[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66014-66016]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26342]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73479; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-083]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Implementation Date of the
Requirement To Apply an Indicator to SPX Combo Orders Upon
Systematization

October 31, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 31, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation date of the
requirement to apply an indicator to SPX Combo Orders upon
systematization. There is no proposed change to the rule language.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    On May 19, 2014, the Exchange submitted a rule change filing (SR-
CBOE-2014-046), which became effective on that date, to amend Rule
24.20, ``SPX Combo Orders''. Rule 24.20, as amended, states: ``For an
order to be eligible for the trading procedures contained in this Rule,
a Trading Permit Holder must apply an indicator to the SPX Combo Order
upon systematization as provided in Rule 6.24.'' \3\ Pursuant to the
rule change filing, the Exchange issued a Regulatory Circular requiring
Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'') to begin applying the combo indicator
upon systematization on November 1, 2014.\4\ Once the Exchange
implements the combo indicator requirement, TPHs will be required to
apply the combo indicator upon systematization. Orders that include the
combo indicator but do not meet the requirements of an SPX Combo Order
(i.e., orders must be at least three legs and include an SPX
combination \5\) will be rejected. Additionally, the Public Automatic
Routing System (``PAR'') will no longer allow an order to be endorsed
as an SPX Combo Order and reported to OPRA as such.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-72271 (May 29, 2014),
79 FR 32342 (June 4, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-046).
    \4\ CBOE Regulatory Circular RG14-125--Implementation of SPX
Combo Order Indicator (August 15, 2014).
    \5\ SR-CBOE-2014-046 defines an SPX combination as a purchase
(sale) of an SPX call and sale (purchase) of an SPX put having the
same expiration date and strike price.
    \6\ Currently, brokers must apply an SPX Combo Order designation
for the purposes of price reporting. This is accomplished by
endorsing a trade via PAR; however the system changes that allow a
combo indicator to be applied upon systematization will remove the
capability to endorse an order as an SPX Combo Order on PAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 19, 2014, the Exchange submitted a separate rule change
filing (SR-CBOE-2014-015) to amend, among other things, Rule 24.20 to
include Interpretation and Policy .01.\7\ Proposed Interpretation and
Policy .01, which has not yet been approved by the Commission, would
require that any complex order, including an SPX Combo Order, for
twelve (12) legs or less be entered on a single order ticket at time of
systemization. In addition, a complex order, including an SPX Combo
Order, that contains more than twelve (12) legs may be represented and
executed as a single order, and for an SPX Combo Order in accordance
with Rule 24.20 if it is split across multiple order tickets and the
TPH representing the order identifies for the Exchange the order
tickets that are part of the same order (in a manner and form
prescribed by the Exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-72975 (September 2,
2014), 79 FR 53230 (September 8, 2014) (SR-CBOE-2014-015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to SR-CBOE-2014-046, a third-party vendor updated the
Exchange provided Floor Broker Workstation (``FBW) to support the combo
indicator. Pursuant to SR-CBOE-2014-015, the Exchange, through a third-
party vendor, is in the process of developing an enhanced version of
FBW to support the entry of complex orders with up to twelve legs. The
third-party vendor has indicated that it will not complete development
prior to the current November 1st implementation date established in
the combo indicator circular.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ RG14-125, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that if the combo indicator requirement is
implemented on November 1st, brokers utilizing FBW to execute SPX Combo
Orders with more than four legs will be negatively impacted. For
example, if a broker wanted to execute an SPX Combo Order with five
legs, the current FBW requires the 5-leg order to be split into two
orders (e.g., an order with two legs and an order with three legs).
Each order would be required to have the combo indicator upon
systematization; have at least three legs, and have an SPX combination.
Therefore, CBOE would reject the order with two legs.\9\ Additionally,
a 6-leg SPX Combo Order that was split into separate orders with three
legs would also be rejected if one of the 3-leg orders did not have an
SPX combination. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to delay
implementation of SR-CBOE-2014-046 in order to allow the third-party
vendor more time to complete development of the enhanced version of
FBW, which will support the entry of complex orders with up to twelve
legs pursuant to SR-CBOE-2014-015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ If the broker failed to apply the combo indicator to the 2-
leg order upon systematization, the CBOE system would view the order
as a non-combo order and would not include a combo identifier for
reporting purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange believes that users of FBW will be negatively
impacted if the 12-leg order ticket is not available prior to the combo
indicator requirement, the Exchange intends to implement the combo
indicator requirement after this delay, regardless of the third-party
vendor's ability to deliver the enhanced version of FBW. If the
enhanced version of FBW is not available by the next implementation

date, the Exchange believes it can mitigate the negative impact to FBW
users by issuing another Regulatory Circular in advance of the future
implementation date that provides FBW users with sufficient time to
find and test an alternative system to input SPX Combo Orders with more
than four legs.\10\ The Exchange believes that requiring the combo
indicator on November 1, 2014, as is currently contemplated, does not
give FBW users sufficient time to find and test an alternative system.
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change, as well as the Exchange's intent to not delay implementation
any further, in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 60
days following the effective date of this filing. The implementation
date will be no later than 120 days following the effective date of
this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that it will ensure TPHs have access to
at least one Exchange provided technology (e.g., PULSe) prior to
implementation of SR-CBOE-2014-46 and SR-CBOE-2014-015 that will
enable TPHs to enter SPX Combo Orders with up to twelve legs and
apply the SPX Combo indicator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that if the combo indicator
requirement is implemented on November 1, 2014, brokers utilizing FBW
to execute SPX Combo Orders with more than four legs will be negatively
impacted. The Exchange believes delaying implementation of the combo
indicator requirement will allow the third-party vendor the necessary
time to develop an enhanced version of FBW to allow orders to be
entered with greater than four legs. Furthermore, the Exchange believes
that delaying implementation promotes fair and orderly markets and
serves market participants because it will allow trading of SPX Combo
Orders to continue uninterrupted. The enhanced version of FBW will also
promote fair and orderly markets and serve market participants because
it will provide an enhanced audit trail for the Exchange. Finally, if
the third-party vendor is unable to develop the enhanced version of FBW
prior to the next implementation date for the combo indicator, the
Exchange will issue a Regulatory Circular that the Exchange believes
will provide FBW users with sufficient time to find and test an
alternative system to input SPX Combo Orders with more than four legs.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule does not (i) significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\16\ the proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that
the Commission waive the five-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day
operative delay period after which a proposed rule change under Rule
19b-4(f)(6) becomes operative. The Exchange states that waiver of the
five-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day operative delay period
is appropriate because the implementation date for the combo indicator
is currently November 1, 2014. The Exchange also states the proposed
rule change does not present any new, unique or substantive issues that
make the 30-day operative delay necessary. The Exchange notes that if
the combo indicator requirement is implemented on November 1, 2014,
brokers utilizing FBW to execute SPX Combo Orders with more than four
legs will be negatively impacted. Based on the foregoing, the
Commission has determined to waive the five-day pre-filing requirement
and the 30-day operative date so that the proposal may take effect upon
filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-083 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-083. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-083 and should be
submitted on or before November 28, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26342 Filed 11-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


We talked a little about the mechanics of the cause, but equipment
failure is one thing that can contribute to it.

		If a chassis locking device, whether it's one of the pins that’s at
the front bolster of the chassis that moves horizontally into the corner
pocket or one of the dogs that are on the back end of the chassis, which
are really about the size of my fist and turn 45 degrees inside the
corner casting to hold the container in place -- if either one of those
are damaged and the longshore worker under the hook, we say, or there
alongside the container, whose job it is to disconnect that -- if he's
unable to get it fully disconnected or he pulls the pin completely out
as far as it goes and he believes it's fully disconnected but the
bolster or the front portion of the chassis is deformed to any degree,
that pin may still protrude through, and it only takes about an eighth
of an inch of protrusion when there's, you know, good, tight contact
between the container and the bolster to cause that to hang up.

		Again, on that kind of a scenario, it will only come up about a foot
or two, but it doesn’t take much more than that to give you a good
shaking inside the cabin.

		The other thing might just be a process failure, where someone simply
doesn’t do their job.  They assume that the other guy turned the pin.
They assume that it was turned somewhere else in the yard prior to
arrival at the vessel, or it may have been turned -- they’ve turned
it, but the chassis then can travel down the dock another hundred feet
or so and the pin kind of vibrates back into place a little bit.

		So, we have equipment failures and process failures that contribute to
this, and we're going to try to address them both in this document.

		Now, you may ask yourself, well, how did this continue to be a problem
for any period of time?  We've been doing containers and chassis for a
long time.

