[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 32761]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3414-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Arkansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Arkansas (FEMA-3414-EM), dated May 30, 2019, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued June 21, 2019.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective June 14, 2019.

    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.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-14599 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 29, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6064]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01726]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0648; EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0834; FRL-9773-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio and Indiana; Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio, Ohio and Indiana 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Revisions to Approved Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the request by Ohio and Indiana to
revise the Cincinnati-Hamilton, 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance air
quality State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to replace the previously
approved motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) with budgets
developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010a
emissions model. The Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-
Hamilton area include the Ohio Counties of Butler, Clermont, Clinton,
Hamilton, and Warren, Ohio and Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn
County, Indiana. Ohio submitted the SIP revision request to EPA on June
29, 2012. Indiana submitted the SIP revision request to EPA for
parallel processing with a letter dated October 12, 2012, and followed
up with a final submittal on December 11, 2012. Ohio and Indiana have
submitted identical budgets which cover the Ohio and Indiana portions
of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 ozone maintenance area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0648 for Ohio and EPA-RO5-OAR-2012-0834 for Indiana, by one of
the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section
of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the states' SIP submittals as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: January 11, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-01726 Filed 1-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69606-69612]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27694]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010]
RIN 1218-AC80

Record Requirements in the Mechanical Power Presses Standard

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to make two main revisions to its Mechanical
Power Presses Standard. First, OSHA is proposing to revise a provision
that requires employers to develop and maintain certification records
of periodic inspections performed on the presses by adding a
requirement that they develop and maintain certification records of any
maintenance and repairs they perform on the presses during the periodic
inspections. Second, OSHA is proposing to remove the requirement from
another provision that employers develop and maintain certification
records of weekly inspections and tests performed on the presses.
    This rulemaking is part of the Department of Labor's initiative to
reduce paperwork burden; it will remove 613,600 hours of unnecessary
paperwork burden for employers, while maintaining employee protection.
OSHA is publishing a companion direct final rule elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register taking this same action.

DATES: Submit comments on this proposed rule (including comments to the
information-collection (paperwork) determination (described under the
section titled ``Procedural Determinations''), hearing requests, and
other information by December 20, 2013. All submissions must bear a
postmark or provide other evidence of the submission date. The
following section describes the available methods for making
submissions.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, hearing requests, and other material,
identified by Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010, by any of the following
methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments, as well as hearing
requests and other information, electronically to http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.\1\
    Facsimile: OSHA allows facsimile transmission of comments and
hearing requests that are 10 pages or fewer in length (including
attachments). Send these documents to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648. OSHA does not require hard copies of these documents. Instead
of transmitting facsimile copies of attachments that supplement these
documents (for example, studies, journal articles), commenters must
submit these attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data
Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. These attachments must identify
clearly the sender's name, the date, subject, and docket number (OSHA-
2013-0010) so that the Docket Office can attach them to the appropriate
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Web site http://www.regulations.gov refers to the docket
as a ``docket folder.'' Access the electronic docket for this
rulemaking by searching with the docket number (OSHA-2013-0010) or
RIN (1218-AC80).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regular mail, express mail, hand delivery, and messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments, hearing requests, and any additional material
(for example, studies, journal articles) to the OSHA Docket Office,
Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010 or RIN 1218-AC80, Technical Data Center, Room
N-2625, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. (OSHA's TTY number is
(877) 889-5627.) Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
security procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail,
hand delivery, and messenger service. The hours of operation for the
OSHA Docket Office are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency's name and
the docket number (that is, OSHA-2013-0010). OSHA will place comments
and other material, including any personal information, in the public
docket without revision, and these materials will be available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters
about submitting statements they do not want made available to the
public and submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    OSHA requests comment on all issues related to this proposed rule.
The Agency also welcomes comments on its findings that this proposed
rule would have no negative economic, paperwork, or other regulatory
impacts on the regulated community. This proposed rule is the companion
document to a direct final rule published in the ``Rules'' section of
this issue of the Federal Register. If OSHA receives no significant
adverse comment on the proposal or direct final rule, the Agency will
publish a Federal Register notice confirming the effective date of the
final rule and withdrawing this companion proposed rule. The final rule
may include minor editorial or technical corrections of the direct
final rule. For the purpose of judicial review, OSHA considers the date
that the Agency confirms the effective date of the final rule to be the
date of issuance. If, however, OSHA receives significant adverse
comment on the direct final rule or proposal, the Agency will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and proceed with the
proposed rule, which addresses the same revisions to its Mechanical
Power Presses Standard.
    Docket: The electronic docket for this proposed rule established at
http://www.regulations.gov lists most of the documents in the docket.
However, some information (for example, copyrighted material) is not
available publicly to read or download through this Web site. All
submissions, including copyrighted material, are accessible at the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General information and press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, OSHA
Office of Communications, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
1999.
    Technical inquiries: Mr. Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and
Guidance, Room N-3718, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (202)
693-1663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Copies of this Federal Register notice and news releases:
Electronic copies of these documents are available at OSHA's Web page
at http://www.osha.gov. Copies of this Federal

Register notice also are available at http://www.regulations.gov.

Table of Contents

I. Direct Final Rulemaking
II. Background
III. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Revisions to the Mechanical
Power Presses Standard
IV. Procedural Determinations
    A. Legal Considerations
    B. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Federalism
    E. State-Plan States
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
V. Authority and Signature

I. Direct Final Rulemaking

    In direct final rulemaking, an agency publishes a direct final rule
in the Federal Register with a statement that the rule will become
effective unless the agency receives a significant adverse comment
within a specified period. The agency publishes concurrently with the
direct final rule a companion proposed rule. If the agency receives no
significant adverse comment, the direct final rule will become
effective. However, should the agency receive a timely significant
adverse comment, it will withdraw the direct final rule and treat the
comment as a submission to the proposed rule.
    OSHA uses direct final rulemaking because it expects the rulemaking
to: Be noncontroversial; provide protection to employees that is at
least equivalent to the protection afforded to them by the previous
standard; and impose no significant new compliance costs on employers
(69 FR 68283, 68285 (Nov. 24, 2004)). OSHA used direct final rules
previously to update and revise other OSHA rules (see, for example, 69
FR 68283 (Nov. 24, 2004); 70 FR 76979 (Dec. 29, 2005); 76 FR 75782
(Dec. 5, 2011); and 77 FR 37587 (June 22, 2012)).
    For purposes of this rulemaking, a significant adverse comment is
one that ``explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including
challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or why it
would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change'' (see 60 FR
43108, 43111 (Aug. 18, 1995)). In determining whether a comment
necessitates withdrawal of the direct final rule, OSHA will consider
whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a
substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. OSHA will not
consider a comment recommending additional revisions to a rule to be a
significant adverse comment unless the comment provides a reasonable
explanation of why the direct final rule would be ineffective without
the revisions. If OSHA receives a timely significant adverse comment,
it will publish a Federal Register notice withdrawing the direct final
rule no later than 90 days after the publication date of this current
notice.
    This notice of proposed rulemaking furthers the objectives of
Executive Order 13563, which requires that the regulatory process
``promote predictability and reduce uncertainty'' and ``identify and
use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving
regulatory ends.'' As described later in this Federal Register notice,
the proposed revisions will reduce paperwork burden, by removing
613,600 hours of unnecessary paperwork burden for employers, while
maintaining employee protection. Therefore, the Agency believes this
proposed rule is consistent with, and promotes the objectives of,
Executive Order 13563.

