[Federal Register: June 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 33482-33484]
[DOCID:fr18jn07-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

June 8, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC07-101-000.
    Applicants: AES Central Valley, L.L.C.; AES Delano, Inc.; Covanta
Holding Corporation.
    Description: AES Central Valley, LLC, AES Delano, Inc and Covanta
Holdings Corp submit for approval of a transaction wherein Covanta
Holding will acquire from Central Valley six wholly owned direct &
indirect subsidiaries etc.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0194.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EC07-102-000.
    Applicants: Blue Canyon Windpower II LLC; Flat Rock Windpower LLC;
Flat Rock Windpower II LLC; High Trail Wind Farm, LLC; EDP-Energias De
Portugal, S.A.
    Description: Blue Canyon Windpower II, LLC et al submits an
application for authorization to dispose of jurisdictional facilities
etc.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings
    Docket Numbers: ER00-1857-007.
    Applicants: Split Rock Energy LLC.
    Description: Split Rock Energy LLC, Notice of Non-Material Change
in Status.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070604-5063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-2508-002.
    Applicants: ENMAX Energy Marketing, Inc.
    Description: ENMAX Energy Marketing, Inc submits a notice of change
in status that reflects a departure from the facts relied upon in the
grant of market-based rate authority.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0188.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-700-004.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits Substitute Alternate First Revised Sheet 264 et al in
compliance w/FERC's order on rehearing and compliance filings issued on
4/19/07.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070604-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1355-002.
    Applicants: Evergreen Wind Power, LLC.
    Description: Errata to Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of
Evergreen Wind Power, LLC.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070601-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 15, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-596-001.
    Applicants: E. ON U.S., LLC.
    Description: Louisville Gas and Electric Company et al submits
information required by the 5/3/07 deficiency letter & informs of
changes that after consideration & in response to

the deficiency letter they propose to make to the original filing.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-883-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits First Revised
Service Agreement 1267 to FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Tariff
1.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-946-001.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc resubmits First Revised Sheet 8 in
clean and red-line versions to replace First Revised Sheet 4, extending
the existing Agreement, with City of Holton, KS, through 9/30/07.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0187.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-947-001.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc resubmits First Revised Sheet 8 in
clear and red-line versions to replace First Revised Sheet 4, extending
the existing Agreement through 9/30/07.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-948-001.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc resubmits First Revised Sheet 8 in
clean and red-line versions to replace First Revised Sheet 4, extending
the existing Agreement through 9/30/07.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0184.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-995-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Request of the New York Independent System Operator,
Inc for waiver of business practice standard re Standards for Business
Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0185.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-996-000.
    Applicants: Goldendale Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Goldendale Energy Center, LLC submits a Notice of
Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff 1 pursuant to Sections 35.15
and 131.53 of FERC's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-997-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Fox LLC.
    Description: Calpine Fox LLC submits a notice of cancellation of
its FERC Electric Tariff 1 pursuant to Sections 35.15 and 131.53 of
FERC's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-998-000.
    Applicants: CPN Pleasant Hill, LLC.
    Description: CPN Pleasant Hill, LLC et al submits a Notice of
Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 pursuant to
Sections 35.15 and 131.53 of FERC's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-999-000.
    Applicants: MEP Pleasant Hill, LLC.
    Description: MEP Pleasant Hill, LLC submits a Notice of
Cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 pursuant to
Sections 35.15 and 131.53 of FERC's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1000-000; ER07-1001-000; ER07-1002-000.
    Applicants: Las Vegas Power Company, LLC; Sugar Creek Power
Company, LLC; Zeeland Power Company, LLC.
    Description: Las Vegas Power Company, LLC, et al. informs FERC that
as a result of name changes they have succeeded to the market-based
rate tariffs of Mirant Las Vegas, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0174.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1003-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc agent for Alabama Power
Co et al. submits this 5/22/07, Revision 2 to the Agreement for Network
Integration Transmission Service for Alabama Municipal Electric
Authority dated 12/29/05.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0175.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1004-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company; Upper Peninsula Power
Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company et al. submit
revisions to the Balancing Area Operations Coordination Agreement.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1005-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits a Supplemental Generation
Agreement w/ the City of Sabetha dated as of 5/29/07 pursuant to
section 205(c) of the FPA and Part 35 of the Commission's Regulation.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0180.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1006-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits a Supplemental Generation
Agreement with the City of Minneapolis dated as of 5/29/07 pursuant to
section 205(c) of the FPA and Part 35 of the Commission's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1007-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits a Supplemental Generation
Agreement with the City of Holton, Kansas dated as of 5/21/07 pursuant
to section 205(c) of the FPA and Part 35 of FERC's Regulations.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1008-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Kentucky Utilities Company submits Amendment
1 to Contract for Electric Service with the City of
Madisonville, Kentucky pursuant to section 205(c) of the FPA etc.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0177.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1009-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC.
    Description: Cleco Power LLC submits an Amendment to its OATT
pursuant to