		It has been around.  There have been some things that have been done
to try to address this.  Several technologies were implemented.

		At a terminal that I have worked at for the last 22 years, we had
something that was called the container tractor -- it was CTAL --
container tractor anti-lift.

		It involved a strobe mechanism that was on the top of the tractor and
a -- basically a switch that was kind of like a level, and when the
rear-end of the tractor got picked up about a foot off the ground, that
switch would trigger the strobe light.

		The strobe light would signal to a receiver on the crane, and the
crane would automatically shut down.

		There's some bad things that can happen when a crane automatically
shuts down and you take that out of control of the operator.

		We had a lot of problems with the technology, with the switches
failing, with the -- one tractor would set off another crane instead of
the crane that was actually picking it up.

		So, the technology, though good in thought, did not work that well in
application, and one of the things that really struck me was a crane
operator one day told me that they became dependent on that particular
technology.

		So, instead of watching the lift and coming up slowly, their eyes were
at the ship.

		Once they were locked on and good to pick, they started pulling that
container up in the air, they were looking at the ship, to go toward the
ship.  They weren’t watching the load because they were expecting this
technology to be there to back them up, and of course, when a guy goes
ahead and he's working full stick to go to the ship, he's got some
velocity on that lift.

		If the chassis is coming up, that’s where we would start to see some
of these more violent lifts and more situations where the container came
up higher and the drop was more significant.

		So, eventually, the combination of the problems we had with that and
the fact that the vendor just didn't have enough buyers for his
technology and was not supporting it, that technology went away.

		So, in the ensuing years, we continued to work the program through our
various different committees, and in 2008, there was an amendment to
what is called the Pacific Coast Marine Safety Code.

		It is a document, it is a safety code, as it is titled, that is
developed between the employers and the ILWU on the west coast, and Tim
correct me, if I'm right, it goes back to the '40s?

		MR. PODUE:  Yeah, it was part of the contract at one time.

		MR. GARBER:  It's a document that is a living, breathing document that
we work on every time that we renegotiate our master contract.  We go
back in and we look at the PCMSC, as well.

		In 2008, we added some rules -- and I think we added up to about 10
different places in the book that we addressed the concept of floating
the load to ensure that there is full and clear separation between the
container and the chassis before the container is hoisted to the ship,
and so, those rules have been put in place.

		All that being said, we still have incidents occurring, not nearly
with the frequency we did in the past.  We've made some good progress,
but what we want to do with this document and the reason why we chose it
as a quick card is we want to put it in front of our target audience,
which is the individuals on the ground who are actually responsible for
unlocking the chassis, turning those pins and dogs, and the semi drivers
who are in those chassis or who are pulling those chassis have the
opportunity to make sure that -- they're the target audience for them,
and the quick cards have been a great way to get directly to the ground
level workforce.

		So, that was the purpose for choosing a quick card and the direction
we want to go with that.

		That document has been vetted by the Shipyard Workgroup.  Their
comments have been acknowledged and incorporated, where appropriate,
into the document, and it is now ready for submittal, and I would like
to recommend that OSHA publish this document.

		MR. THORNTON:  Is that in the form of a motion?

		MR. GARBER:  I would make a motion, yes.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  Under the Roberts Rules, since it comes out of
committee, it actually requires no second.  So, we'll go right into
discussion on the motion, which is acceptance or whichever verb you --
approval --

		MR. GARBER:  I would make a motion that the committee accept this
quick card and promote it for publication.

		MR. THORNTON:  All right.  So, discussion on the motion?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Hearing none, I'm going to call the question.  All in
favor of the motion, which is acceptance, or however Kelly expressed the
verb, of this quick card, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Any opposed, like sign.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MR. GARBER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

		So, with that good work in our pocket, we're ready to move on to the
next topic, which is cruise ship operations.

		This is a work in progress, and as I mentioned, we spent some time
taking this one apart, but the reason for addressing this -- we
determined that there was a very high lost time incident rate for the
porters who handle the baggage in the industry.

		We have some pretty hard data from the west coast.  We're looking to
the Gulf coast and east coast employers to see if we can get some data
from them, at least anecdotal if not actual, you know, numbers, but
there is a understood acceptance of the fact that this is a high
incident rate type of occupation that we need to address.

		We discovered by going through the topic yesterday that there's
potential for others to be impacted, as well.

		As I mentioned, there's some equipment operators that are involved
here that aren’t necessarily porters, that are exposed to some
hazards. So, we'll watch for that.

		One of the things that’s unique -- or maybe not unique, but is
certainly a contributing factor to some of the potential for injury in
this operation -- it is very fast-paced and it coincides with a number
of the operations.

		If you ever do attend a cruise ship terminal, whether you're going on
a cruise or you just happen to be walking by, you'll notice that there's
an awful lot of activity going on simultaneously.

		The port calls are quite short.

		You have, let's just say, 2,000 passengers showing up.  You have
stores deliveries for all of that.

		You have various entities who have to visit the ship for inspection
and for clearance and things of that nature, just an awful lot of things
happening in very, very close proximity to one another.

		So, it's an awareness issue about what's going on around us, traffic
control patterns, barrier placement, how to keep that workforce who's
using mechanized equipment or is moving large carts full of bags away
from mom and the kids who are trying to walk up and find their way to
the gangway.

		We need to address all aspects of the baggage handling process, and as
I spoke to earlier, we went step by step and identified where each of
the handoffs are.

		We talked about things like minimizing the number of times baggage
actually needs to be touched.  We talked about adjusting the size of the
some of the carts that move the bags so that they're not loaded so
heavily.

		We talked a little bit about behavior patterns, about how the workers
tend to hustle a little bit and maybe overload a cart, and they may be,
you know, inclined to take a couple extra bags that should have been
left for the next guy.

		So, we're going to address those kinds of things, and again, as I
mentioned earlier, we anticipate multiple documents coming out of this,
and it will take us a few months to do this, but we've got a strong
team, a lot of background knowledge on this.

		Some of our assignments that we'll be giving out will be to visit the
cruise terminals and to validate some of the work that we did yesterday
and make sure that it's still current, that we didn't miss any steps,
and to try to see the variances from one terminal to the next and see if
we can find some common ground to work toward.

		And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that you accept my report and add
to the record.

		MR. THORNTON:  You're moving for acceptance of your report?

		MR. GARBER:  Yes, sir.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.  All right.  So, this is coming out of the
committee, as well.

		So, is there any discussion, corrections, deletions, or suggested
changes to the Longshore Workgroup's report?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Hearing none, I'm going to call the question.

		All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Any opposed, like sign.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		I also wanted to -- I know we've got to mark this, but I wanted to
extend my appreciation and thanks for your discussion leading into the
actions that the committee took and why they took it, et cetera, cause
it's very helpful for the record.

		So, when posterity goes back and says why did they do that or think
that way, at least there's some very helpful comments on the record.

		MR. GARBER:  If you would indulge me for just a moment longer, I would
like to take a moment to thank Vanessa for the tremendous amount of
help.  I don't know if anybody understands what Vanessa does.

		She's at the helm.  She keeps the ship on course.  She keeps us
directed, makes sure that we do the things that we're accountable for
and we don’t step over any of the lines that we're supposed to stay
inside.

		I absolutely could not lead this committee without her.  It would not
function.

		Vanessa, thank you so much for everything you've done for us.

		(Applause.)

		MS. LEVIN:  We'll mark as Exhibit 18 and move into the record, into
the docket, Longshore Workgroup report.

SHIPYARD WORKGROUP REPORT AND COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

		MR. RAFFO:  I'd like to sort of reverse things for a minute and start
off by thanking the workgroup.

		I may be the chairman, but this is truly a workgroup, and I couldn’t
be happier with them.  We have some returning members, some new members,
and we did a tremendous amount of work for meeting once and working
through our conference calls.

		We had members throw out documents, and not so much throw out
documents to get us going.  We all worked together, and everybody was
very gracious in getting comments back, not feeling offended.

		We actually took a lot of the documents and really ripped them apart,
changed them around, and made them better.  No one took offense with
that.

		So, I'm very happy with our workgroup.  I couldn’t be prouder of
them.

		So, thanks, everyone, and once again, I will, you know, give a
shout-out to Danielle again, cause I couldn’t do it without her.
She's invaluable to me.

		So, I do thank her for that, and also, once again, we welcome
Kristine, with a "K" not a "C", over there --

		MR. THORNTON:  Don’t you forget it either.

		MR. RAFFO:  -- yes -- as our new member, and based on her comments
yesterday, I know she'll be a valuable addition.  So, welcome.