II. Background

    This proposed rule would revise paragraph (e)(1)(i) of OSHA's
Mechanical Power Presses Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217 to require
employers to perform and complete necessary maintenance and repair on
the presses, and to develop and maintain certification records of these
tasks. The rulemaking also removes requirements from paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) of this standard to develop and maintain certification
records for weekly inspections and tests performed on mechanical power
presses. OSHA believes that these proposed revisions will maintain the
safety afforded to employees by the existing provisions, while
substantially reducing paperwork burden hours and cost to employers.
    This rulemaking is part of the Department of Labor's initiative to
reduce paperwork burden hours and cost, consistent with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The purpose of
PRA-95 is to minimize the Federal paperwork burden and to maximize the
efficiency and usefulness of Federal information-gathering activities.
OSHA also determined that the subject of this rulemaking furthers the
objectives of Executive Order (EO) 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011).
In this regard, EO 13563 requires that the regulatory process ``promote
predictability and reduce uncertainty'' and ``identify and use the
best, most innovative and least burdensome tools for achieving
regulatory ends.'' To accomplish this objective, EO 13563 states, ``To
facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations,
agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of
rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively
burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in
accordance with what has been learned.''
    OSHA determined that the revisions made by this proposed rule are
consistent with, and promote the objectives of, both PRA-95 and EO
13563. Accordingly, the revisions made by this proposed rule will
result in reducing the paperwork burden for employers covered by the
Mechanical Power Presses Standard. Removing the requirement to develop
and maintain weekly certification records for inspections and tests
will not affect an employer's obligation to inspect and ensure that
mechanical power presses used in the workplace are in a safe operating
condition. Revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(i) to complete necessary
maintenance and repair before operating a press after a periodic
inspection, and certifying this action, will ensure the safety of
workers while imposing minimal paperwork burden on employers. OSHA
estimates that these proposed revisions will result in a paperwork
burden reduction of 613,600 hours. Accordingly, the Agency believes the
regulated community will support this effort to reduce unnecessary
paperwork burden and to remove outdated certification requirements,
while maintaining employee safety.

III. Summary and Explanation of Proposed Revisions to the Mechanical
Power Presses Standard

    This proposed rule revises paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of
OSHA's Mechanical Power Presses Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217. This
rulemaking also reorganizes these paragraphs by dividing the
requirements into discrete provisions, and redrafted the provisions in
plain language to make them easier to understand than the existing
provisions. The first two provisions, paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(e)(1)(ii), cover periodic and weekly tasks associated with the
mechanical power-press inspection program. To further delineate the
tasks covered by these two provisions, OSHA refers to the requirements
of paragraph (e)(1)(i) as the ``general component of the inspection
program,'' and to the requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(ii) as the
``directed component of the inspection program.'' In this regard, the
requirements of paragraph (e)(1)(i), the general component of the
inspection program, cover all parts of the

equipment and stipulate a nonspecific interval (``periodic'') for
meeting these requirements. However, the requirements of paragraph
(e)(1)(ii), the directed component of the inspection program, address
specific parts of the equipment and define the frequency employers
would have to follow when inspecting and testing these parts (``at
least once a week''). OSHA believes these revisions would assist the
regulated community in differentiating the requirements of these
provisions.
    Proposed revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(i). Paragraph (e)(1)(i)
currently requires employers to inspect all parts, auxiliary equipment,
and safeguards of mechanical power presses on a periodic and regular
basis and to maintain certification records of these inspections. The
main revision OSHA is proposing to make to this paragraph is to require
that employers perform necessary maintenance or repair, or both, on
presses before operating them, and maintain certification records of
any maintenance and repairs performed.\2\ Therefore, employers would be
required to perform, following the periodic and regular inspections but
before operating the equipment, any necessary maintenance and repair
found during the inspections, and maintain certification records of the
maintenance and repairs performed (in addition to the inspection
certification records already required).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The requirement for employers to perform maintenance and
repair necessary for the safe operation of the entire press is
implicit in the requirement in existing paragraph (e)(1)(i), which
specifies that the employer's inspection program ensure that presses
``are in a safe operating condition and adjustment.'' An inspection
program that found, but did not correct, unsafe conditions would not
meet this existing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A national consensus standard, American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) B11.1-2009 (``American National Standard for Safety
Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses''), has requirements that are
similar to paragraph (e)(1)(i). In this regard, paragraph 9.4.1
(``Program'') of this ANSI standard requires employers to ``establish a
systematic program of periodic and regular inspection of press
production systems to ensure that all their parts, auxiliary equipment,
and safeguarding are in safe operating condition and adjustment.'' In
addition, paragraph 9.4.2 (``Documentation'') of ANSI B11.1-2009 states
that the ``user shall document the press inspections are made as
scheduled and that any necessary follow-up repair work has been
performed.'' A nonmandatory appendix to the ANSI standard, Annex K
(``Press Inspection Report, Checklist, & Maintenance Record
(Informative)),'' supplements these requirements by providing a
checklist detailing the parts, components, and equipment subject to
inspection and maintenance.
    The revisions and reorganization of proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i),
therefore, are consistent with the requirements of ANSI's B11.1
``Safety Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses.'' Specifically, the
proposed revision to paragraph (e)(1)(i) to certify maintenance and
repairs performed on mechanical power presses are similar to the
requirement in the ANSI standard to ``document that press inspections
are made as scheduled, and that any necessary follow-up repair work has
been performed.'' Not only does this proposed revision represent the
usual and customary practice of general industry, but OSHA believes
that adding an explicit requirement to perform necessary maintenance
and repair will ensure that employers perform such maintenance and
repair on all of the parts, auxiliary equipment, and safeguards of each
press, and not just the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and
single-stroke mechanism delineated in existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii). In
addition, the proposed revision will provide OSHA with information that
replaces information removed from proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) (see
the following discussion of that paragraph), notably the name of the
individuals who perform maintenance and repair work on the presses.
This information will not only verify that the employer performed the
requisite maintenance and repair on presses, but will enable the
Agency, during compliance inspections, to identify and interview the
individuals responsible for maintaining and repairing the presses so
that it can determine whether employees are operating safe equipment.
Further, if employers maintain these certification records at or near
the equipment or in a nearby office, employees would be able to examine
those records and determine whether mechanical power presses are safe
before they operate them, which will increase employee safety. These
records also will provide employers with information they can use to
determine when more substantial maintenance or repairs, instead of
minor maintenance and adjustment, would provide better, and more cost-
effective, safety. For example, making too frequent adjustments of the
pullout devices, as shown by maintenance records, can indicate the need
to replace parts, such as bearings, that are causing the out-of-
adjustment condition.
    Proposed revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(ii). Existing paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) requires employers to conduct weekly inspections and tests
on the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke
mechanism of each mechanical power press, and to perform any necessary
maintenance and repair on the equipment before operating it. Employers
also must maintain a certification record of the inspection, testing,
and maintenance tasks. OSHA is proposing to make two main revisions to
paragraph (e)(1)(ii). First, OSHA is proposing to revise the
requirement that ``[e]ach press shall be inspected and tested no less
than weekly'' to require explicitly that employees conduct these weekly
inspections and tests on a ``regular basis at least once a week.''
Second, OSHA is proposing to revise this paragraph to remove the
requirement that employers prepare certification records for the weekly
inspections and tests; \3\ however, the Agency would retain the
requirement that employers maintain certification records for the
maintenance work.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OSHA believes that the burden to maintain certification
records of maintenance tasks resulting from either the general
component or the directed component will be a small fraction of the
overall recordkeeping burden. First, the information-collection
burden resulting from the inspections performed under the general
component include not only the certification record but the time it
takes to perform the inspection. Thus, the time employers take to
maintain a certification record of the maintenance tasks (which does
not include the time taken for the maintenance operations
themselves) should be only a small fraction of the time taken for
inspection records. Second, for well-maintained presses, which
should result when employers follow the standard, the inspections
should uncover the need to perform maintenance relatively
infrequently. Accordingly, in most instances, inspections should
determine that presses are operating safely and are, therefore, not
in need of maintenance.
    The Agency also believes that retaining the proposed requirement
that employers maintain certification records of maintenance tasks
performed as a result of inspections performed under the directed
component would ensure that employers do not postpone performing
maintenance needs uncovered when performing inspections under the
general component. In this regard, if the directed component did not
specify that employers would have to maintain certification records
of maintenance tasks uncovered during inspections, employers
uncovering the need for maintenance during an inspection under the
general component could postpone the maintenance task until the next
weekly inspection when the standard would not require them to
maintain a certification record.
    \4\ OSHA believes that employers will perform most maintenance
tasks associated with mechanical power presses under proposed
paragraph (e)(1)(i), and that maintenance performed as a result of
weekly inspections and tests will be infrequent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The certification records for the weekly inspections and tests
required by existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii) serve the following
functions: (i) Remind employers to inspect and test