section 205 of the FPA, 16 USC, 824d and to Part 35 of FERC's
Regulations.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1010-000.
    Applicants: Sumas Cogeneration Co LP.
    Description: Sumas Cogeneration Company, LP's application for order
accepting market-based rate tariff, granting waivers and blanket
authority.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0178.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1011-000.
    Applicants: UGI Utilities, Inc.
    Description: UGI Utilities, Inc submits the corrected Annual Update
which was originally submitted on 5/31/07 with detailed calculations
conducted through its cost-of-service formula rate etc.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1012-000.
    Applicants: UGI Utilities, Inc.
    Description: UGI Utilities, Inc submits First Revised Sheet 309B et
al. to PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff etc.
    Filed Date: 05/31/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0193.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 21, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1014-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: NSTAR Electric Co submits its informational filing
containing the true-up billings under their Local Service Schedules
etc.
    Filed Date: 06/01/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070606-0189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 22, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:
    Docket Numbers: FC07-51-000.
    Applicants: CMS Enterprises Company.
    Description: CMS Enterprises Company notification of Self-
Certification of Foreign Utility Company Status of Jamaica Private
Power Co. Ltd and Private Power Operators Ltd.
    Filed Date: 06/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070605-5026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 26, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:
    Docket Numbers: PH07-18-000.
    Applicants: DQE Holdings LLC.
    Description: DQE Holdings LLC submit a FERC Form 65 B Waiver.
    Filed Date: 06/04/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070604-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 25, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-11656 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM 	 Date:	December 11, 2013

Subject:	Polycarbonate Production Risk Modeling File 	 From:	Nick Parsons, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/RCG 		 To:	EPA Docket File (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012 - 0133)

The attached "Mact_1326.zip" file contains the emissions inventory used for the risk modeling of the Polycarbonate Production (PC) source category.

The attached "PC HEM Inputs MACT Level.zip" file contains the Human Exposure Model (HEM) inputs for emissions from PC processes at facilities in the PC source category.

The attached "PC HEM Inputs Whole Facility.zip" file contains the HEM inputs for facility-wide emissions from facilities in the PC source category.


[Federal Register: June 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35193-35194]
[DOCID:fr20jn08-121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0608]

Hawaii Air Tour Common Procedures Manual, FAA AWP13-136A

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of and requests
comments on the proposed draft for the Hawaii Air Tour Common
Procedures Manual, draft AWP13-136A.

DATES: We must receive your comments by July 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-
0608 using the following method:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions regarding the
Hawaii Air Tour Common Procedures Manual, contact: Edwin D. Miller, Air
Transportation Division, 135 Air Carrier Operations Branch, AFS-250,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this rulemaking,
contact: Paul G. Greer, FAA Office of the Chief Counsel, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to comment on the proposed Hawaii Air
Tour Common Procedures Manual by sending written data, views, or
arguments. You should include the Federal docket number FAA-2008-0680
in your comments. We will consider all communications received by the
closing date for comments.

Availability of Document

    The proposed Hawaii Air Tour Common Procedures Manual, Operations
Specifications B048 (Air Tour Operations Below 1,500 feet AGL in the
State of Hawaii), and Letter of Authorization B048 (Air Tour Operations
Below 1,500 feet AGL in the State of Hawaii), can be found and
downloaded from the Internet at the following sites:
     FAA Web site: Go to http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs200/branches/afs250/media/
HawaiiCPM.pdf.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal Web: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and search for the document using the Federal
docket number FAA-2008-0680.
    Since the manual is so large, the FAA will not be able to provide a
paper copy upon request. The electronic version of this document
consists of a total of nine (9) files: The manual (1 file); the islands
of operations (6 files); Operations Specification (1 file); and the LOA
(1 file). Some files are in Adobe PDF format, and two files are in
Microsoft Word format. Please note that the Word files are very large
and may take a few minutes to download.