		Conference calls.  We've held three conference calls since our last
meeting, where we accomplished, really, a great amount during each of
the calls, but actually, even more work was done, I think, in between
the calls, where we exchanged documents, had different comments,
changes, write-ups, and that’s actually -- the conference calls helped
to firm things up, but a lot of the work was actually done in between
the conference call.

		We've also -- during the last call, we reviewed the longshore document
that we just approved, and we also sort of basically, out of the blue,
we had finished some other documents which we had submitted to the
longshore group.

		We got their comments and incorporated them, and just right off the
bat, we came up with two more documents that -- actually, three more
documents that we're going to put on our plate.

		We've already set up for the next three months.  We've already
scheduled our conference calls. 		So, we're moving forward on that, and
we actually spent a significant amount of time yesterday working on
these two new documents on spray painting and housekeeping.

		We also -- thanks to Rob Godinez for translation.

		He's translated two documents that will be asked to vote on a little
bit later.

		The initial comments back from the agency was that the -- at least the
initial document he submitted was very good.  They had very few changes.
 So, I want to thank Robert for doing that.

		No one else on our group could have done it, and I know, when we've
submitted to the Longshore Workgroup, I think they had the same comments
as us, okay, good.

		We also took on one of our first documents, pedestal crane safety, and
this was targeted towards commercial fishing vessels, and we sort of
came up with a checklist of items, I'm going to say, oriented towards
the untrained crew members that are operating these pedestal cranes.

		We came up with a document we submitted to the longshore group, and we
got comments back from them and incorporated it.

		Once again, why did we pick this particular topic?

		There have been incidents on fishing vessels from the shipboard
failure of pedestal cranes.

		We identified requirements and best practices to protect the workers,
and we did basically pre-, post-, and operation checklists, and
yesterday we did our final review, and we're always looking for
comments, as always, from the Longshore Workgroup but also from the
public, and we actually -- late in the process yesterday, we did get a
comment from the public, and I think you all have this document in your
possession, and if you look on the second page, in yellow -- or
actually, I guess, the third page, I'm sorry -- we added that statement
to the document, short wording, "Ensure safe egress as provided prior to
leaving the cab."

		That was the result of a comment by the public saying that they’ve
seen workers leave these -- you know, maybe during a lunch break or
something -- leave these cranes in a position where they have to sort of
shimmy around to get to the ladder.

		So, as part of the post-operation, we included that they return it to
basically a safe working position to exit, which would leave it in a
safe working position to enter the cab.

		So, that is the only minor change on that.  We didn't get that to the
Longshore Workgroup at the end of the day, but I don’t think it's such
a major change that you would have any issue with that.  So, I'm hoping
we're good on that.

		Any questions on that little change?

		MR. GARBER:  I think that’s acceptable.

		MR. RAFFO:  Okay.  Thank you.

		With that being said, I would like to make a motion that the crane
safety document entitled "Pedestal Crane Safety on Commercial Fishing
Vessels" be accepted into the record and recommend that the agency
publish it.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  I have a motion.  It comes out of committee, so
it requires no second.

		So, let's move right on into discussion.

		So, any additions, corrections, deletions, adjustments to the Pedestal
Crane Safety on Commercial Fishing Vessels document -- and I guess what
I also heard was the language that is highlighted on the third page had
been accepted as a friendly amendment by the Longshore Workgroup.

		MR. RAFFO:  Correct.

		MR. THORNTON:  Got it.  Okay.

		So, any discussion on the document as proposed?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Hearing none, I'm going to call the question.

		All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Any opposed, like sign.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		We need to mark that right now.

		MS. LEVIN:  At this time, we'll mark and move into the record as
Exhibit 19 the Pedestal Crane Safety on Commercial Fishing Vessels
document.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MR. RAFFO:  We'll move on to the next one, which is the ships
document, which was what Kelly referred to as a fairly lengthy document.
 It was around 20 pages.

		As most people know, the ships documents are fairly extensive, and we
actually spent a huge amount of time on this.

		We started off with one topic.  We revised the title from Surface
Preparation to Surface Preparation and Preservation.

		We incorporated spray paint safety along with some information on
respirator use and application and safe work practices for surface
preparation.

		So, it's fairly involved, and once again, we had two minor changes to
the document yesterday.  You should have them in your package in red.
There's two pages.  They say "spray painting" on the top of them.

		The first one, we've included a sentence -- and this really comes from
our group that has a wide range of expertise, and John mentioned that,
you know, paint, when it's sprayed, is atomized.

		The atomization creates a large surface area, which allows liquid
toxins to become vapors or airborne, and just because that happens
doesn’t mean that you get the exposure.  Once their airborne, then the
vapors become a potential respiratory hazard to the worker.

		We added that just to make it clear, that one sentence.

		MR. THORNTON:  You mean the sentence in red?

		MR. RAFFO:  The sentence in red was added.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MR. RAFFO:  And on the second page, in red, we had -- before we had
"shipyard competent person," and according to the regulations, there is
no such term.  The term is "competent person."  So, we dropped the word
"shipyard" to that.

		So, those are the only two changes we made in the document that the
longshore group reviewed.  Once again, I would think they're minor
changes and would seek your acceptance on that.

		MR. GARBER:  Any questions or comment from the Longshore Workgroup?

		(No response.)

		MR. RAFFO:  Okay.  Thank you.

		MR. GARBER:  Perfectly acceptable.

		MR. RAFFO:  So, that is, once again, a fairly lengthy document.  We
spent a lot of time on it, and at this point, once again, I would like
to make a motion that the committee accept the ships document on Surface
Preparation and Preservation and submit it to the agency for
publication, including the changes that we outlined in red.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  So, we have a motion to accept the spray
painting document, with a couple of changes that Don has talked about
outlined.

		Any questions, comments, additions, deletions to that document?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  I have one, and maybe you covered this, but in your
introduction, did you -- maybe I missed it -- did you talk a little bit
about the need for this document?

		In other words, why did you -- why did the committee feel like this
was important to do?

		MR. RAFFO:  This was -- this part of the ships document was on a prior
list of items to get out. Danielle got us started on it, and we picked
up on it and expanded it.  So, it was already on the list for review.

		It was a prior document that had been, I'm going to say, partially
developed, a carryover.

		MR. THORNTON:  So, there was a perceived need for this document.

		MR. RAFFO:  Right.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.

		MR. RAFFO:  It really came from prior charters of MACOSH that
identified the need for that, you know, just like several others.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.

		There's a motion on the floor for acceptance of the spray painting
document as amended with the two clauses or phrases in red which have
been acceptable to the Longshore Workgroup.  So, anymore comments,
corrections, additions, deletions to the motion?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Hearing none, I'm going to call the question.  All in
favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Any opposed, like sign.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MS. LEVIN:  Move into the record as Exhibit 20 the ships document on
Surface Preparation and Preservation.

		MR. RAFFO:  We'll move right along on our third document, which is
Refrigeration Systems in Maritime Work, and this, once again, is really
targeted towards small fishing vessels.

		We all, I think, know that many of the refrigerants that were used in
the past are ozone-depleting, and there is a widespread changeover to
new refrigeration systems.

		Some of the refrigeration systems are using the new halocarbons, and
there's a variety of them out there that have many hazards with them,
mainly toxicity hazards associated with it.  Commonly, they're known as
freons, but they're technically different types of halocarbons.

		Another movement is to move towards ammonia as a refrigerant, and
there's different hazards associated with ammonia, not only toxicity
issues but also flammability issues, and this document was directed at
the -- primarily the crew and crew members that may get involved with
these refrigerants, whether there's a leak, whether there's a repair,
and it's sort of an awareness-based bulletin that these things are
hazardous, and we looked at these two, both ammonia and halocarbons, and
addressed them separately in this document, some safe work practices
that should be used when dealing with these issues.

		I believe the agency also came out with a similar document recently on
ammonia.  Is that right?  Not out of the maritime office, though, right?

		MR. THORNTON:  I think what it was is that the agency has an alliance
with a trade association, and as part of that alliance, they're doing
some work and developing products around the use of -- I don't know that
it's been produced yet, but they're working on it.

		MR. RAFFO:  Okay.  They're working on it, which, you know, sort of
goes hand in hand with what we're doing, that there was a hazard and
there was a need for some education, and we basically have come up with
that and addressed it with this document, and even as far as yesterday,
you know, we're always trying to make sure our documents are good.

		I noticed an article in National Fishermen during the past week about
the use of hydrocarbons as refrigerants, and it was a Coast Guard
article, and no one in the committee had ever heard of those or knew
what we were talking about.

		Well, after looking at it, we realized that the article was sort of in
error.  They meant to say halocarbons.  It's not hydrocarbons.  They're
different.  And we sort of racked our brain.  What the heck?