mechanical power presses; (ii) inform employees that the employer
performed these tasks and that the equipment is safe to operate; and
(iii) provide a record of compliance, which OSHA representatives can
use to verify that the employer meets the inspection and testing
requirements set forth in the standard. However, OSHA determined that
certifications records for weekly inspections and tests of mechanical
power presses are not necessary to achieve these functions. In making
this determination, the Agency noted that the proposed revisions to
Sec.  1910.217(e)(1)(ii) do not remove or lessen the requirement to
inspect, test, maintain, and repair presses--tasks that are essential
to ensuring that the equipment is functioning properly and that working
conditions are safe for employees. In addition, OSHA believes that
employers do not need certification records to remind them to perform
weekly inspections and tests. The Agency believes that employers
generally perform inspections and tests on a regular basis, for
example, at the start of the first shift each Monday, and, therefore,
do not need certification records to remind them to complete these
tasks. In this regard, under the existing standard, employers may refer
to the required records directly, use computer-generated prompts, or
simply perform the tasks the same time every week.
    To ensure that these tasks are part of the employer's usual and
customary practice, proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) specifies that
employers perform the inspections and tests ``on a regular basis at
least once a week'' to emphasize the importance of establishing a
consistent, systematic schedule for completing the tasks. OSHA believes
as well that requiring completion of the tasks weekly, on a regular
basis approximately the same time each week, will ensure that employers
remember to inspect and test mechanical power presses.
    Under the proposed rule, OSHA believes that employees would confirm
weekly inspections and tests by observing the performance of these
tasks, since employees will know when the tasks occur, or by speaking
with the individual who performed the tasks. Additionally, employees
will still have the certification records for maintenance to obtain
information that the employer completed this task and that the
equipment is in safe operating condition.
    For compliance purposes, OSHA compliance officers can use the
information provided by proposed paragraph (e)(1)(i) and the
certification records for maintenance specified by proposed paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) to identify the individuals responsible for conducting the
inspections and tests, and then interview those individuals regarding
these tasks. Compliance officers also can interview employees who
operate the presses and who should have firsthand knowledge regarding
whether the employer is meeting the inspection and testing
requirements. In addition, an examination of the equipment involved can
frequently reveal whether employers are performing the weekly
inspections and tests. For example, if the clutch/brake mechanism is
not working properly, OSHA can ask the press operator how long that
condition existed and can check with individuals responsible for
maintaining the press to determine the last time the mechanism was
checked and repaired.
    Finally, OSHA added a note to proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii)
explicitly stating that inspections and tests of the three parts: (1)
Conducted under the directed component of the inspection program are
exempt from the certification requirements specified by paragraph
(e)(1)(i)(C); and (2) conducted under the general component of the
inspection program must comply with these certification requirements.
The question may arise, however, regarding which component of the
inspection program applies if an employer combines the inspections
required by both the general and directed components of the inspection
program (that is, if the employer performs a weekly inspection of the
three parts specified by the directed component of the inspection
program as part of the periodic inspection specified by the general
component of the inspection program). In such cases, OSHA would treat
the weekly inspection as part of the periodic inspection specified by
the general component of the inspection program, and the employer would
have to comply with the certification requirements specified by
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) (that is, the employer would have to maintain a
certification record of the inspection, as well as each maintenance and
repair task performed on the three parts).
    OSHA concludes that the requirement in existing Sec.
1910.217(e)(1)(ii) for employers to certify the weekly inspections and
tests is unnecessary because other means exist to determine whether
employers perform these tasks on a weekly basis, including the record
requirements in proposed Sec.  1910.217(e)(1)(i). OSHA determined that
mandating that weekly inspections and tests be systematic and part of
an employer's regular routine, reinforced by the new language in
proposed Sec.  1910.217(e)(1)(ii), will effectuate the purpose of these
certification records.
    Summary. This proposed rule would revise the existing requirements
of paragraph (e)(1)(i) by expressly requiring employers to perform
necessary maintenance or repair, or both, on presses before operating
them, and to maintain certification records of any maintenance and
repairs they perform. The proposed rule also would revise paragraph
(e)(1)(ii) by requiring explicitly that employers conduct inspections
and tests ``on a regular basis at least once a week,'' and by removing
the requirements to maintain certification records of any inspections
and tests they perform under this paragraph. OSHA believes that these
revisions, combined with the available means that employers, employees,
and the Agency can use to ensure that employers perform these tasks at
the specified frequency, will fulfill the functions for certification
records required by existing paragraph (e)(1)(ii). OSHA further
believes that removing the certification records for weekly inspections
and tests, along with the proposed revisions to paragraph (e)(1)(i),
will maintain employee safety while reducing the paperwork burden hours
and cost to employers. Regarding the paperwork burden, OSHA estimates
that the proposed revisions to Sec.  1910.217(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii)
will result in a net paperwork burden reduction of 613,600 hours.