Discussion

    The proposed Hawaii Air Tour Common Procedures Manual supports the
operational guidance for all commercial air tour operators authorized
to conduct operations below 1,500' above the ground level (AGL) within
the state of Hawaii. Authorized part 91 and part 135 operators will be
required to comply with the requirements and limitations set forth in
this manual when it is adopted. Prior to conducting commercial air tour
operations below 1,500' AGL, pilots must receive operator specific
training as outlined in the common procedures manual for part 91 and
135 air tour operators in the State of Hawaii. The common procedures
manual covers a variety of training requirements and operational
requirements, including air tour operations below 1,500' AGL, recurrent
flight training, visibility restrictions, map legend and definitions,
radio communications procedures, Weather Enhanced Safety Areas (WESA),
site specific and enroute operations. It also includes detailed maps
and photos, and over water specific procedures for every island in the
state of Hawaii.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2008.
Gary Davis,
Air Transportation Division, Acting Manager of AFS-200.
[FR Doc. E8-14014 Filed 6-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Subject: Diuron Revised Q1*, ( 3/ 4' s Interspecies Scaling Factor), 1985 Wistar Rat 2 Year Dietary Study PC 035505 From: Bernice Fisher, Biostatistician Statistics Section Science Analysis Branch/ HED ( 7509C)

To: Linda Taylor, Ph. D, Pharmacologist Review Section II Toxicology Branch II/ HED ( 7509C)

Thru: Hugh M. Pettigrew, PhD., Section Head Statistics Section Science Analysis Branch/ HED ( 7509C)

The revised unit risk, Q1*( mg/ kg/ day) 1 of Diuron, based upon male rat urinary bladder carcinomas is 1.91x10 2 in human equivalents ( converted from animals to humans by use of the 3/ 4' s scaling factor 1994, Tox_ Risk, 3.5 K. Crump) a. The dose levels used in the Wistar rat dietary study ( 1985 Bayer AG T 8010647) were 0, 25, 250 and 2500 ppm of Diuron. The corresponding tumor rates in male rats were 1/ 49, 0/ 50, 1/ 49 and 35/ 48 respectively. These doses and rates were obtained from the memorandum by L. L. Brunsman Diuron Qualitative Risk Assessment Based on Wistar Rat and NMRI( SPF Han) Mouse Dietary Studies, November 11,1996.

a See Memo  Deriving Q1* s Using the Unified Interspecies Scaling Factor, P. A. Fenner Crisp, Director HED, 7/ 1/ 94.

cc: Caswell file M. Metzger E. Waldman B. Doyle C. Scheltema L. Nisenson Background The Health Effects Division Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee, December 18, 1996 recommended that the estimate of unit risk should be based on male Wistar rat carcinomas in the urinary bladder. Dose Response Analysis Since mortality was not affected differentially with increasing doses of Diuron, the estimate of the unit risk, Q1* in human equivalents was obtained by the application of the Multi Stage model( Tox_ Risk program, version 3.5  K. Crump).

The estimate of unit risk, Q1*, was based upon the urinary bladder carcinomas in male rats.

For the conversion to human equivalents, weights of .40 kg for the males and 70 kg for humans and the 3/ 4' s scaling factor were used.

It is to be noted that Q1* ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 is an estimate of the upper bound on risk and that ( as stated in the EPA Risk Assessment Guidelines) " the true value of the risk is unknown, and may be as l


[Federal Register: July 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 38953-38957]
[DOCID:fr10jy06-100]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54078; File No. SR-PCX-2005-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc., Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto Requiring
OTP Holders and OTP Firms To Participate in the Federal Trade
Commission's National Do-Not-Call Registry

June 30, 2006.
    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 May 18, 2006, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
\3\ filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''
or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and
III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. On May 26, 2006, NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\4\ On June 21, 2006, NYSE Arca filed Amendment
No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\5\ 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.
    \3\ On March 6, 2006, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. filed a rule
proposal, effective upon filing, to amend its rules to reflect these
name changes: from Pacific Exchange, Inc. to NYSE Arca, Inc.; from
PCX Equities, Inc. to NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.; from PCX Holdings,
Inc., to NYSE Arca Holdings, Inc.; and from the Archipelago
Exchange, L.L.C. to NYSE Arca, L.L.C. See File No. SR-PCX-2006-24
(March 6, 2006). This proposal has been amended to reflect these
name changes.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, NYSE Arca partially amended the text of
proposed amended NYSE Arca Rule 9.20 and made conforming and
technical changes to the original filing.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 2, NYSE Arca made additional changes to the
text of proposed amended NYSE Arca Rule 9.20 and to the original
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NYSE Arca proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 9.20. The proposed rule
change would require OTP Holders and