		No one heard of a hydrocarbon refrigerant.  What are they talking
about?  After a lot of time, we realized, well, the article was wrong.

		MR. THORNTON:  Are you going to write the author?

		MR. RAFFO:  I might.

		MR. THORNTON:  I think you ought to correct the record.

		MR. RAFFO:  I've done it before.

		MR. THORNTON:  All right.

		MR. RAFFO:  So, I might.

		Once again, just to make sure we covered all the bases, we did pause
yesterday and look at that article to make sure we hadn’t missed
anything, and we're pretty sure that we haven’t.

		So, we've got this document, and we've sent it to the longshore group.
 We've made no changes.  We've incorporated your comments on it.

		So, I'd like to go ahead again and make a motion that the
refrigeration systems -- let me go to the title -- Hazards During the
Repair and Maintenance of Refrigeration Systems on Vessels for
Non-Technicians -- be accepted and recommend that the agency publish it.

		MR. THORNTON:  All right.

		It comes out of committee and so, again, requires no second.

		So, I'm going to open the floor up for any comments, questions,
adjustments, and additions/deletions from the committee.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Hearing none, I'm going to call the question.

		All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Any opposed, like sign.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MR. RAFFO:  Okay.

		MS. LEVIN:  I will enter into the record as Exhibit 21 the document
Hazards During the Repair and Maintenance of Refrigeration Systems on
Vessels.

		MR. RAFFO:  Okay.

		Moving on as a carryover from some of the prior MACOSH charters, there
were recommendations to translate some of our existing documents into
Spanish, and as I said before, we were fortunate to have Robert who (a)
speaks Spanish and (b) volunteered his time to do this.

		He translated the two documents that you see up top, one of the
shipyard documents, a fire watch safety quick card, and one Longshoring
document, servicing multi-piece and single-piece wheel rims.

		He's completed the translation of both of those.

		Based on, I guess, our past, with neither group being able to talk or
read Spanish and the fact that the agency will review these documents
prior to publishing, I'd like to make a motion that the two documents
which have been translated to Spanish, fire watch safety and servicing
multi-piece and single-piece wheel rims, the Spanish translation be
accepted by the agency and published in Spanish.

		MR. THORNTON:  All right.  That’s a motion again that comes out of
committee, so it requires no second.

		So, I would ask for any comments, additions, deletions to the motion
at hand.

		My guess is Robert's the only one that might have a comment, but I'm
just guessing at that.  But if you do, this is the time to speak up.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  So, hearing none, I'm going to call the question.  All
in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Any opposed?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MR. RAFFO:  Yesterday, we had a presentation from Steve Butler on the
shipyard fatality videos.  I believe this morning -- I can't remember
who, but we had a discussion -- I think you talked about the longshore
group has a complete group of these videos for training purposes.

		Steve came to us yesterday, the Shipyard Workgroup, and asked us, are
these videos valuable?  I'd like to put in a request for a grant to
publish a full set of videos for the shipyard group like they have for
the longshore group.

		He's going to publish it in the same format, so of the -- I'll call it
the animation format, and he came to us and asked us are these valuable,
and all of our members, especially in the smaller to mid-size shipyards,
said yes, they're very valuable.

		We use them in training.  They illustrate hazards in the industry.

		Once again, the OSHA National Shipyard Alliance requested the agency
consideration in creating additional videos.  So, it's not just Steve
coming to us.

		There's other groups out there, industry groups that request them, and
so, we'd like to get the buy-in from the full MACOSH committee that we
encourage the agency to develop a full set of videos for the shipyard
industry like they have for the longshore industry.

		So, with that, I would like -- let me think how I'm going to phrase
this -- like to make a motion that the full MACOSH committee endorse the
idea of a full set of shipyard fatality videos similar to the videos
that they have in the longshore group.

		MR. THORNTON:  So, that’s a motion, again requires no second.

		So, we'll do discussion.

		Dan Harrison.

		MR. HARRISON:  Does OSHA have a set of longshore videos they developed
on their own, Steve?

		MR. THORNTON:  Identify yourself, please.

		MR. BUTLER:  Steve Butler from OSHA.

		In answer to your question, Dan, you have all the videos.

		What I was referring to yesterday was we have a complete set of the
Fatal Facts for the longshoring industry.

		So, for longshoring, because you guys have videos and you guys really
don’t have some of the issues that the shipyard industry has with
respect to translating the videos and making this information available
to Spanish speakers, for example, you know, we've done Fatal Facts for
your industry.

		We originally did 37, then you guys came to us and said we need to do
5 more.  We've done that.  So, we have 42.

		So, we're trying to do the same thing now for the shipyards, only they
really need the videos, so that we can then give them to Ian Bennitt in
SCA to hopefully get translated over into Spanish, so we can reach the
entire -- at least 98 percent, 99 percent of the shipbuilding industry,
and they would have a complete set, like you guys have, for the Fatal
Facts, which are, you know, hard copy, handwritten text with
illustrations.

		MR. HARRISON:  I'm not opposed to the shipyard having all the safety
Fatal Facts videos, whatever, but in the history of developing our
videos through the National Maritime Safety Association, how we got
started was a request from our area director, Tom Pope, telling us that
he had training funds available to do this type of development.

		Well, when the funds were not available, we went ahead and funded it
ourselves as the industry, but we're continuing to make videos.  But
we’re constantly seeking funding to make that happen.

		So, the only recommendation I would make to your proposal is to
include the longshore group, as well as the shipbuilding group, in your
recommendation, cause we may not want to copy exactly what you're doing,
but we're continuing to work on videos each day, and there are three of
them under consideration right now.

		So, we would like to share in that opportunity to possibly have some
funding to do more.

		MR. BUTLER:  Steve Butler from OSHA.

		I might add on to that that if we were to do that -- we're kind of
into the proverbial mixing apples and oranges, because here we're going
to do a contract here with a vendor to crank out these additional 20 or
so videos, and the stuff you're working on would be best handled through
like a Susan Harwood grant, and if you're interested in that, now is the
time, because that stuff is going in right now, you know, inputs, and
that would be the best place to do that, because you guys are actually
producing them, and I'm assuming you're still using what was Coastal.  I
guess it's DuPont now or something like that.

		MR. HARRISON:  Yeah, we use DuPont.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.

		Let's come back to where we are, though.  We have a motion on the
floor which is -- I'm going to paraphrase -- to -- where the Shipyard
Workgroup has urged the agency to continue to complete the portfolio of
Fatal Fact videos.

		Did I hear for the shipyard industry tacked onto that?  Did I hear
that?  Okay.

		So, not trying to cut Dan off, but that’s the motion.

		Dan's comment is, I think -- I'm paraphrasing, but don’t forget
about longshore, and if there's some help in funding, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera, we'd appreciate it.  I'm paraphrasing.

		Is that right?

		MR. HARRISON:  Yes, sir.

		MR. THORNTON:  So, we have those comments.

		Tim.

		MR. TIM PODUE:  Tim Podue, ILW.

		As you've heard, NMSA is the one that put together the Fatal Facts
videos, and they're a good working tool, but it's mainly been used on
the east coast.

		Just recently, after the last negotiations that we went through in
2008, we have adopted a few that -- we put them into our general safety
training.

		So, I'm just thinking -- and I'm not trying to throw a monkey wrench
into here, but as far as sharing those type of things, what Dan's
saying, I mean it's a great tool to show in your safety training and
whatnot, and I just think that, through time, I guess we'll end up
seeing more of that on the west coast, because it really is an east
coast program.

		MR. THORNTON:  Let me comment.  I'm going to be the last to comment.
Other comments.

		MR. TIM PODUE:  Thank you.

		MR. THORNTON:  	Thank you, Tim.

		Other comments on the motion.

		Les.

		MR. JOHNSON:  Les Johnson, IBEW.

		I know this is a big benefit for small and medium-size shipyards.  Of
course, I work at one of the big ones, and I support this, cause I'm an
OSHA outreach trainer, and I use these video clips in my training.

		It's very beneficial to all employees regardless of what size
facility.

		MR. THORNTON:  Very good.

		Other comments on the motion?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  I just wanted to comment.  I've heard myself of the
value of these Fatal Fact videos.  So, they're well received out there,
and especially for your -- as you point out, for your smaller and
medium-size yards, they're invaluable.

		So, I personally have great support for them, whether it be the
shipyard or longshore.  I think these are really, really good.

		So, with that, I'm going to ask for any additional comments.

		I'm about to call the question.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Going once, going twice.  Okay.

		I'm going to call for approval of the motion, which is -- the effect
of which is for the Shipyard Workgroup encourage the agency to continue
and complete the portfolio of Fatal Fact videos for the shipyard
industry.