IV. Procedural Determinations

A. Legal Considerations

    The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is ``to assure so far as possible every working man
and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to
preserve our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To achieve this goal,
Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce
occupational safety and health standards (29 U.S.C. 654(b), 655(b)). A
safety or health standard is a standard that ``requires conditions, or
the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment or places of employment'' (29
U.S.C. 652(8)). A standard is reasonably necessary or appropriate
within the meaning of Section 652(8) when a significant risk of
material harm exists in the workplace and the standard would
substantially reduce or eliminate that workplace risk. (See Industrial

Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607
(1980).) OSHA already determined that requirements for inspecting,
testing, maintaining, and repairing mechanical power presses, and
certifying completion of these tasks, are reasonably necessary or
appropriate within the meaning of Section 652(8). (See, for example, 39
FR 41841, 41845 (Dec. 3, 1974); 51 FR 34552, 34553-34558 (Sep. 29,
1986).)
    As explained earlier in this Federal Register notice, this proposed
rule will not reduce the employee protections put in place by the
Mechanical Power Presses Standard OSHA is revising under this
rulemaking. Therefore, it is unnecessary for OSHA to determine
significant risk, or the extent to which this rulemaking would reduce
that risk, as typically required by Industrial Union Department, AFL-
CIO v. American Petroleum Institute (448 U.S. 607 (1980)).

B. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    This proposed rule is not economically significant within the
context of EO 12866, or a major rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act or Section 801 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801). In addition, this proposed rule
complies with EO 13563. The rulemaking imposes no additional costs on
any private-sector or public-sector entities, and does not meet any of
the criteria for an economically significant or major rule specified by
the EO 12866 or relevant statutes.
    While this proposed rule revises (e)(1)(i) of OSHA's Mechanical
Power Presses Standard at 29 CFR 1910.217 to complete necessary
maintenance and repair before operating a press after a periodic
inspection, and certify this action, it also removes the requirement in
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) that employers maintain weekly certification
records for inspections and tests (on average, for about 40 records per
year for each press). Based on the resulting reduction in paperwork
burden and cost to employers, OSHA preliminarily determined that this
rulemaking is not significant and is economically feasible to
employers.
    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. (as amended), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of the
proposed rule to determine whether these requirements would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Since no employer of any size will have additional costs, the Agency
preliminarily certifies that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed rule revises information-collection requirements that
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95), 44 U.S.C. et seq.,
and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. OMB approved the information-
collection requirements (paperwork) currently contained in OSHA's
Mechanical Power Presses Standard (29 CFR part 1910.217(e)(1)) under
OMB Control Number 1218-0229.\5\ The current Information Collection
Request (ICR) expires March 30, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ OSHA notes that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless OMB approves the collection of
information under PRA-95 and the agency displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The public need not respond to a collection of
information requirement unless the agency displays a currently valid
OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply
with a collection of information requirement if the requirement does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA requests OMB to extend and revise the information-collection
requirements contained in the Mechanical Power Press standard.
Accordingly, OSHA is seeking an extension for employers to disclose
certification records to OSHA during an inspection and requesting a
revision to 29 CFR 1910.217(e)(1). The proposal would revise paragraph
(e)(1)(i) to require employers to perform and complete necessary
maintenance and repair on the presses, and to develop and maintain
certification records of these tasks. The proposal also removes
requirements from paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this standard to develop and
maintain certification records for weekly inspections and tests
performed on mechanical power presses.
    OSHA seeks comments on the proposed extension and revision of the
paperwork requirements contained in the Mechanical Power Presses
Standard (29 CFR 1910.217). 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 information-transmission techniques.
    Pursuant to 5 CFR part 1320.5(a)(iv), OSHA provides the following
summary of the Mechanical Power Press Information Collection Request
ICR:
    1. Title: Standard on Mechanical Power Presses (29 CFR
1910.217(e)(1)).
    2. OMB Control Number: 1218-0229.
    3. Description of collection of information requirements: Proposed
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) would require employers to maintain a
certification record of each inspection (other than inspections and
tests required by paragraph (e)(1)(ii)), and each maintenance and
repair task performed, which includes the date of the inspection,
maintenance, or repair work, the signature of the person who performed
the inspection, maintenance, or repair work, and the serial number, or
other identifier, of the power press inspected, maintained, and
repaired.
    Proposed paragraph (e)(1)(ii) would require employers to inspect
and test each press no less than weekly to determine the condition of
the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke
mechanism. Employers also would have to perform and complete necessary
maintenance or repair, or both, before operating the press. This
proposed rule would remove the requirement for employers to develop and
maintain a certification record of the weekly inspections and tests,
but retain the requirement to develop and maintain a certification
record for maintenance work.
    Employers must still disclose inspection, maintenance and, or
repair records to OSHA during an inspection.
    4. Affected Public: Business or other for profit.
    5. Number of Respondents: 191,750 mechanical power presses.
    6. Frequency: On occasion.
    7. Time per Response: OSHA estimates a press operator takes 20
minutes to inspect and maintain a mechanical power press and to prepare
the necessary certification(s).
    8. Estimated Total Burden Hours: Removing weekly inspection and
test records would reduce the burden to employers by 613,600 hours,
from 1,373,054 to 759,454 hours.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OSHA also is reducing the estimated total burden hours by an
additional 721,363 hours to 38,091 hours. The Agency determined that
it is usual and customary for employers to conduct and document
periodic inspections of power presses. PRA-95 excludes usual and
customary activities from the definition of the term ``burden'' (5
CFR 1320.3(b)(2)). OSHA based this determination on discussions with
its field staff and a thorough review of ANSI's B11.1 ``Safety
Requirements for Mechanical Power Presses.'' While OSHA identified
this reduction during the rulemaking, it is not a result of the
rulemaking. Therefore, the Agency did not include this reduction in
determining the reporting burden associated with the revisions to
the information-collection requirements specified by this proposed
rulemaking.

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

    9. Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): There are no capital
costs for this collection of information requirement.
    To obtain an electronic copy of the ICR requesting OMB to extend
and revise the information-collection requirements contained in the
Mechanical Power Presses Standard go to http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201309-1218-001. If you need assistance, or to
make inquiries or request other information, contact Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, Room N-3609, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11(a), members of the public who wish
to comment on the estimated reduction in burden hours and costs
described in this proposed rule must send their written comments to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OSHA Desk Officer
(RIN 1218-AC80), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. OSHA also encourages commenters to
submit their comments on this paperwork determination to the rulemaking
docket (Docket No. OSHA-2013-0010). For instructions on submitting
comments to the rulemaking docket, see the sections of this Federal
Register notice titled DATES and ADDRESSES.

D. Federalism

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Executive
Order on Federalism (EO 13132, 64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), which
requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any
actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions
only when clear constitutional authority exists and the problem is
national in scope. EO 13132 provides for preemption of State law only
with the expressed consent of Congress. Federal agencies must limit any
such preemption to the extent possible.
    Under Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), Congress expressly provides that States may
adopt, with Federal approval, a plan for the development and
enforcement of occupational safety and health standards. States that
obtain Federal approval for such a plan are referred to as ``State-Plan
States.'' Occupational safety and health standards developed by State-
Plan States must be at least as effective in providing safe and
healthful employment and places of employment as the Federal standards
(29 U.S.C. 667). Subject to these requirements, State-Plan States are
free to develop and enforce under State law their own requirements for
safety and health standards.
    In summary, OSHA concluded that this proposed rule complies with EO
13132. In States without an OSHA-approved State Plan, any standard
developed from this proposed rule would limit State policy options in
the same manner as every standard promulgated by OSHA. In States with
OSHA-approved State Plans, this rulemaking does not significantly limit
State policy options.