OTP Firms to participate in the Federal Trade Commission's (``FTC'')
national do-not-call registry. The current text of Arca Rule 9.20(b)
would be deleted. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth
below. Italics indicate new text.

Rules of the NYSE Arca, Inc.

RULE 9 CONDUCTING BUSINESS WITH THE PUBLIC

* * * * *

Telemarketing

    9.20(b) (1) General Telemarketing Requirements. No OTP Firm, OTP
Holder or associated person shall make any telephone solicitation, as
defined in Section 9.20(b)(10)(B) to:
    (A) Any residence of a person before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9
p.m. (local time at the called party's location), unless:
    (i) The OTP Firm or OTP Holder has an established business
relationship with the person pursuant to Section 9.20(b)(10)(A);
    (ii) The OTP Firm or OTP Holder has received that person's prior
express invitation or permission; or
    (iii) The person called is a broker or dealer.
    (B) Any person that previously has stated that he or she does not
wish to receive an outbound telephone call made by or on behalf of the
OTP Firm or OTP Holder; or
    (C) Any person who has registered his or her telephone number on
the Federal Trade Commission's national do-not-call registry.
    (2) National Do-Not-Call Registry Exceptions. An OTP Firm or OTP
Holder will not be liable for violating Section 9.20(b)(1)(C) if:
    (A) The OTP Firm or OTP Holder has an established business
relationship with the recipient of the call. A person's request to be
placed on an OTP Firm's or OTP Holder's firm-specific do-not-call list
terminates the established business relationship exception to that
national do-not-call registry provision for that OTP Firm or OTP Holder
even if the person continues to do business with the OTP Firm or OTP
Holder;
    (B) The OTP Firm or OTP Holder has obtained the person's prior
express invitation or permission. Such permission must be evidenced by
a signed, written agreement between the person and the OTP Firm or OTP
Holder that states that the person agrees to be contacted by the OTP
Firm or OTP Holder and includes the telephone number to which the calls
may be placed; or
    (C) The associated person making the call has a personal
relationship with the recipient of the call.
    (3) Safe Harbor Provision. The OTP Firm, OTP Holder or associated
person making telephone solicitations will not be liable for violating
Section 9.20(b)(1)(C) if the OTP Firm, OTP Holder or associated person
demonstrates that the violation is the result of an error and that as
part of the OTP Firm's or OTP Holder's routine business practice it
meets the following standards:
    (A) The OTP Firm or OTP Holder has established and implemented
written procedures to comply with the national do-not-call rules;
    (B) The OTP Firm or OTP Holder has trained its personnel, and any
entity assisting in its compliance, in procedures established pursuant
to the national do-not-call rules;
    (C) The OTP Firm or OTP Holder has maintained and recorded a list
of telephone numbers that it may not contact; and
    (D) The OTP Firm or OTP Holder uses a process to prevent telephone
solicitations to any telephone number on any list established pursuant
to the do-not-call rules, employing a version of the national do-not-
call registry obtained from the administrator of the registry no more
than thirty-one (31) days prior to the date any call is made, and
maintains records documenting this process.
    (4) Procedures. Prior to engaging in telemarketing, an OTP Firm or
OTP Holder must institute procedures to comply with Section 9.20(b)(1).
Such procedures must meet the minimum standards:
    (A) Written policy. The OTP Firm or OTP Holder must have a written
policy available upon demand for maintaining a do-not-call list.
    (B) Training of personnel engaged in telemarketing. Personnel
engaged in any aspect of telemarketing must be informed and trained in
the existence and use of the do-not-call list, including the policies
and procedures of the firm regarding communication with the public.
    (C) Recording, honoring do-not-call requests. If an OTP Firm or OTP
Holder receives a request from a person not to receive calls from that
OTP Firm or OTP Holder, the OTP Firm or OTP Holder must record the
request and place the person's name, if provided, and telephone number
on the firm's do-not-call list at the time the request is made. The OTP
Firm or OTP Holder must honor a person's do-not-call request within a
reasonable time from the date such request is made. This period may not
exceed 30 days from the date of such request. If such requests are
being recorded or maintained by a party other than the OTP Firm or OTP
Holder on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made, the OTP Firm or
OTP Holder on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made will be
liable for any failure to honor the do-not-call request.
    (D) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. An OTP Firm or OTP
Holder or person associated with an OTP Firm or OTP Holder making a
call for telemarketing purposes must provide the called party with the
name of the individual caller, the name of the OTP Firm or OTP Holder,
an address or telephone number at which the OTP Firm or OTP Holder may
be contacted, and that the purpose of the call is to solicit the
purchase or sale of securities or a related service. The telephone
number provided may not be a 900 number or any other number for which
charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges.
    (E) Affiliated persons or entities. In the absence of a specific
request by the person to the contrary, a person's do-not-call request
shall apply to the OTP Firm or OTP Holder making the call, and will not
apply to affiliated entities unless the consumer reasonably would
expect them to be included given the identification of the caller and
the product or service being advertised.
    (F) Maintenance of do-not-call lists. An OTP Firm or OTP Holder
making calls for telemarketing purposes must maintain a record of the
caller's request not to receive further telemarketing calls. A firm-
specific do-not-call request must be honored for five years from the
time the request is made.
    (5) Wireless Communications.
    (A) OTP Firms and OTP Holders are prohibited from using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice when initiating a telephone call to any telephone number assigned
to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile
radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service
for which the called party is charged for the call.
    (B) The provisions set forth in this rule are applicable to OTP
Firms and OTP Holders telemarketing or making telephone solicitations
calls to wireless telephone numbers.
    (6) Outsourcing Telemarketing. If an OTP Firm or OTP Holder uses
another entity to perform telemarketing services on its behalf, the OTP
Firm or OTP Holder remains responsible for ensuring compliance with all
provisions contained in this rule.
    (7) Pre-Recorded Messages.
    (A) An OTP Firm or OTP Holder may not initiate any telephone call
to any residence using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a
message,

