) of this section are documented by the employer and are
made available to each employee who enters a permit space or to that
employee's authorized representative. Under paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(H) of
Sec.  1910.146, the employer is required to verify that the space is
safe for entry and that the pre-entry measures required by paragraph
(c)(5)(ii) of this section have been taken, using a written
certification that contains the date, the location of the space, and
the signature of the person providing the certification. The
certification is to be made before entry and is required to be made
available to each employee entering the space or to that employee's
authorized representative.
    Section 1910.146(c)(7)(iii) requires the employer to document the
basis for determining that all hazards in a permit space have been
eliminated using a certification that contains the date, the location
of the space, and the signature of the person making the determination.
The certification is to be made available to each employee entering the
space or to that employee's authorized representative.
    Section 1910.146(c)(8)(i) requires the employer to inform the
contractor that the workplace contains permit spaces and that permit
space entry is allowed only through compliance with a permit space
program meeting the requirements of this section. Section
1910.146(c)(8)(ii) requires the employer to apprise the contractor of
the elements, including the hazards identified and the host employer's
experience with the space, that make the space in question a permit
space. Section 1910.146(c)(8)(iii) requires the employer to apprise the
contractor of any precautions or procedures that the host employer has
implemented for the protection of employees in or near permit spaces
where contractor personnel will be working. Section 1910.146(c)(8)(v)
requires the employer to debrief the contractor at the conclusion of
the entry operations about the permit space program that was followed,
and any hazards confronted or created in permit spaces during entry
operations.
    Section 1910.146(c)(9)(iii) requires the contractor to inform the
host employer of the permit space program that the contractor will
follow and of any hazards confronted or created in permit spaces,
either through a debriefing or during the entry operation.
    Section 1910.146(d)(5)(vi) requires the employer to immediately
provide each authorized entrant or that an employee's authorized
representative with the results of any testing conducted in accord with
paragraph (d) of the Standard. Section 1910.146(d)(14) requires
employers to review the permit space program, using the canceled
permits retained under paragraph (e)(6) within 1 year after each entry
to ensure that employees participating in entry operations are
protected from permit space hazards, and revise the program as
necessary.
    Section 1910.146(e)(1) requires the employer to document the
completion of measures required by paragraph (d)(3) by preparing an
entry permit before employee entry is authorized. Paragraph (f) of
Sec.  1910.146 specifies the information to be included on the entry
permit. Paragraph (e)(3) requires the employer to make the completed
permit available at the time of entry to all authorized entrants by
posting the permit at the entry portal or by any other equally
effective means, so that the entrants can confirm that pre-entry
preparations have been completed. Paragraph (e)(6) requires the
employer to retain each canceled entry permit for at least one year;
any problems encountered during an entry operation must be noted on the
pertinent permit so that revisions to the permit space program can be
made.
    Section 1910.146(g)(4) requires the employer to certify that the
training required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) has been
accomplished by preparing a written certification record.
    Section 1910.146(h)(3) requires the employer to ensure that all
authorized entrants communicate with the attendant as necessary to
enable the attendant to monitor entrant status and to enable the
attendant to alert entrants of the need to evacuate the space as
required by paragraph (l)(6) of the Standard. Section 1910.146(h)(4)
requires the employer to ensure that all authorized entrants alert the
attendant whenever the entrant recognizes any warning sign or symptom
of exposure to a dangerous situation (paragraph (h)(4)(i)), or the
entrant detects a prohibited condition (paragraph (h)(4)(ii)).
    Section 1910.146(i)(5) requires the employer to ensure that each
attendant communicate with authorized entrants as necessary to monitor
entrant status and to alert entrants of the need to evacuate the space
under the conditions specified in paragraphs (i)(6)(i)-(i)(6)(iv) of
the Standard. Section 1910.146(i)(7) requires the employer to ensure
that the attendant summon rescue and other emergency services as soon
as the attendant determines that authorized entrants may need
assistance to escape from permit space hazards. Section 1910.146(i)(8)
requires the employer to ensure that the attendant warn unauthorized
persons that they must stay away from the permit space (paragraph
(i)(8)(i)); advise unauthorized persons that they must exit immediately
if they have entered the permit space (paragraph (i)(8)(ii)); and
inform authorized entrants and the entry supervisor if unauthorized
persons have entered the permit space (paragraph (i)(8)(iii)).
    Section 1910.146(j)(2) requires the employer to ensure that each
entry supervisor verifies, by checking that the appropriate entries
have been made on the permit, that all tests specified by the permit
have been conducted and that all procedures and equipment specified by
the permit are in place, before endorsing the permit and allowing entry
to begin.
    Section 1910.146(k)(1)(i) requires the employer to evaluate a
prospective rescuer's ability to respond to a rescue summons in a
timely manner, considering the hazard(s) identified; Section
1910.146(k)(1)(ii) requires the employer to evaluate a prospective
rescue service's ability, in terms of proficiency with rescue-related
tasks and equipment, to function appropriately while rescuing entrants
from the particular permit space or types of permit spaces identified.
Section 1910.146(k)(1)(iv) requires the employer to inform each rescue
team or service of the hazards they may confront when called on to
perform rescue at the site. Section 1910.146(k)(1)(v) requires the
employer to provide the rescue team or service selected with access to
all permit spaces from which rescue may be necessary so that the rescue
service can develop appropriate rescue plans.
    Section 1910.146(k)(4) requires that, if an injured entrant is
exposed to a substance for which a ``Material Safety Data Sheet''
(MSDS) [now referred to as an SDS (Safety Data Sheet)] or other