		Close enough?

		MR. RAFFO:  Close enough.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		Everybody understand what they're voting for? All in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Any opposed, like sign.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MR. RAFFO:  Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

		Finally, as we move on, as I told you before, we've pulled some new
items onto our plate, and the first one is a spray paint safety fact
sheet, and this was really an offshoot of the ships document, and in a
sense, it's my -- I encouraged it, because the regulations can be
somewhat unclear, and I wanted -- we've had many debates in our
shipyard, what does this mean, what's a temporary connection, things
like that.

		So, I'm trying to get some information out not only to the big yards
but to the small and medium yards who may not even have a clue that
there are regulations for spray paint safety, which are essentially
broken down into -- if we get outside the toxicity issue, which is sort
of a separate thing, which was dealt with in the ships document through
respiratory protection and engineered practices and ventilation, things
like that.

		But it basically says if you're spraying with a paint with a flash
point of less than 80 degrees, here are the regulations, and it sort of
lays them out.  Here's what you've got to do, you know, the types of
ventilation, the testing by the competent person, things like that.

		And then if you're spraying with a paint that has a flash point
between 80 and 100 degrees, what do you need to do, and it lists all
those regulations in a fairly straightforward manner.

		So, it just summarizes in essentially two pages what the spray paint
regulations are.

		We spent a fair amount of time on this yesterday.  We're not to the
point where it's a completed project yet, but we're probably, I'm
guessing, about 80-85 percent complete on this document.

		We will continue this going forward and work on it on our next
conference calls, and I expect it to be with the longshore group before
the next meeting.

		The next one is a housekeeping fact sheet, and this is sort of --
we’re doing this a little bit, I'll say, totally the opposite that the
spray paint fact sheet where we had a ships document and we were
developing sort of a fact sheet.

		We're going to do the opposite here.  We're going to develop a fact
sheet on housekeeping primarily directed at fishing vessels, and then
we're going to develop a outline, and we just don’t think we can get a
ships document on housekeeping completed by the end of the chart.

		But our goal is to develop an outline for a ships document on
housekeeping.  So, we're going to work on that, and that will be sort of
a fallout from our housekeeping fact sheet.

		We'll go into more detail in a ships document, and our goal, once
again, at this point, is just to develop an outline, and hopefully at
the next charter of MACOSH, they can pick that up and develop a full
ships document on housekeeping and the value of housekeeping and safety
in the maritime industry.

		I don’t believe we need a motion.  Is that right, Mr. Chairman?
We'll continue to work on these.

		MR. THORNTON:  No.  Once you complete your report, your report's going
to be, hopefully --

		MR. RAFFO:  Right.

		MR. THORNTON:  -- approved.  That would encapsulate all of that.

		MR. RAFFO:  So, those are the three we're going to be working on.

		So, just once again, quick summary of what we just did.

		We approved the ships document on surface preparation and
preservation.  We approved the pedestal crane safety on commercial
fishing vessels.  We approved the refrigeration systems in maritime
work, and that’s not the exact title, but it's close.

		And we did approve two Spanish translations.  One is a fire watch
safety quick card for the shipyard group and one is the servicing
multi-piece and single-piece wheel rims quick card for the longshore
group.  			We're going to hope to take -- maybe have Robert do one or
two more before the end of the charter, and once again, we have a list
of them, and we'll split them up, you know, both longshoring and
shipyard work group.

		And finally, we made the recommendation on the shipyard fatality
videos.

		So, with that being said, I just want to ask, is there any questions
before we move forward?

		(No response.)

		MR. RAFFO:  Okay.  So, at this point, I'd like to make a motion to
accept the Shipyard Workgroup presentation and the work items into the
record.

		MR. THORNTON:  Okay.  That motion comes out of committee again and
requires no second.  I'm inviting discussion, additions, corrections,
deletions by the committee.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Hearing none, I'm going to call the question.

		All in favor of the motion, which is acceptance of the Shipyard
Workgroup report, please signify by saying aye.

		(Chorus of ayes.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Any opposed, like sign.

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MS. LEVIN:  At this time, we'll mark and move into the record as
Exhibit 22 the Shipyard Workgroup report.

OPEN DISCUSSION, CLOSING REMARKS, ADJOURN

		MR. THORNTON:  The first thing I guess I'd like to do is talk just a
little bit about where we are charter-wise and where we are
membership-wise.

		So, our charter expires May 6th of 2015.

		So, what is that?  Ten months from now?  Whatever that is.

		So, I encourage you to plan accordingly and try to complete the work
that you possibly can and get it done in that charter.

		Now, thinking about re-chartering, which I think it's fair to say has
been somewhat challenging of late, we have some -- one plus going for
us, and that is to say our membership has been approved on January 16th
of 2016.

		So, in theory, the MACOSH charter could be up, but we could still be
members of the committee.

		Now, hopefully, as your chair, I'm going to work with the agency and
hopefully get us re-chartered between that May and January timeframe.

		If that could be done, if we could do that, then, you know, the long
pole in the tent, as I like to say, is getting the membership vetted and
approved.

		So, if we could work it, then perhaps we can move right on into
re-chartering without having to go the extra step.  I'm not speaking for
the agency.  I'm speaking as your chairman.

		So, we're going to work that, but planning backwards, you know, work
with the chairs and plan your work with that in mind.

		Now, hopefully we can get our work done.

		The other thing I'd like you -- the workgroup -- I just want you to
talk about and think about -- I'm not recommending action, here, but I
want you to think about temporary workers.  The agency is very
interested in doing -- the agency believes that temporary workers are
underrepresented in terms of injury and illness statistics because of
the wiring diagrams, and so, I believe, speaking -- you know, I'm
speaking for the agency here, but they believe that there is an
opportunity to do something to reach out and help those people.

		So, I would like you to at least talk about this.  It may lead
nowhere.  It may lead somewhere.  But we, our industry, uses a lot of
temporary workers, both in a contract basis, you know, labor -- we use
lots of temporary labor.

		So, I'd just like you to put that on your -- you know, your list to
discuss and see where it takes you, and as I say, it may take you
nowhere, but I want to be mindful and help the agency and Dr. Michaels
in his quest to kind of look at this.

		So, just talk about it.

		All right.  I spoke about this earlier today, and in terms of the next
meeting -- I'm repeating myself, but for those that weren’t here, you
know, we've got to work through the budge issues and all of that.

		It is our hope to have another meeting, certainly this year, and maybe
-- you know, maybe a couple of meetings before our charter is over, but
we've got to see how the budget thing plays out.

		Stand by.  Keep doing your work, okay?  We'll figure this all out and
this will all work out.

		Now, the other thing I would like to do -- and I always -- I always do
this because I think it's very helpful -- I'd like to -- I'm going to
start on this side and put Amy on the spot.

		I'd like any -- this is open mike.  I'd like any comments you have
about the meeting, what could be improved, what could be done more of,
less of, how could it make your experience better as a committee member?

		So, open mike.

		So, fire away, and I want to have this on the record, too.

		MS. SLY:  Amy Sly.  I have really appreciated having the monthly
conference calls.  That has been really helpful, I think, in keeping the
motivation and the momentum of the group going, and making sure that
we're not dropping any aspects.

		So, I just want to say that I appreciate that, and I'm glad we're
continuing to do that in between the actual meetings.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		Tim.

		MR. Tim PODUE:  Before I say anything, Jim, can we please get a copy,
an electronic copy of all the reports that were given today?

		MR. THORNTON:  Yes.  Those will be -- yes.

		MR. Tim PODUE:  I agree with Amy.  The way we're doing it currently
works very well, and you asked for input from both sides.  We appreciate
the input.  The more, the better.

		And I have -- you know, normally we travel with a lot of guys, and so,
I have backups that I ask for help from, and I'd just like to get a
little more help from them at times, but that’s always good.

		MR. THORNTON:  That’s your problem.

		MR. Tim PODUE:  I know it is.  But here it's the same.  I mean, in
between, people add to it.  Some of us add a little bit late.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		Robert.

		MR. GODINEZ:  Robert Godinez with the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, servicing the NASSCO Shipyard.

		I think that we have a great committee.  I think the improvement we
can do is to try to reach out and take our committee members to actual
worksites so they can, you know, see, you know, the industry and how it
operates.

		I think it's a valuable source of information once they actually see
the process, you know, taking place, and I'd like to see a little bit
more of that.

		Other than that, I think it's working real great.

		MR. THORNTON:  Let me respond to that.  As the budget becomes more
firmed up, what we'd like to do is do take the show on the road, you
know, and do see some of that.  So, thank you for your comment, and
we'll keep that in mind.