without the prior express consent of the person called, unless the
call:
    (i) Is not made for a commercial purpose;
    (ii) Is made for a commercial purpose, but does not include or
introduce an unsolicited advertisement or constitute a telephone
solicitation; or
    (iii) Is made to any person with whom the OTP Firm or OTP Holder
has an established business relationship at the time the call is made.
    (B) All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages shall:
    (i) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of
the OTP Firm or OTP Holder that is responsible for initiating the call.
The OTP Firm or OTP Holder responsible for initiating the call must
state the name under which the OTP Firm or OTP Holder is registered to
conduct business with the applicable State Corporation Commission (or
comparable regulatory authority); and
    (ii) During or after the message, the OTP Firm or OTP Holder must
state clearly the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer
or prerecorded message player that placed the call) of such OTP Firm or
OTP Holder. The telephone number provided may not be a 900 number or
any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance
transmission charges.
    (iii) For telemarketing messages to a residence, such telephone
number, mentioned in Section 9.20(b)(7)(B)(ii) above, must permit any
person to make a do-not-call request during regular business hours for
the duration of the telemarketing campaign.
    (8) Telephone Facsimile or Computer Advertisements
    No OTP Firm, OTP Holder or associated person may use a telephone
facsimile machine, computer or other device to send an unsolicited
advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine, computer or other
device.
    (A) For purposes of Section 9.20(b)(8) of this rule, a facsimile
advertisement is not ``unsolicited'' if the recipient has granted the
OTP Firm, OTP Holder or associated person prior express invitation or
permission to deliver the advertisement. Such express invitation or
permission must be evidenced by a signed, written statement that
includes the facsimile number to which any advertisements may be sent
and clearly indicates the recipient's consent to receive such facsimile
advertisements from the OTP Firm, OTP Holder or associated person.
    (B) OTP Firms, OTP Holders and associated persons must clearly
mark, in a margin at the top or bottom of each page of the
transmission, the date and time it is sent and an identification of the
OTP Firm, OTP Holder or associated person sending the message and the
telephone number of the sending machine or of the OTP Firm, OTP Holder
or associated person sending the transmission.
    (9) Caller Identification Information
    (A) Any OTP Firm or OTP Holder that engages in telemarketing, as
defined in Section 9.20(b)(10)(B) of this rule, must transmit caller
identification information. Such caller identification information must
include either the Calling Party Number (``CPN'') or the calling
party's billing number, also known as the Charge Number (``ANI''), and,
when available from the telephone carrier, the name of the OTP Firm or
OTP Holder. The telephone number so provided must permit any person to
make a do-not-call request during regular business hours. Whenever
possible, CPN is the preferred number and should be transmitted.
    (B) Any OTP Firm or OTP Holder that engages in telemarketing, as
defined in Section 9.20(b)(10)(B) of this rule, is prohibited from
blocking the transmission of caller identification information.
    (C) Provision of caller identification information does not obviate
the requirement for a caller to verbally supply identification
information during a call.
    (10) Definitions.
    (A) For purposes of Section 9.20, an OTP Firm or OTP Holder has an
``established business relationship'' with a person if:
    (i) The person has made a financial transaction or has a security
position, a money balance, or account activity with the OTP Firm or OTP
Holder or at a clearing firm that provides clearing services to such
OTP Firm or OTP Holder within the previous 18 months immediately
preceding the date of the telemarketing call;
    (ii) The OTP Firm or OTP Holder is the broker-dealer of record for
an account of the person within the previous 18 months immediately
preceding the date of the telemarketing call; or
    (iii) The person has contacted the OTP Firm or OTP Holder to
inquire about a product service offered by the OTP Firm or OTP Holder
within the previous three months immediately preceding the date of the
telemarketing call, which relationship has not been previously
terminated by either party.
    A person's established business relationship with an OTP Firm or
OTP Holder does not extend to the OTP Firm's or OTP Holder's affiliated
entities unless the person would reasonably expect them to be included,
given the nature and type of products or services offered by the
affiliate and the identity of the affiliate. Similarly, a person's
established business relationship with an OTP Firm's or Holder's
affiliate does not extend to the OTP Firm or OTP Holder unless the
person would reasonably expect the OTP Firm or OTP Holder to be
included. A person's request to be placed on an OTP Firm's or OTP
Holder's firm-specific do-not-call list as set forth in Section
9.20(b)(1)(B) of this rule terminates an established business
relationship for purposes of telemarketing and telephone solicitation,
even if the person continues to do business with the OTP Holder or OTP
Firm.
    (B) The terms ``telemarketing'' and ``telephone solicitation'' mean
the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of
encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property,
goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person.
    (C) The term ``personal relationship'' means any family member,
friend or acquaintance of the telemarketer making the call.
    (D) The term ``account activity'' shall include, but not be limited
to, purchases, sales, interest credits or debits, charges or credits,
dividend payments, transfer activity, securities receipts or
deliveries, and/or journal entries relating to securities or funds in
the possession or control of the OTP Firm or OTP Holder.
    (E) The term ``broker-dealer of record'' refers to the broker-
dealer identified on a customer's account application for accounts held
directly at a mutual fund or variable insurance product issuer.
    (F) The terms ``automatic telephone dialing system'' and
``autodialer'' mean equipment which has the capacity to store or
produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential
number generator and to dial such numbers.
    (G) The term ``telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which
has the capacity to transcribe text or images (or both) from paper,
into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular
telephone line, or to transcribe text or images (or both) from an
electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.
    (H) The term ``unsolicited advertisement'' means any material
advertising the commercial availability or quality of any products or
services which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior
express invitation or permission.
    Rule 9.20(c)-(d)--No Change.
* * * * *