similar written information is required to be kept at the worksite,
then the employer must make the MSDS or written information available
to the medical facility treating the exposed entrant.
    Section 1910.146(l)(1) requires employers to consult with affected
employees and their authorized representatives on the development and
implementation of all aspects of the permit space program required by
paragraph (c). Section 1910.146(l)(2) requires employers to make all
information required by this section available to affected employees
and their authorized representatives.

II. Special Issues for Comment

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

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting an adjustment increase for the information
collection requirements of 68,406 burden hours (from 1,573,813 to
1,642,219). The burden hour increase is related to updated data
estimates showing an increase in the number of permit space entrants
(from 1,463,075 to 1,471,634) and establishments with permit spaces
(from 205,548 to 210,281) affected by the Standard.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Permit-Required Confined Spaces (29 CFR 1910.146).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0203.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 210,281.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Varies.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 9,024,483.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,642,219.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

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

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0858) for the ICR. You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify electronic comments by
your name, date, and the docket number so that the Agency can attach
them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the website, and for assistance in using the internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

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

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 16, 2018.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-10889 Filed 5-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


Responses to OMB's Comments on the Headworks Rule Preamble and Regulatory Text Comments:

Preamble Comment 1: The preamble ( page 25) states that the Agency would like to provide flexibility with respect to reduced sampling frequency once compliance with the thresholds was established, but cannot do so until it proposes such an option. Why can't the agency provide such flexibility in this final rule? The proposed and final regulatory text does not seem to preclude such an option if it is included in the sampling and analysis plan. If the agency believes it cannot finalize such an option at this time, but supports such an option, then the agency should commit to a proposed rule on this matter, and should make such a commitment in the preamble of this final rule.

Response: EPA supports the concept of reducing sampling frequency for a facility once compliance has been established. However, we believe that proper implementation of the approach would require detailed criteria to allow overseeing agencies to determine if a facility should qualify for a reduction in sampling frequency as well as detailed implementation procedures that are to be followed by the facilities. Because the Agency did not include a discussion of these detailed criteria and procedures in the proposed rule or seek public comment on them, we believe including them in the final rule might make the rule vulnerable to a legal challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Due to the unavailability of resources at this time, EPA cannot commit to a proposed rule to address this option.

Preamble Comment 2: Please explain again the need to include the word " inadvertent" in the regulatory text. It is not clear to me that the word " inadvertent" signals minor losses. One can inadvertently do something that will result in a major release.

Response: The word " inadvertent" is not intended to indicate the size of the loss but rather to reinforce that such a loss must not be intentional, be a result of neglect or carelessness during a normal operating procedure or result from the mismanagement of a facility. Due to the exemption being expanded to include the F and K listed wastes, with which there is no economical incentive to minimize the loss of, EPA believes that it is essential that there is a clear understanding as to when a loss of a listed hazardous waste into wastewaters can be deemed as a de minimis release. Risk Assessment Comments:

RA Question 1: When do the risks of concern arise?

Response: We used the chemical specific dilution attenuation factors ( DAFs) in ground water generated for the Industrial D Waste Management Guidance as a surrogate for a chemical's fate and transport to a receptor well in groundwater. The DAFs reflect the extensive modeling done for the development of the Industrial D Waste Management Guidance. The DAFs for the Guidance were calculated using the EPACMTP and correspond to the 90th percentile values.