E. State-Plan States

    When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard or more stringent
amendment to an existing standard, the 27 States and U.S. Territories
with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must
amend their standards to reflect the new standard or amendment, or show
OSHA why such action is unnecessary, for example, because an existing
State standard covering this area is ``at least as effective'' as the
new Federal standard or amendment (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). The State
standard must be at least as effective as the final Federal rule, and
must be completed within 6 months of the promulgation date of the final
Federal rule. When OSHA promulgates a new standard or amendment that
does not impose additional or more stringent requirements than an
existing standard, State-Plan States are not required to amend their
standards, although the Agency may encourage them to do so.
    The 21 States and 1 U.S. Territory with OSHA-approved occupational
safety and health plans covering private-sector employers and State and
local government employees are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. In addition, four
States and one U.S. Territory have OSHA-approved State Plans that apply
to State and local government employees only: Connecticut, Illinois,
New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands.
    OSHA believes that while the proposed revisions to the Mechanical
Power Presses Standard, taken as a whole, would not impose any more
stringent requirements on employers than the existing standard, these
proposed revisions would provide employers with critical, updated
information that would reduce unnecessary burden while maintaining
employee protections. Nevertheless, this proposed rule would not
require action under 29 CFR 1953.5(a), and State-Plan States would not
need to adopt this proposed rule or show OSHA why such action is
unnecessary. However, to the extent these State-Plan States have the
same standards as the OSHA standards affected by this proposed rule,
OSHA encourages them to adopt the amendments.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. and Executive
Order 12875 (75 FR 48130; Aug. 10, 1999)). As discussed above in
Section IV.B (Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis), OSHA determined that this proposed rule would not impose
additional costs on any private-sector or public-sector entity.
Accordingly, this proposed rule would require no additional
expenditures by either private or public employers.
    As noted earlier under Section IV.E (State-Plan States) of this
notice, this proposed rule would not apply to State and local
governments except in States that elected voluntarily to adopt a State
Plan approved by the Agency. Consequently, this proposed rule does not
meet the definition of a ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' (see
Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)). Therefore, for the
purposes of the UMRA, OSHA preliminarily certifies that this proposed
rule does not mandate that State, local, or tribal governments adopt
new, unfunded regulatory obligations, or increase expenditures by the
private sector of more than $100 million in any year.

G. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000)) and preliminarily determined that it
does

not have ``tribal implications'' as defined in that order. This
proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the
preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this proposed rule under
the following authorities: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; 40 U.S.C. 3701 et
seq.; 5 U.S.C. 553; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912;
Jan. 25, 2012); and 29 CFR part 1911.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Mechanical power presses, Occupational safety and health, Safety.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 8, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Proposed Amendments to Standards

    For the reasons stated earlier in this preamble, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration is proposing to amend 29 CFR part 1910
as set forth below:

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

Subpart O--[Amended]

0
1. Revise the authority citation for subpart O of part 1910 to read as
follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657; Secretary of Labor's Order
No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736), 1-90
(55 FR 9033), 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), or 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), as
applicable; 20 CFR part 1911. Sections 1910.217 and 1910.219 also
issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1910.217 by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  1910.217  Mechanical power presses.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Inspection and maintenance records. The employer shall
establish and follow an inspection program having a general component
and a directed component.
    (i) Under the general component of the inspection program, the
employer shall:
    (A) Conduct periodic and regular inspections of each power press to
ensure that all of its parts, auxiliary equipment, and safeguards,
including the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-
stroke mechanism, are in a safe operating condition and adjustment;
    (B) Perform and complete necessary maintenance or repair, or both,
before operating the press; and
    (C) Maintain a certification record of each inspection, and each
maintenance and repair task performed, under this general component of
the inspection program, that includes the date of the inspection,
maintenance, or repair work, the signature of the person who performed
the inspection, maintenance, or repair work, and the serial number, or
other identifier, of the power press inspected, maintained, and
repaired.
    (ii) Under the directed component of the inspection program, the
employer shall:
    (A) Inspect and test each press on a regular basis at least once a
week to determine the condition of the clutch/brake mechanism,
antirepeat feature, and single-stroke mechanism;
    (B) Perform and complete necessary maintenance or repair, or both,
on the clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke
mechanism before operating the press; and
    (C) Maintain a certification record of each maintenance task
performed under the directed component of the inspection program that
includes the date of the maintenance task, the signature of the person
who performed the maintenance task, and the serial number, or other
identifier, of the power press maintained.

    Note to paragraph (e)(1)(ii):  Inspections of the clutch/brake
mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke mechanism conducted
under the directed component of the inspection program are exempt
from the requirement to maintain certification records specified by
paragraph (e)(1)(i)(C) of this section, but inspections of the
clutch/brake mechanism, antirepeat feature, and single-stroke
mechanism conducted under the general component of the inspection
program are not exempt from this requirement.

    (iii) Paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section does not apply to
presses that comply with paragraphs (b)(13) and (14) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-27694 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


Comments by Participants in the Public Meeting on the Draft Instruction Manual for the 2006 Updating of the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory Meeting Held on August 1, 2003 A public meeting was held by the Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics on August 1, 2003 to receive comments on the clarity, comprehensiveness, and utility of the draft Instruction Manual for the 2006 Partial Updating of the TSCA Chemical Inventory Database. The draft Instruction Manual details how to respond to the information collection requirements of the Inventory Update Rule, 40 CFR Part 710, which was substantially modified by amendments promulgated on January 7, 2003. Thirtyfive persons representing industry and trade groups, the entities affected by the regulation, attended the meeting which commenced at 9: 00 a. m. and ended at 2: 20 p. m. and was held in Room 4225 of EPA East. In addition to comments received at the meeting, many participants agreed to submit detailed written comments which will be helpful to EPA staff in revising the draft Instructions and preparing guidance to respond to the questions and concerns of individuals responding to the requirements of the amended Inventory Update Rule. The Environmental Assistance Division contributed to outreach efforts prior to the public meeting and assisted in the arrangements for the meeting. Tabulated below are the comments received from attendees about the draft Instruction Manual.

Overall 1. Give industry a schedule of when to submit written comments on the Instruction Manual and a method to determine when/ if the comments will be addressed by EPA.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1. Introduction section is important. Be more specific on how the information will be used. More explicit use information may help submitters decide level of effort needed, esp. to collect processing and use information.

2. It would be useful to know historical context of how the information will be used. For example, information about 3,000 chemicals is already being collected by EPA. Has EPA reviewed these chemicals in depth?

3. Define how the reporting requirements are similar or different from TRI reporting requirements. For example, are the definitions of ` readily obtainable' and ` reasonably ascertainable' consistent with TRI? Or with other regulations?

4. State the definitions of ` readily obtainable' and ` reasonably ascertainable' up front in Chapter 1. August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 2 Chapter 2: Reporting Requirements and Chapter 3: When to Report 1. Section 2.1  Originally, some byproducts and mixtures were listed on the TSCA Inventory. Are these substances reportable?

2. There are many inorganic compounds not on the TSCA Inventory. Are these compounds reportable under IUR? Are there examples of inorganics that are not on the Inventory? EPA requested the commenter send in specific examples.

3. Does the IUR capture the streams on the 1995 statutory mixture policy? Commenter will provide EPA with examples.

4. Does EPA intend to capture information about solid solutions under the IUR rule? Please provide additional guidance on this topic.