		Les.

		MR. JOHNSON:  Hi, Les Johnson, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers.

		The only recommendation I have to improve would be streamlining the
re-chartering process, you know, but as far as the way this committee
operates, I have no recommendations for improvement.  I'm really
impressed.

		This is only our second meeting of this charter.  I've been taking
notes, and I believe I have documented here six completed projects, you
know, and this is only the second meeting.  That’s awesome.  			Makes
me proud to serve on this committee, and it truly is a privilege and an
honor to serve in this capacity.  I'm good.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Les.

		Kelly.

		MR. GARBER:  Hard to follow that, but I would like to congratulate and
thank the agency for holding these meetings.

		I know we had some conversations when the budget issues came up about
trying to this on a telemarketing basis or telecommuting, if you will,
and a lot of us just put up our hands and said that’s just not going
to work for us, and the agency listened and got us to these meetings.

		So, I do appreciate it, and I do look forward to the next one being in
Seattle.

		MR. THORNTON:  Sounds great.

		We're coming around the rookie corner now, so you know, we're going to
have you -- next time, we'll have you a real plaque.

		MS. GILSON:  Can I defer my answer until the next meeting?

		MR. THORNTON:  You can do anything you want. We call this passing.  If
you have nothing to say, you can simply say "pass," and it's perfectly
acceptable.

		MS. GILSON:  I just wanted to say thank you for the warm welcome that
everyone on the committee gave me and that I look forward to doing my
part as much as I can.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		MR. EGBE:  I'll start by thanking some of the agency workers.

		I've had a lot of support, being a new member, from Vanessa, from Amy,
and a whole bunch of other people from OSHA.

		So, it was -- it's great coming -- you have the feeling that everybody
wants you to be in.

		MR. THORNTON:  That will pass really quickly.

		MR. EGBE:  I have been involved in a lot of committees involving
environmental stuff, port security, and this is probably one of the most
-- actually, definitely the most effective I've been involved in.

		We started the meeting similar to the last MACOSH meeting I attended.
It starts chaotic.  By the end of the meeting, you see exactly what you
wanted to accomplish, and so, you leave having a feel that you didn't
waste your time participating in the meeting.

		So, it's quite effective, and I'm glad to be a member of this
committee.

		MR. THORNTON:  We're glad to have you, as well.  Thank you.

		Dan.

		MR. HARRISON:  I'd like to say this is only my second meeting, but
it's a pleasure.  I've come to several meetings trying to become a
member, and there's a lot for me to learn here.

		I enjoy participating, but I'm trying to get a little clarity on the
concept of why and how this group would develop videos for the industry,
whether it's longshore, general industry, or shipbuilding.

		We started out several years ago working with OSHA in a partnership.
That’s how we got started on doing our first videos.  When there was
no money, we bit the bullet and we've got some great videos and we get
requests from as far away as Europe.

		They're on the internet.  They're free for anybody to download.

		My good friend, Tom Pope, one of our previous area directors, uses
these videos for his training classes for new OSHA trainees, and I
guess, in my closing statement, all I have to say is show me the money
so we can get more of this out there to the public.

		Thank you.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Dan.

		Jennifer, do you want to have a shot?

		MS. LEVIN:  As your counsel, I thank you, and that’s it.

		I pass.  Nothing further.

		MR. THORNTON:  I've never heard an attorney be so brief.

		I'm going to pass and have the last word.

		MS. WANGDAHL:  I just want to thank my staff -- Danielle, Vanessa,
Nick -- for all the support that they’ve given the committee this
week, and since the last meeting, and thank the committee.

		I mean, Les summed it up.  Six recommendations in the first meeting is
really just amazing.

		I also want to thank the field staff for the impromptu sort of
regional roundtable.

		We really do appreciate that, and I think we may see more of that in
the future meetings, and also to Ken for giving us a perspective on the
agency.

		I want to throw it out to the committee members, if that may be
something that you want to do as a regular, also, presentation, either
an agency or an industry update, recap, sort of what's been going on.

		So, just think about that, but really, thank you all for coming.  	We
appreciate your participation, and we know this takes some time out of
your schedule, and you really do work hard while you're here, so we
appreciate it.

		Thanks.

		MR. THORNTON:  Don.

		MR. RAFFO:  Just a couple quick things.

		You know, Robert sort of -- I want to reiterate what Robert said.

		You know, I have had the benefit of being on a couple charters of
MACOSH where we actually went to different areas of the country, to
longshoring ports, to shipyards, and I really think that’s invaluable.

		You know, I don’t know anything about longshoring, but going out
there and, you know, seeing the cranes and the trucks and the containers
-- it just, you know -- not saying I'm an expert, but it opened my eyes
to some of the issues in that industry, as I'm sure, I think, some of
the longshoring guys, when we went to different shipyards, saw the
things that we do, you know, and we've been to Newport News, where Jim
is, and we've been to Electric Boat, where I work, and I know that both
Jim and I were certainly proud to host the committee at our shipyards
and show you what we do, as the longshore group, I know, was happy to
bring us to their ports and show off what they do.

		You know, you talked about the logging operations, and I think it was
in Seattle, we went to the ship, we saw the logging operations, and you
know, I'm not an expert, but at least I feel like I know a little bit
about it now, and when you guys talk about it, I somewhat can picture
what you're talking about and some of the hazards.

		So, I really think -- you know, I know we're in a tough budget time, I
know it's not your decision, and I know everybody here would love to do
that, but it provides sort of some intangible benefits to the committee
that, you know, I'd love to see carried on.

		Secondly, once again, getting all those products out is just great.

		I'm just proud of the committee, and I also have to say that when we
work -- whether it's with the longshore group or within our shipyard
group, I'm just happy to say that no one's got thin skin.

		We take the documents, we make suggestions, we rip them apart, we put
them back together, but it's all in the spirit of cooperation to get the
best product that we can get, and there's no animosity, there's no, you
know, feelings of hurt or anything like that.

		So, I actually appreciate the whole issue of cooperation within our
workgroup, between our workgroups.

		So, thank you.

		I try to keep the shipyard group focused, but they do the work.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you.

		Karen.

		MS. CONRAD:  Karen Conrad.

		I've been on other committees, and I want to say I really appreciate
how hardworking and productive our committee is.

		One thing on the temporary workers. I think we've already started that
with the hot work quick card.  The majority of our fire watch people are
temporary workers, and many of them are Spanish-speaking.

		So, as soon as that card comes out, I think those will be very
beneficial, and I appreciate that.

		So, thank you.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thank you, Karen.

		John?

		LCDR HALPIN:  Thanks.

		I don’t really have anything much to comment other than to say it's
been very impressive how much our workgroup has gotten done in the short
amount of time that we've done it, and I think that, by the time this
charter ends, we'll have quite a bit done, maybe even as much as a
full-size charter, and so, I think our section can be very proud of
that.

		That’s really all I have to say.  Thank you.

		MR. THORNTON:  Thanks, John.

		Ken.

		MR. SMITH:  Ken Smith, Coast Guard.

		As a Coast Guard representative here, I've always enjoyed working with
the MACOSH committee and OSHA.

		We share so many areas of concern when it comes to safety on the
waterfront, so representing the Coast Guard is a great honor for me, and
then working with everybody here, with your perspective, industries, and
bringing that to the table is a great privilege to be a part of that.

		I want to thank the OSHA staff.  As a guy that works with a Federal
agency, I know that putting together these advisory committee meetings
takes a lot of work, a lot of work that takes place before we get here
and a lot of work that takes place after.

		So the OSHA staff -- I really appreciate what they’ve done and then
everything that Amy's done.

		Sitting here thinking, I was trying to come up with something that I
thought might be really beneficial for the committee or OSHA to do which
might make this a little bit more better, a little bit better, and that
is, many people that came from OSHA around the country brought in a few
perspectives of what incidents that they were facing in their regions,
and I think that, as we move forward as a committee, we're always kind
of trying to think of new things to produce, areas that we might need to
focus.

		So, I think it would be beneficial if it was possible for a
presentation to be given by OSHA concerning incidents that might have
occurred within the period of time between our meetings.

		So, if there was any significant compliance issues, complaints
regarding the maritime shipyard or longshore working industries, it
might help us to generate some ideas on thoughts that might help prevent
something like that.

		So, that would be something that I would think might be helpful, and
of course, traveling around when we have meetings is always fun, but I
know that’s not going to happen.

		MR. THORNTON:  Never give up.  Never surrender.

		Jim.

		MR. RONE:  Jim Rone, Washington State Labor and Industries.