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
    The purpose of this Amendment No. 2 is to make the proposed rule
consistent with NYSE Rule 404A by including provisions concerning
general telemarketing requirements, procedures, wireless
communications, outsourcing telemarketing, pre-recorded messages,
telephone facsimile or computer advertisements and caller
identification. This Amendment No. 2 replaces the original filing in
its entirety. In 2003, the FTC, via its Telemarketing Sales Rule, and
the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC''), via its Miscellaneous
Rules Relating to Common Carriers, established requirements for sellers
and telemarketers to participate in a national do-not-call registry.\6\
Since June 2003, consumers have been able to enter their home telephone
numbers into the national do-not-call registry, which is maintained by
the FTC. Under rules of the FTC and FCC, sellers and telemarketers
generally are prohibited from making telephone solicitations to
consumers whose numbers are listed in the national do-not-call
registry. The FCC's do-not-call rules apply to broker-dealers while the
FTC's rules do not.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The do-not-call rules of the FCC and FTC are very similar in
terms of substance, in part, because Congress directed the FCC to
consult with the FTC to maximize consistency between their
respective do-not-call rules. See The Do-Not-Call Implementation
Act, 108 Public Law 10, 117 Stat. 557 (March 11, 2003).
    \7\ See 15 U.S.C. 6102(d)(2)(A), which provides that ``The Rules
promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission under subsection (a)
shall not apply to * * * [among other persons, brokers or dealers].
* * *'' The FTC's rules were not promulgated under 15 U.S.C. 6102.
The FCC's rules are not subject to this limitation and apply to all
sellers and telemarketers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In February 2005, the SEC requested that NYSE Arca adopt the
proposed telemarketing rules to require OTP Holders and OTP Firms to
participate in the do-not-call registry.\8\ Because broker-dealers are
subject to the FCC's do-not-call rules, NYSE Arca modeled its rules in
this area after those of the FCC and codified these do-not-call
requirements in NYSE Arca Rule 9.20(b), with minor modifications
tailoring the rules to broker-dealer activities and the securities
industry. Current NYSE Arca Rule 9.20(b) will be deleted and replaced
in its entirety with proposed Rule 9.20(b) set forth in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention
Act of 1994 (codified at 15 U.S.C. 6102) requires the SEC to
promulgate telemarketing rules substantially similar to those of the
FTC or to direct self-regulatory organizations to promulgate such
rules unless the SEC determines that such rules are not in the
interest of investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safe Harbor Provision for the National Do-Not-Call Registry
Requirements