5. The list of petroleum streams that are partially exempt is from the 1982 inventory. Additional streams should be added to the list. The commenter will provide EPA with an updated list.

6. If a new petroleum process stream is created, how do we add it to the partially exempt petroleum process streams list?

7. The first decision point on Figure 2 1 asks if the chemical is on the Inventory. If it is not, Figure 2 1 shows that you do not need to report. However, it may not be so simple. More information or a more complex flow diagram should be provided to clarify this topic.

8. Expand definition of by product and clarify what is meant by commercial advantage. Using the term ` no commercial value' is different from the definition of manufacture, which uses the term ` commercial advantage.'

9. Improve instructions for importers, specifically importers of mixtures. For example, how do you report a paint made of many substances. It would help to have a decision logic diagram for importers.

10. Provide a better definition for the site of import. Additional commenters stated there should be more instructions for importers.

11. A person attending the meeting commented that importers sell directly to users, but don't report. There is confusion as to who is responsible for reporting. August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 3 12. Another person asked a specific question about identifying the site of import for pipelines.

13. Section 2.2.2 states you must report for sites you owned or controlled. What is the definition of ` controlled'? Who completes the form if a chemical is manufactured by a joint venture or toll manufacturer or a contractor under control of a another company?

14. Definitions of small business varies from other government regulations, such as EPCRA, OSHA ( ag retailers). Point out the differences in definitions for small businesses that may be used to other requirements.

15. Clarify definition of manufacture to export.

16. Clarify definition of non isolated intermediate. Can a non isolated intermediate be used in more that one vessel, such as 2 vessels connected by a pipe?

17. More complex examples are needed to illustrate each point.

18. Provide more details on the partial exemption and the process for change.

19. Incorporate CFR references into Figure 2 1.

20. Use more visuals such as the flow diagrams, especially the example diagrams, used in the presentation in the Instruction Manual.

21. Be clear and consistent on reporting requirement of 25,000 pounds or more. Is it greater than 25,000 pounds or greater than or equal to 25,000 pounds?

22. The first paragraph in Section 2.2.2 states you must report if you manufactured 25,000 pounds or more at any given time during calendar year 2005. Rephrase this sentence since EPA is looking for the aggregate production for the year.

23. How do you report if there was a change in company ownership during the reporting year?

24. Can the PMN reportability language regarding reporting/ timing of PMN reporting be improved?

25. Make the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory be made available on the website? 26. Chapter 3 should be incorporated into another chapter since it is only 1 page in August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 4 length.

27. Instructions should be available on CDROM with hyperlinks to relevant tables, lists, and figures.

28. Move Appendix B definitions to main text.

29. In Section 2.3.2, include an example of a single product manufactured at two different sites that exceed 300,000 pounds at both sites. How do you insure there is no double reporting for Part III information.

30. Need additional examples of dual use chemicals. For example, FDA or FIFRA uses plus TSCA uses.

31. Can an online dialog be established for IUR reporting issues, similar to the TRI program?

32. There is a mistake on Form U in manual ( 3,000,000 pounds instead of 300,000 pounds).

33. Form U is confusing. Can the Sections be renumbered A, B, and C to distinguish them from Parts I, II, and III?

Chapter 4: Completing Form U 1. Many commenters are concerned about the certification statement. a. How can you certify accuracy when you may be using best professional judgement? What does " professional judgement" mean? b. The certification statement should be changed to read " estimated to the best of their knowledge" or something similar. c. What enforcement will be taken for errors on Form U? d. Officials are wary of signing a truth and accuracy statement. e. There will be a tendency to leave things blank rather than certify responses that may be guesses. f. Submitters will need to obtain third party information and therefore will not be able to certify this information. g. Rule combines marketing information, environmental uses, health and safety, etc. No one person can complete the entire form. How can one person certify that all information is correct? h. Can separate sections have separate certification statements? i. Suggest adding a basis of estimate code ( as done for TRI) to make August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 5 people more comfortable about signing the certification statement.

2. There is no method to denote where estimates were provided on the Form. Companies may be more comfortable certifying the truth and accuracy of the Form if they can state which numbers are estimates.

3. Expand definition of ` readily obtainable' and ` reasonably ascertainable' to state that estimates and guesses will not be punishable by law.

4. Submitters may not want to release email addresses.

5. Can we enter ` NA' anyplace on Form U? Please make this clear.

6. Comments about the Dun & Bradstreet number: a. What if you don't have a Dun & Bradstreet number for your plant site? b. Provide Dun & Bradstreet contact information. c. Can you leave this field blank? d. Add an explanation of parent company and site Dun & Bradstreet number. e. How do you report if two different companies share the same site and same Dun & Bradstreet number? Should I report a separate form for each company and report the same D& B number?

7. Will EPA be available to assist industry with providing examples to use in the Instruction Manual? Commenters may need to discuss the examples with EPA.

8. The Report Number box on Form U ( upper right hand corner of page 1) is not explained anywhere in the Manual.

9. Improve the definitions. Provide regulation citations.

10. Align the definition of contiguous plant site ( and other definitions) with TRI or clarify how definition differs from TRI.

11. Be clear on both Form U and the Instruction Manual to report ` B' if you both manufacture and import a chemical.

12. Downstream reporting. a. Information in Part III is likely to be a guess. Sites will not have any idea of downstream uses. b. How far downstream do you need to report? The end product may August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 6 have a minute amount of the substance. For example, nitrates in fertilizer will be spread onto fields and be absorbed by vegetables that go into the consumer market. The entire United States population may be exposed to fertilizers. c. How do we report on Part III if we sell our chemical to a distribution center, where our product is combined with quantities of the identical product and sold?

13. What documentation is needed for numbers reported on Form U? Another person commented that EPA should not be overly prescriptive here.

14. EPA should clarify how much are research is needed to complete Form U? Also, add burden estimate to help submitters decide how much effort to put into gathering the information.

15. Number of Workers a. Include examples in Section 4.6.7 Number of Workers. For example, are administrative staff included? Lab people? Maintenance person? b. Provide better definition of reasonably like to be exposed. Provide examples with job types. c. PPE versus engineering controls  when should workers be included? Case Study C eliminates workers where there are engineering controls. Guidance on engineering controls is conflicting. Engineering controls should not be included because it mitigates exposure. d. Industry often uses quantifiers high, medium, and low for worker exposure. Provide methods to help people understand what information EPA is looking for in requesting information on number of workers. Is EPA looking for a worst case estimate or a realistic estimate? e. The current method allows for modest amounts and frequency of exposure to be overestimated. f. Industry can provide number of workers scenarios. g. Should number of workers be provided as full time equivalents or gross number of workers? h. How do you explain to workers wearing PPE that they are still considered exposed by EPA? i. Consider reporting the concentration of the chemical when a worker is exposed. Consider a de minimis limit for dilute concentrations. j. Define exposure as ` potential' exposure. August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 7 k. Do not use the word ` exposure,' but use the term ` collocation.' l. How do you make judgements on the number of workers exposed at downstream sites? m. Should contractors be included on number of workers exposed?