The time to the peak concentration was not reported in the Guidance. Therefore, to answer your question, we made deterministic model runs using the EPACMTP ( the same model used for the Industrial D Waste Management Guidance). We used the median values for the model input parameters and assumed the landfill was unlined. The distance to the receptor well and the well location in the plume were kept the same as in the Industrial Waste Guidance Scenario. The travel times for benzene and 2 ethoxyethanol came out to be the same ( 260 years) and the time to peak for 1,1,2 trichloroethane is expected to be similar because the relevant properties are similar.

RA Question 2: Did EPA consider all of the possible " scenarios"? For example, in Table 3 5, there is no scenario with all the parameters set at the high end ( HE).

Response: We divided the model input parameters for the model runs into four groups: ( 1) source characteristics; ( 2) fate and transport; ( 3) exposure; and ( 4) toxicity. The source component encompasses a much larger number of input variables than the other components. Because of the relationship among critical variables, and because the model is not sensitive to all parameters that describe the source component, the scenarios were designed in terms of combinations of variables that were consistent with scientific and engineering principles. Thus, with any scenario for which a source was set to high end, we defined two to four sub scenarios reflecting high end source characterizations using combinations of the critical source variables set to high end and central tendency values. For this analysis, the variables for the nonaerated treatment train and for the aerated treatment train are described in Appendix A and Appendix A 2 of the Risk Assessment Background Document, and they provide the values used for each scenario. Tables 3 2, 3 3, and 3 4 of the Risk Assessment Background Document provide the results for these analyses for the three chemical constituents of concern: benzene, 2 ethoxyethanol, and 1,1,2 trichloroethane, respectively.

It is EPA's policy for high end analyses that only two parameters are set at the high end and the remaining parameters set at central tendency values. This selection of parameters yields results at 90th or higher percentiles. For central tendency results, all parameters are set to central tendency. We did not consider any high end scenario with all parameters set to high end because that will lead to very high percentile values, i. e., approaching the 99th percentile or higher. RA Question 3: Is the choice of parameter settings explained in this comment?

Response: As explained above, the source component encompasses a much larger number of input variables than the other components. Because of the relationship among critical variables, and because the model is not sensitive to all parameters that describe the source component, the scenarios were designed in terms of combinations of variables that were consistent with engineering principles. Thus, within any scenario for which the source was set to high end, EPA defined two to four sub scenarios reflecting high end source characterization using combinations of the critical source variables set to high end and central tendency values. For this analysis, the variables that were varied for the nonaerated treatment train and the aerated treatment train are described in Appendix A of the Risk Background Document. Appendix A also provides the numerical values used for the various input source parameter settings. Economics Comments:

Economics Comment 1: Add narrative to describe, step by step, the methodology used to derive the estimates of cost savings. Include in this description about what is being analyzed, assumptions, and alternatives considered. Include a description of the sensitivity analysis, and acknowledge that states do not have to adopt the final rule.

Response: New narrative methodology sections were added to the " Economics Background Document" ( EBD), which is now dated 15 July 2005 with 239 pages. One new methodology section added to the EBD is an " Overview of Methodology" ( Section II. C, pages 11 to 18) which contains explanations of the overall macro assumptions concerning ( a) 100% state adoption of the final rule with acknowledgment that states are not required and that all states may not adopt the rule, ( b) 100% facility compliance with the final rule conditions, ( c) vintage years of the 19 databases applied in the analysis, ( d) treatment of SQGs in the analysis, ( e) the discount rate applied, and ( f) sources and treatment of uncertainty in the analysis.

A second new methodology section added to the EBD is a " Step by Step Methodology" ( Section II. D, pages 19 to 40) which provides new narrative descriptions and a re formatted/ re organized presentation of micro assumptions, key factors, computation spreadsheets, and supplemental data tables.

A third new methodology section was created, " Ancillary Impact Methodologies" ( Section II. E, pages 41 46), which contains enhanced ( re organized) narrative and tabular presentations of ( a) state waste fee revenue impacts, ( b) waste transport/ manifest impacts, and ( c) sensitivity analysis concerning sensitivity of average annual cost savings, to projected future annual growth in affected waste quantities.

Although not specifically requested by OMB, the context of the new methodology sections was enhanced in the EBD by adding two additional new narrative sections which ( a) describe the " Regulatory Need" for this final rule ( Section II. A, page 7), and ( b) summarizes the 2003 headworks proposed rule public comments related to economics topics ( Section II. B, pages 9 to 11).