		Happy to be here, proud to serve.  I'm not just saying that.  This is
a great group of guys to work with, and just hope I'm contributing in
some meaningful fashion.

		And Vanessa, thank you.  You will be missed.

		MR. THORNTON:  Where are you going, Vanessa?

		MR. Tim PODUE:  I just wanted to say one thing to Amy.  I wanted to
thank Amy and Vanessa on the record for getting our products put out.

		I mean, it was a big push a while back, and it seemed to be a fight,
and I wanted to really thank both the ladies.  They’ve been, you know,
invaluable for us getting the products out.

		I wanted to bring up the fact, too, that Vanessa is going to be
leaving us in September, and I wanted to get it on the record that she's
going to be sadly missed.

		She announced it to us yesterday, at the end of the meeting yesterday,
and I just was going to say -- at least for a couple months, on a
different project. 		So, we're going to be working with somebody new,
and she's invaluable to our committee, and that’s coming from a
personal standpoint.  She's really helped move our committee along, I
feel.

		It's always a privilege, and I appreciate the opportunity to serve on
this committee.  I'm speaking for my organization.

		I think it's an invaluable place for us to be, and that’s all.

		Thank you for indulging me.

		MR. THORNTON:  It's okay.

		MR. RAFFO:  I just want to repeat what they said, only on my side of
the house, with Danielle and Amy helping us get stuff done, and we
couldn’t have done it -- you know, they do tons of stuff behind the
scenes, and it helps get the sausage made, as you say.

		MR. THORNTON:  I think that’s absolutely true.

		Let me ask this before I kind of deliver my parting shot.

		Is there anymore new business or old business that we need to address
while we're here together?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  All right.

		So, we've already talked about next steps and kind of where we're
going and all that kind of stuff. I, too -- and I said this earlier,
that I am very humbled and proud of this group, because -- for a number
of reasons, but I think the main thing I'm kind of proud of is because I
think we're making a difference out there.

		I think the quick cards, all these documents -- they get out to these
small and medium-size yards.  The video -- Dan, the videos -- we love
the videos, Dan.  I want you to know that.

		So, all this stuff that we do is making a difference, and you're
saying how do I know that?  Well, our injury rates are plummeting.  If
you look at agriculture and construction and general industry, I mean
we're going some good stuff out there.

		More people are going home safely to their families than otherwise
would because of our work, so I'm very pleased about that.

		So, I want to thank a few people myself, and I'd like to thank the
committee as a whole.  You guys in the audience have no appreciation of
how much work is done between meetings.  This is like that much on top
of the cake.

		So, there's a tremendous amount of work that’s done in between
meetings that makes this a success.

		Number two, I want to thank Kelly and Don for their leadership in
managing the workgroups.  I think they do just a fabulous job without
being abrasive, okay, and they're nice people and all of that.  So, I
want to thank them for their leadership.

		I want to thank the public.  Those chairs, even though they're padded,
they get hard out there.  I know this one's hard.  And I want to thank
you for participating in the process.

		I also want to thank our speakers.  David, I thought your talk was
just spot on, very much appreciated.  I felt the emotion of it and your
sincerity and so I want to thank you and all the other speakers.

		I don’t know if there's anyone in here I missed, but all the
presentations were good.  So, I want to thank you for that.

		And them the ideas -- I like the idea -- when we had that dead time
and I sort of went around the room and I sort of ask, impromptu, you
know, what's going on, I found that very informative, and there were no
Power Points, there were no presentations.  You just stood up and kind
of talked about what was going on.

		So, I, too, you know, think that might be a regular part of our
program if it's valuable, you know, for everyone else, but again, I
think the value, I think, is some of the impromptu-ness of it, and just,
you know, kind of the fireside chat.

		So, I like that.

		The other thing is I would invite committee members, if there's a
specific topic that -- same thing, kind of an open mike, if something's
going on, maybe we talk about it, something beyond the presentations.

		So, we'll think about that, cause I'm -- we are always looking at
improving this process.

		So, you know, with that, I think the thing I take away from these
meetings all the time is the fact that we are making a difference in
people's lives out there.  I know that sounds trite and that may sound a
little bit pious or whatever and god-like, but it's absolutely true.

		So, I appreciate everything this committee does.  I think we're moving
the needle out there, and we've got a lot more work to do.

		So, with that, is there any other closing comments?

		(No response.)

		MR. THORNTON:  I'm about to adjourn.  Going once.  Going twice.  We're
in adjournment.

		Thank you very much.

		(Whereupon, at 2:32 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.)

*  *  *  *  *

 PAGE  98


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23713-23715]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-12-000]

Electrification and the Grid of the Future; Supplemental Notice
of Technical Conference

    As first announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in
this proceeding on March 2, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) will convene a Commissioner-led technical
conference in the above-referenced proceeding on Thursday, April 29,
2021, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The conference will be
held electronically. Attached to this Supplemental Notice is an agenda
for the technical conference, which includes the final conference
program.
    Discussions at the conference may involve issues raised in
proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. These
proceedings include, but are not limited to:

Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, Docket No. ER21-424;
Participation of Distributed Energy Resource Aggregations in Markets
Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System
Operators, Docket No. RM18-9.

    The conference will be open for the public to attend
electronically. There is no fee for attendance. Registration for the
conference is not required. Information on this technical conference,
including a link to the webcast, will be posted on the conference's
event page on the Commission's website, https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events/technical-conference-discuss-electrification-and-grid-future-04292021, prior to the event.
    The conference will be transcribed. Transcripts of the conference
will be

available for a fee from Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY) or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact:

Michael Hill (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
exception occurred on : 2021-09358.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-09358.htm
Innovation,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Michae[email protected]
Sarah Greenberg (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, (202)
502-6230<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sarah McKinley (Logistical Information), Office of External Affairs,
(202) 502-8004<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 29, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Technical Conference on Electrification and the Grid of the Future

Docket No. AD21-12-000

April 29, 2021

Agenda and Speakers

10:00 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: Welcome and Opening Remarks

10:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Panel 1: Projections, Drivers, and Risks of
Electrification

    This panel will explore the future and current state of
electrification in the United States. Panelists will discuss how
electrification could unfold, including the major drivers of
electrification, the sectors and key technologies implicated, and the
likelihood and magnitude of change to electricity demand under various
electrification scenarios. Panelists will also discuss the
environmental justice considerations and cybersecurity risks associated
with electrification. The panel may include a discussion of the
following questions:
    1. What are the main drivers of electrification? Is the shift from
using non-electric sources of energy to using electricity more
pronounced in certain sectors or industries? How might public policy,
energy costs, and technology drive electrification in the future?
    2. What technologies are commercially available and currently being
deployed to electrify different sectors or industries? What sectors and
industries are driving the implementation of these technologies and how
are they implementing them? How quickly are these technologies being
deployed, and are there regional differences in the scope and rate of
deployment?
    3. How is electrification expected to affect electricity demand
growth in the short term and the long term? How might electrification
change electricity demand in the future in terms of daily and seasonal
demand patterns, absolute magnitude of electricity demand on average,
and during peak periods?
    4. How might electrification affect marginalized communities? What
are the environmental justice considerations associated with
electrification?
    5. What are the cybersecurity, reliability, and operational risks
and/or benefits associated with specific technologies and industrial
processes solely dependent on electricity and the corresponding change
in electricity demand?
Panelists
 Rob Chapman, Senior Vice President for Energy Delivery and
Customer Solutions, Electric Power Research Institute
 Katherine Hamilton, Chair, 38 North Solutions; Executive
Director, Advanced Energy Management Alliance; and Co-Chair, World
Economic Forum Global Future Council on Clean Electrification
 Jeff Dennis, General Counsel and Managing Director, Advanced
Energy Economy
 Matthew Tisdale, Executive Director, Gridworks
 Adrienne Mouton-Henderson, Deputy Director, Renewable Energy
Buyers Alliance (REBA)
 Carlos Casablanca, Managing Director, Distribution Planning
and Analysis, American Electric Power
 Ella Zhou, Senior Modeling Engineer, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL)
 Glenn Blackmon, Manager, Energy Policy Office, Washington
State Department of Commerce

11:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.: Break

12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Panel 2: Infrastructure Requirements of
Electrification