16. The maximum concentration of a chemical substance in products produced at a site may not be representative of the majority of the chemical produced at the site. Modest amounts produced at a higher concentration should not be reported because it will lead to overestimation of exposures. Some commenters suggested using a mean or median while other commenters were opposed to reporting a mean or median. High concentrations may only occur in analytical samples. One person suggested reporting a more representative concentration where the amount produced at high concentrations was modest.

17. Reporting concentrations in wide weight ranges will result in overestimation of exposures. Also, what range do you use if your product is shipped as 3 33%.

18. Need additional clarification on physical form. For example, how do you classify a slurry or a solid/ liquid suspension. Dusty type solids have a different level of exposure. Can you add particle size parameters? How do you report if the physical form depends on handling?

19. Section 4.5.3  what is meant by trade name reactant? Do you want to replace ` reactant' with the ` ingredient'?

20. Rounding a. How do you round production to the nearest 10% without reporting greater than 100%. ( I. e., 26,26,48 rounded = 110) b. Rounding to the nearest 10% should be up to the submitters. c. Define the rounding rules.

21. Write ` Leave Blank' on Form for Production Volume Range. It is not clear that this does not need to be reported.

22. A commenter did not want EPA to be overly descriptive, especially if it requires extra recordkeeping and level of effort.

23. The document states that readily obtainable information may include estimates, are estimates required? Are submitters required to make best professional judgement estimates? If submitters are required to provide estimates can they report a code for the basis of these estimates. August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 8 24. Can we check the NA box for Part III, Section II if we sell our chemical directly for commercial/ consumer use?

25. The children's use response permits submitters to enter a `?' for unknown. There is no place to enter unknown for other responses.

26. EPA should provide a flow diagram for providing use information. It would be helpful to have a decision tree for this section.

27. Which processing and use code should you use for substances added to a reactor but don't react, i. e. solvent, and are later removed?

28. There is an error in Table 4 7, in the last example 100% should be reported rather than 97%.

29. EPA should provide instruction on how to perform file searches. Submitters will need to contact many people.

30. The combinations of process or use, NAICS, and IFC becomes very complicated. For example, ethylene glycol has 42 combinations and manufacturers do not have enough information to determine which are the top ten that should be reported.

31. The Instruction Manual is not useful for Part III reporting. Submitters may not have all the information required and therefore it is hard to determine the top ten combinations.

32. If I know some general uses for a chemical I manufacture, but have no specific information, how should I complete Part III? This applies specifically to chemicals I sell to a distribution center.

33. In Case Study G, the submitter could not obtain all the information so it was left blank. Is this how submitters report? How will EPA know that this information is not readily obtainable and therefore not pursue enforcement actions for not fully completing the form.

34. Provide additional guidance on reporting of intermediates. There could be unreacted intermediates.

35. Give details on the definition of readily obtainable and link to CFR. ( Folks were unable to find the definition in the CFR)

36. Insert the word ` industrial' into the title of the table for reporting number of August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 9 workers, i. e. number of industrial workers exposed.

37. Add examples into section where the topic is discussed. It will be hard for users to flip back and forth to definitions and case studies.

38. Do you stop reporting downstream uses if the chemical is incorporated into an article? How far do you follow  is there a deminimis level?

39. Provide additional guidance on inorganics. Companies may revisit how they classify inorganics.

40. In Table 4 5, code PF, processing into a reaction product, should be PC. Clarify these definitions.

41. In Table 4 10: a. Provide definitions for commercial and consumer product categories. b. Clarify potential overlaps such as C14, polishes and sanitation goods, and C16, soaps and detergents. c. Include the word ` nonpesticidal' in parentheses after C14, polishes and sanitation goods. d. Are polishes and sanitation goods that are controlled under FIFRA excluded from IUR reporting?

42. Are federally permitted releases included in IUR reporting?

43. A CFR notice ( not sure which one) referenced in the Instructions Manual does not exist. See # 35 Case Studies 1. For the case using copper sulfate, the pesticidal use is exempt. For the case study using xylene, the use is exempt but the pesticidal use is included in the production volume. Do you include non TSCA uses in the production volume? Is there a distinction between active and inactive ingredients in pesticides. Please be very clear in the document.

2. Several fertilizers ( such as urea) are used as solvents in pesticide manufacturing. Are these chemicals exempt?

3. Can EPA provide any additional guidance on NAICS codes? There is an overwhelming number of codes. August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 10 4. How should submitters report number of workers for Part III? Are reference material or rules of thumb available?

5. More explanatory text is required in the case studies. For example, in Case Study B how is the cosmetic use reported?

6. Can EPA provide additional guidance for determining when a chemical is used in children's products? For example, why do chemicals used in wood products ( Case Study G) not qualify for use in children's products?

7. How do you report if you import a chemical as an article?

8. Is EPA confident in the list of partially exempt chemicals reported in Appendix C?

Chapter 5: How to Assert Confidentiality Claims 1. We prefer to have our address claimed as CBI due to security issues ( theft for drug use and terrorism).

2. Are there only 2 questions submitters need to answer when claiming manufacturing site identity CBI?

3. Clarify when written justification is required.

4. Will applicants be notified if their written substantiations for CBI claims are not validated by EPA?

5. How does a company proceed if they want to remove CBI protection or resubstantiate a CBI claim?

6. How do submitters determine if a substance is on the confidential Inventory?

7. Please provide a legal definition of ` authorized official.'

Amendments and Partial Exemption Procedures 1. Will there be guidance on draft procedures for additional partial exemptions?

2. Metals should not be classified as PBT chemicals?

3. Submitters are adverse to changing reporting period to earlier in the calendar year. August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 11 August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 12 Persons Attending the Public Meeting on August 1, 2003 Paul Ackerman, Piper Rudnick LLP Jane Bradd Andersen, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Fred Arnold, U. S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Glen Barrett, American Petroleum Institute Karen Beichert, Dow Corning Wayne R. Bidstrup, Cleary Gottlieb Kathy Bishop, Alcoa, Inc. Lisa Burchi, Bergeson & Campbell, P. C. Jim Cooper, Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Association Jan Connery, ERG, Inc. Ruth Curfman, Dow Corning Matt Dalton, Inside EPA John DiFazio, Consumer Specialty Products Association Rod Dwyer, National Mining Association Melody Foley, Cargill, Inc. Robert W. Freerksen, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company David Giamporcaro, U. S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Patrick Gibson, Lyondell Chemical Company Joseph Green, Collie, Shannon, Scott, PLLC Mark Herwig, General Electric Corporation Franklyn Hall, U. S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics William C. Herz, The Fertilizer Institute Chris, Hibshman, ERG, Inc. Tim Jones, Bayer Corporation Alison Keane, National Paint and Coatings Association Elizabeth King, Chevron Texaco Energy Research and Technology Company Don Lederer, Solutia, Inc. Doyoung Lee, U. S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Wayne Leipold, Phelps Dodge Miami, Inc. Andrea Malinowski, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Nhan Nguyen, U. S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Amit Pal, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Jesus Peralta, CF Industries Georgia Pugh, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company Larry Rampy, American Chemistry Council Kathleen Roberts, American Chemistry Council Mark Scoville, Scientific and Regulatory Solutions, L. L. C. Susan Sharkey, U. S EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Paul Strege, Johnson Diversity Gautam Srinivasan, U. S. EPA, Office of General Counsel August 1, 2003 Focus Meeting Comments Page 13 Lara Swett, NPRA Michael E. Thelen, Dow Corning Corporation Mary Ellen Weber, U. S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Lori Weiss, ERG, Inc. Sherry Witte, Procter and Gamble, Inc. Karel Wright, Atofina Chemicals