Economics Comment 2: Please explain why the addition of direct monitoring option saves money if it is more expensive than the existing mass balance requirement.

Response: The revised EBD ( pages 36 37) provides the following new narrative explanation of why direct monitoring is expected to provide cost savings:

" The 1999 petitioner requesting this final rule ( Chemical Manufacturers Association), and many of the 25 public commentors on OSW's 08 April 2003 headworks proposed rule, prefer adoption of " direct monitoring" rather than the mass balance method. However, it appears that direct monitoring may involve higher cost at $ 4,680/ year average cost per facility, compared to an estimated $ 1,444/ year average cost per facility for the mass balance method. OSW estimated average annual costs per facility for these two methods, by applying the following data sources and computations:

° Direct Monitoring: $ 97.50 average cost per analytic event from OSW's Sept 2000 " Unit Cost Compendium", Appendix N; laboratory analysis using USEPA analytic method 8260/ 8021 ( GC/ MS) for volatile organic chemicals [($ 97.50 per direct monitoring event) x ( 1 monitoring event per week) x ( 48 operating weeks/ year) = $ 4,680/ year]

° Mass balance: $ 1,444/ year average cost per facility from USEPA OSW ICR Nr. 1189: Identification, Listing, and Rulemaking Petitions.

Note that the existing USEPA Clean Water Act ( CWA) industrial wastewater monitoring requirements are mostly for " effluent" wastewaters ( i. e., output side of wastewater treatment systems) rather than for " influent" headworks wastewaters ( i. e., input side of wastewater treatment systems). Consequently, direct monitoring costs are assumed in the headworks economic analysis to be incremental to baseline for compliance with the RCRA headworks exemption, rather than involve existing equipment and personnel at no additional cost. However, in spite of this apparent unfavorable cost, the 1999 petitioner for this final rule, as well as a number of public commentors on the HWIR final rule, provided the following rationales why direct monitoring is preferable ( i. e., net beneficial) compared to the mass balance method:

° Provides flexibility ° Yields reliable, accurate, statistically defensible data ° Facilitates documentation of compliance ° Is straightforward ( mass balance deters use of the headworks exclusion because it is not as precise) ° Allows facilities to apply the exclusion to its full intended regulatory limit Consequently, because direct monitoring is more accurate and is not a worst case assumption like mass balance ( i. e., mass balance calculations are formulated on solvent use rather than on spent solvent discharges), more facilities will now be able to use the exemption and will no longer have the cost of managing their wastewater treatment sludges as hazardous. Table 12 [ of the EBD] provides the assumptions and computations of the potential number of F001 to F005 spent solvent generating facilities which are not currently claiming the headworks exemption ( excluding the facilities already counted in Revision # 1 impacts), which may be induced into claiming the exemption because of direct monitoring, thereby generating net cost savings from avoided Subtitle C management costs for wastewater sludges.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 55360]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b),
of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record
communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires
Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or
exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a
contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission,
a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the
substance of any oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-
decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional
record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the
prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a
part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record
communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching
its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to
respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-
record communication, and may request that the Commission place the
prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional
record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it
determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as
having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve
the document on all parties listed on the official service list for
the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR
385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the
decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was
with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under
18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications
recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The
communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending
order. These filings are available for electronic review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll
free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Presenter or
            Docket No.                 File date          requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP17-117-000...............      10-16-2018  Youngstown/Warren
                                                     Regional Chamber.
        CP17-118-000..............  ..............  President and CEO
                                                     James Dignan.
Exempt:
    1. CP17-101-000...............      10-16-2018  FERC Staff. \1\
    2. CP17-101-000...............      10-16-2018  FERC Staff. \2\
    3. CP17-41-000................      10-23-2018  FERC Staff. \3\
    4. CP17-117-000...............      10-25-2018  State of Louisiana.
        CP17-118-000..............  ..............  House Representative
                                                     Taylor F. Barras.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \1\ Conference Call Notes for meeting on October 3, 2018 with
the National Marine Fisheries Service.
    \2\ Conference Call Notes for meeting on October 3, 2018 with
Transco.
    \3\ Conference Call Notes for meeting on October 19, 2018 with
Environmental Resources Managements, Inc., Eagle LNG Partners
Jacksonville, LLC, Cardno, and Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.

    Dated: October 30, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-24096 Filed 11-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P