    This panel will focus on how transmission owners and system
operators in both regional transmission organization (RTO) and
independent system operator (ISO) regions and non-RTO/ISO regions are
planning to cost-effectively and reliably integrate changes in
electricity demand due to electrification and whether there are any
existing challenges in transmission, interconnection, and resource
adequacy planning processes that need to be addressed. Beyond planning,
the panel will explore the types of infrastructure investments
electrification may require, including additional generation; local,
regional, and interregional transmission; and distribution investments.
The panel may include a discussion of the following questions:
    1. What type of infrastructure investments are required to address
the respective challenges of electrification (i.e., additional
generation, local, regional or interregional transmission, and
distribution investments)?
    2. What approaches are transmission owners and system operators
taking to cost-effectively meet the infrastructure requirements of
projected electrification in the current transmission, interconnection,
and resource adequacy planning processes? How do these approaches
consider reliability, and what impacts do those considerations have on
the need for infrastructure investment for electrification?
    3. What measures are being taken to identify and align the costs of
investments needed for electrification with the beneficiaries?
    4. What, if any, existing regulatory and/or tariff requirements act
as barriers to, or otherwise do not consider, electrification and its
associated growth in demand? For example, does the scenario modeling in
current regional transmission planning processes reflect increased
demand due to electrification driven by market trends and public
policies?
Panelists
 Pedro Pizarro, Vice Chairman, Edison Electric Institute;
President and CEO, Edison International
 Jordan Bakke, Senior Manager of Policy Studies, Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.
 Rachel Huang, Director of Energy Strategy, Research &
Development, Sacramento Municipal Utility District
 Dr. Asa Hopkins, Vice President, Synapse Energy Economics
 Ric O'Connell, Executive Director, Gridlab
 Larry Gasteiger, Executive Director, WIRES
 Gary Rackliffe, Vice President of Market Development and
Innovation, Hitachi ABB Power Grids
 Roger Kranenburg, Vice President of Energy Strategy & Policy,
Eversource Energy

1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: Lunch

2:30 p.m.-4:00 p.m.: Panel 3: Transmission and Distribution System
Services Provided by Flexible Demand

    This panel will explore transmission and distribution grid services
that can be provided by newly electrified resources (e.g., electric
vehicles, smart thermostats, heat pumps, etc.) and the technology
required for these resources to provide grid services. It will also
discuss whether any barriers exist to these resources providing grid
services they are technically capable of providing. The panel may
include a discussion of the following questions:
    1. What grid services can newly electrified resources provide or
otherwise facilitate?
    a. For example, what grid services can consumer electric vehicles
or electric vehicle fleets most effectively provide today? What is the
current state of development for vehicle-to-grid technologies, and will
further advancements enable consumer electric vehicles or electric
vehicle fleets to provide additional grid services in the future?
    b. What other types of newly electrified resources can currently
provide grid services, and what grid services can they most effectively
provide? For example, can grid-interactive buildings be meaningful
sources of flexible demand?
    c. What, if any, newly electrified resources cannot currently
provide grid services, but may be able to in the future? What barriers
must be overcome for that to occur?
    2. What technological capabilities (e.g., interoperability) \1\ are
required for newly electrified resources to provide grid services? What
is the current state of development for these capabilities? What could
speed up or slow down such development?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interoperability refers to ``the capability of two or more
networks, systems, devices, applications, or components to work
together, and to exchange and readily use information--securely,
effectively, and with little or no inconvenience to the user.'' See
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Natl. Inst. Stand.
Technol. Spec. Publ. 1108r4, at 3 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. What challenges exist to deploying newly electrified resources
to provide grid services in the RTO/ISO and non-RTO/ISO regions?
    4. What barriers, if any, exist to newly electrified resources
providing grid services in wholesale or retail markets?
Panelists
 Adrianne Collins, Senior Vice President of Power Delivery,
Southern Company
 Pamela MacDougall, Senior Manager of Grid Modernization,
Environmental Defense Fund
 Maria Bocanegra, Commissioner, Illinois Commerce Commission;
Chair, NARUC EV Working Group
 Garrett Fitzgerald, Principal of Electrification, Smart
Electric Power Alliance
 Peter Klauer, Senior Advisor Smart Grid Technology, California
Independent System Operator Corporation
 Anne Smart, Vice President of Public Policy, ChargePoint
 Jeff Deason, Program Manager in Electricity Markets and Policy
Department, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
 David Nemtzow, Director of the Building Technologies Office,
U.S. Department of Energy

4:00 p.m.-4:15 p.m.: Break

4:15 p.m.-5:45 p.m.: Panel 4: Local, State, and Federal Coordination

    This panel will explore the roles of local, state, and federal
governmental entities, with regard to electrification moving forward.
This panel will focus on how local, state, and federal governmental
entities can coordinate to ensure the grid is prepared to handle
additional load from electrification and to ensure that newly
electrified sources of energy demand provide the grid services they are
technically capable of providing. The panel may include a discussion of
the following questions:
    1. What role can coordination among local, state, and federal
governmental entities play with regard to electrification?
    2. What planning and coordination among local, state, and federal
governmental entities is necessary to facilitate the provision of grid
services by newly electrified resources in a way that maximizes
benefits to the grid while decreasing the potential reliability,
operational, and cybersecurity risks that electrification could pose?
    3. Regional initiatives and multi-state cooperation efforts have
formed in recent years to coordinate EV charging infrastructure
deployment. What can we learn from those efforts and what role, if any,
does the federal government play in supporting those efforts?
    4. How can interoperability protocols and standards be coordinated
across local, state, and federal jurisdictions?
    5. What coordination efforts among local, state, and federal
governmental entities have been most effective in addressing
electrification? How could those coordination efforts be improved?
Panelists
 Norman C. Bay, Partner, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
 Ann Rendahl, Commissioner, Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission; Chair, NARUC Committee on Electricity
 Bob Ethier, Vice President of System Planning, ISO-New England
Inc.
 John Williams, Vice President of Policy and Regulatory
Affairs, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA)
 Emeka Anyanwu, Officer, Energy Innovation & Resources Business
Unit, Seattle City Light
 Phil Jones, Executive Director, Alliance for Transportation
Electrification
 Sara Baldwin, Director of Electrification Policy, Energy
Innovation
 Abigail Anthony, Commissioner, Rhode Island Public Utility
Commission

5:45 p.m.-6:00 p.m.: Closing Remarks

[FR Doc. 2021-09358 Filed 5-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71811]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3349-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Maryland; 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 Maryland (FEMA-3349-EM), dated October 28, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 8, 2012.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective November 8, 2012.

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

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-29208 Filed 12-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52818-52819]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20728]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Meeting of the National Parks Overflights Advisory
Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National
Park Service (NPS), in accordance with the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000, as amended, announce the next meeting of the
National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG) Aviation Rulemaking
Committee (ARC). This notification provides the date, format, and
agenda for the meeting.
    Date and Location: The NPOAG ARC will hold a meeting on September
19, 2013. The meeting will be conducted as a telephone conference call.
The meeting will be held from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Pacific Daylight
Time. This NPOAG meeting will be open to the public. Interested persons
may listen in on the conference call (see Public Participation at the
Meeting).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk, AWP-1SP, Special Programs
Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region
Headquarters, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, telephone:
(310) 725-3808, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (NPATMA),
enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181, required the
establishment of the NPOAG within one year after its enactment. The Act
requires that the NPOAG be a balanced group of representatives of
general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental
concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and
the Director of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of
the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve
alternating 1-year terms as chairman of the advisory group.
    The duties of the NPOAG include providing advice, information, and
recommendations to the FAA Administrator and the NPS Director on:
Implementation of Public Law 106-181; quiet aircraft technology; other
measures that might accommodate interests to visitors of national
parks;

and at the request of the Administrator and the Director, on safety,
environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over national parks or tribal lands.

Agenda for the September 19, 2013, NPOAG Meeting

    The agenda for the meeting will include, but is not limited to, the
following: Review of the new air tour reporting requirements, status on
current voluntary agreement efforts, and review and approval of the
meeting minutes from the May 16, 2012 NPOAG meeting in Rapid City, SD.

Public Participation at the Meeting

    This NPOAG meeting will be conducted as a telephone conference
call. Members of the public will be able to listen in on the
proceedings. Information regarding how the public may access this
conference call in a ``listen mode'' will be posted on the FAA's ATMP
Web site at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/air_tour_management_plan/ by September 12, 2013. Other
supplementary meeting information may also be posted on the ATMP Web
site. You may also find out how to access the call by contacting Mr.
Keith Lusk (contact information is provided above in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Record of the Meeting

    If you are unable to participate in this NPOAG meeting conference
call, a summary record of the meeting will be made available at a later
date under the NPOAG section of the FAA's ATMP Web site at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arc/programs/air_tour_management_plan/ or through the Special Programs Staff, Western-
Pacific Region, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 92007, Los
Angeles, CA 90009-207, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Hawthorne, CA, on August 20, 2013.
Keith Lusk,
Program Manager, Special Programs Office, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-20728 Filed 8-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P