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50313-50315]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0177]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Request for Comment;
Extension of an Information Collection: Hours of Service (HOS) of
Drivers Regulations

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA), FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection
Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval and invites public comment. The FMCSA
requests OMB approval to revise and extend an existing ICR entitled,
``Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers Regulations.'' The HOS rules
require most commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers to maintain in the
CMV an accurate record of duty status (RODS) in either paper or
electronic form. The Agency, effective June 4, 2010, authorized the use
of electronic on-board recorders (EOBRs) to create driver RODS. This
ICR estimates, for the first time, the PRA burden of motor carriers
voluntarily directing their drivers to employ EOBRs. This ICR promotes
safety in CMV operations by assisting motor carriers and enforcement
officials in monitoring compliance with the HOS rules. On June 6, 2011,
FMCSA published a Federal Register notice allowing for a 60-day comment
period on the ICR (76 FR 32388). One comment was received.

DATES: Please send your comments by September 12, 2011. OMB must
receive your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2011-0177. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Schultz, Jr., FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers Regulations.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0001.
    Type of Request: Revision and extension of a currently-approved
information collection.
    Respondents: Motor Carriers, Drivers of CMVs.
    Estimated Annual Respondents: 4.93 million [4.60 million drivers +
0.33 million active motor carriers].
    Estimated Time per Response: A driver employing a paper RODS takes
an average of 6.5 minutes to complete it; a driver employing an EOBR
takes an average of 2 minutes to complete it. A driver takes an average
of 5 minutes to forward a paper RODS to the motor carrier; a driver
employing an EOBR is relieved of this task by automation. Whether using
a paper or EOBR RODS, a motor carrier takes 2 minutes to review a RODS
and its corresponding supporting documents, and 1 additional minute to
maintain those supporting documents. For those motor carriers using an
EOBR, the ICR burden of maintaining the RODS is eliminated by
automation; for those motor carriers using paper RODS, 1 minute is
required to maintain the RODS.
    Expiration Date: 8/31/2011.

Estimated Frequency of Response

    Drivers: 240 days per year, on average.
    Motor Carriers: 240 days per year, on average.
    Estimated Annual Responses: 3,843.59 million--the sum of the
following:

A. Driver Tasks

    (1) Filling out the RODS: 1,104 million, and
    (2) Forwarding the RODS to the motor carrier: 102.23 million.

B. Motor Carrier Tasks

    (1) Reviewing the RODS: 552 million,
    (2) Maintaining the RODS: 981.36 million, and
    (3) Maintaining the supporting documents: 1,104 million.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 172.08 million burden hours [118.92
million driver hours + 53.16 million carrier hours].
    Background: The FMCSA regulates the amount of time a CMV driver may
drive or otherwise be on duty, in order to ensure that an adequate
period of time is available to the driver to rest. A driver must
accurately record his or her duty status (driving, on duty not driving,
off duty, sleeper berth) at all points during the 24-hour period
designated by the motor carrier (49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)). This RODS must be
made on a grid specified by subsection 395.8(g). The term ``logbook''
is often used in the industry to denote the collection of the most
recent RODS of the driver. A driver must have the RODS for the previous
7 consecutive days in the CMV at all times (395.8(k)(2)). The RODS must
be submitted to the motor carrier along with any supporting documents,
such as fuel receipts and toll tickets that could assist in verifying
the accuracy of entries on the RODS, and the motor carrier must retain
these records for a minimum of 6 months from the date of receipt (49
CFR 395.8(k)(1)).
    Statutory authority for regulating the hours of service (HOS) of
drivers operating CMVs in interstate commerce is derived from 49 U.S.C.
31136 and 31502. The penalty provisions are located at 49 U.S.C. 521,
522 and 526, as amended. On November 28, 1982, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the agency responsible for administration of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) (49 CFR 350 et seq.)
at that time, promulgated a final rule requiring motor carriers to
ensure that their drivers record their duty status in a specified
format and verify the accuracy of the HOS of each driver (47 FR 53383).
The rule is codified at 49 CFR 395.8.
    The HOS rules provide the following four methods of recording
driver duty status:
    (1) Paper RODS: This grid form requires the driver to graph time
and location on a paper record over a 24-hour period (Section
395.8(g)). It must be present on the CMV in the absence of a regulatory
exception.
    (2) Time Record: The HOS regulations allow certain ``short haul''
CMV drivers to avoid the onboard-the-CMV RODS requirement if their
employing motor carrier records their HOS by means of a time record or
time card maintained at the place of business (Section 395.1(e)). To
qualify for this exception, short-haul drivers generally must return at
the end of the duty day to the same location at which they began the
day, and must remain within a certain distance of that location at all
times during the duty day. The time record must show the time the
driver began work, was released from work, and the total hours worked.
    (3) Automatic On-Board Recording Device (AOBRD): An electronic
record is permitted if it is created and maintained by an AOBRD as
defined by 49 CFR 395.2. The record must include all the information
that would appear on a paper RODS, and the driver or carrier must be
capable of producing this information upon demand.
    (4) EOBR: Motor carriers subject to an FMCSA remedial directive
must use an electronic record created and maintained by an EOBR as
defined in 49 CFR 395.2. Other motor carriers may voluntarily employ
EOBRs.
    The RODS is important because it provides motor carriers and
enforcement personnel a significant tool

for determining driver compliance with the HOS rules. Compliance helps
FMCSA protect the public by reducing the number of tired CMV drivers on
the highways.
    Most States receive grants from FMCSA under the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program. As a condition of receiving these grants,
States agree to adopt and enforce the FMCSRs, including the HOS rules,
as State law. As a result, State enforcement inspectors use the RODS
and supporting documents to determine whether CMV drivers are complying
with the HOS rules. In addition, FMCSA uses the RODS during on-site
compliance reviews (CRs) and targeted reviews of motor carriers. The CR
is a public record. An unfavorable review can be damaging to a motor
carrier's business because customers may access the CRs before
selecting a motor carrier to hire. Finally, Federal and State judicial
systems generally accept RODS as evidence in actions alleging driver or
motor carrier violations of the HOS regulations. This information
collection supports the DOT's Strategic Goal of Safety because the
information helps the Agency ensure the safe operation of CMVs in
interstate commerce on our Nation's highways.
    The currently-approved PRA burden estimate is 181.28 million hours,
as approved by OMB on August 20, 2010. The expiration date of this IC
is August 31, 2011. In this ICR, FMCSA proposes to reduce the PRA
burden by approximately 9.20 million burden hours, or by slightly over
5 percent. FMCSA seeks OMB approval of its revised estimated PRA burden
of 172.08 million burden hours. In today's submission, FMCSA for the
first time estimates the extent of voluntary EOBR use by motor
carriers, and subtracts that same number from its estimate of the
extent of the use of paper RODS. The Agency maintains its OMB-approved
estimates of the total number of CMV drivers subject to the HOS rules,
and the total number of CMV drivers subject to an Agency remedial HOS
directive.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the information collected.

    Issued on: August 8, 2011.
Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-20584 Filed 8-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P