    The FCC and FTC each provided persons subject to their respective
do-not-call rules a ``safe harbor'' providing that a seller or
telemarketer is not liable for a violation of the do-not-call rules
that is the result of an error if the seller or telemarketer's routine
business practice meets certain standards. The Exchange has provided a
parallel safe harbor in paragraph (3) of proposed NYSE Arca Rule
9.20(b); the safe harbor is limited the requirements of paragraph
(1)(C) of proposed NYSE Arca Rule 9.20(b), which prohibits an OTP Firm,
OTP Holder or associated person from initiating any telephone
solicitation to any person who has registered his or her phone number
with the national do-not-call registry.
    To be eligible for this proposed NYSE Arca Rule 9.20(b) safe
harbor, an OTP Holder or OTP Firm must demonstrate that the OTP
Holder's or OTP Firm's routine business practice meets four standards
in proposed Rule 9.20(b). First, the OTP Holder or OTP Firm must have
established and implemented written procedures to comply with the
national do-not-call rules. Second, the OTP Holder or OTP Firm must
have trained its personnel, and any entity assisting it in its
compliance, in procedures established pursuant to the national do-not-
call rules. Third, the OTP Holder or OTP Firm must have maintained and
recorded a list of telephone numbers that the OTP Holder or OTP Firm
may not contact. Fourth, the OTP Holder or OTP Firm must use a process
to prevent telephone solicitations to any telephone number on any list
established pursuant to the do-not-call rules, employing a version of
the national do-not-call registry obtained from the FTC no more than
thirty-one (31) days prior to the date any call is made, and must
maintain records documenting this process.

Other Provisions

    This Amendment No. 2 includes additional provisions concerning
general telemarketing requirements, procedures, wireless
communications, outsourcing telemarketing, pre-recorded messages,
telephone facsimile or computer advertisements and caller
identification. Proposed Section 9.20(b)(1) outlines the General
Telemarketing Requirements specifying when OTP Holders, OTP Firms and
associated persons may not contact residences and certain persons.
Proposed Section 9.20(b)(2) provides an exception for calling a person
on the national do-not-call registry if the OTP Holder or OTP Firm has
the person's permission to make calls, or if the OTP Holder or OTP Firm
has an established business relationship with the person. Proposed
Section 9.20(b)(4) sets forth the procedures that OTP Firms or OTP
Holders must institute to comply with the General Telemarketing
Requirements set forth in Section 9.20(b)(1). Proposed Section
9.20(b)(5) sets forth when OTP Firms and OTP Holders are prohibited
from using wireless communications. Proposed Section 9.20(b)(6) sets
forth the requirement that OTP Firms and OTP Holders outsourcing
telemarketing remain responsible for compliance with Section 9.20(b).
Proposed Section 9.20(b)(7) sets forth the requirements that OTP Firms
and OTP Holders must satisfy to utilize pre-recorded messages. Proposed
Section 9.20(b)(8) prohibits OTP Firms, OTP Holders or associated
person from using a telephone facsimile machine, computer or other
device to send unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile
machine, computer or other device. Finally, proposed Section 9.20(b)(9)
sets forth the requirement that OTP Firms and OTP Holders engaging in
telemarketing must transmit caller identification information.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Exchange Act \9\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(5) \10\ in particular, because it is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The

Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will increase the
protection of investors by enabling investors who do not want to
receive telephone solicitations from OTP Firms or OTP Holders to
receive the benefits and protections of the national do-not-call
registry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange 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 Exchange Act.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received by the Exchange.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Exchange 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Please include File Number SR-PCX-2005-54 on the subject
line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-54. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, Station Place,
100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of such 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-PCX-2005-54 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-10681 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 36723]
[DOCID:fr28jn10-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on June 30, 2010 at
10 a.m., in the Auditorium, room L-002.
    The Commission will consider whether to adopt a new rule and
related rule amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to
address ``pay to play'' practices by investment advisers. The new rule
is designed to prohibit advisers from seeking to influence the award of
advisory contracts by public entities by making or soliciting political
contributions to or for those officials who are in a position to
influence the awards.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 23, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15706 Filed 6-24-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8321-8322]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Attendance at Nepool Meetings

February 17, 2010.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission and Commission staff may attend the following
upcoming NEPOOL meetings:

NEPOOL Participants Committee

 February 5 (Boston, MA).
 March 5 (Location TBD).
 April 9 (Location TBD).
 May 7 (Location TBD).
 June 4 (Location TBD).
 June 21-23 (Location TBD).
 August 6 (Location TBD).
 September 17 (Location TBD).

NEPOOL Markets Committee Meeting

 February 9-10 (Marlborough, MA).
 March 9-10 (Marlborough, MA).
 April 13-14 (Marlborough, MA).
 May 11-12 (Marlborough, MA).
 June 8-9 (Marlborough, MA).
 July 12-14 (Location TBD).
 August 10-11 (Marlborough, MA).
 September 14-15 (Marlborough, MA).
    For additional meeting information, see http://www.iso-ne.com/
committees/comm_wkgrps/index.html.
    The discussions at each of the meetings described above may address
matters at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER07-397, ISO New England Inc. and the New England Power
Pool Participants Committee
Docket No. ER08-633, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER08-830, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1209, ISO New England Inc. and the New England Power
Pool Participants Committee
Docket No. EL09-3, Ashburnham Municipal Light Plant, et al. v.
Berkshire Power Company, LLC, and ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. EL09-47, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General for the State
of Connecticut v. ISO New England Inc., et al.
Docket No. EL09-48, The Connecticut Department of Public Utility
Control and the Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel v. ISO New
England Inc., et al.
Docket No. ER09-1051, ISO New England Inc. and the New England Power
Pool Participants
Docket No. ER09-1144, ISO New England Inc. and the New England Power
Pool Participants Committee
Docket No. ER09-1424, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1546, ISO New England Inc. and the New England Power
Pool Participants Committee
Docket No. ER10-154, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER10-186, ISO New England Inc.
Docket No. ER10-438, ISO New England Inc. and the New England Power
Pool Participants Committee
    For more information, contact Michael Isimbabi, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6539 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3623 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55761-55766]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25392]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1904

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0023]
RIN 1218-AD16

Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses: Delay of
Compliance Date

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
Labor.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of compliance date.

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

SUMMARY: This action delays until December 15, 2017, the initial
submission deadline for calendar year 2016 data on Form 300A under the
rule entitled Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses. The
original electronic submission deadline was July 1, 2017. This delay
will allow affected entities sufficient time to familiarize themselves
with the electronic reporting system, which was not made available
until August 1, 2017.

DATES: This regulation is effective on November 24, 2017. The
submission deadline for completed 2016 Form 300A data is delayed to
December 15, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1999; email [email protected].
    For general and technical information: Miriam Schoenbaum, OSHA,
Office of Statistical Analysis, Room N-3507, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1841; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 12, 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) published a final rule (81 FR 29624) with an effective date of
January 1, 2017, for the final rule's electronic reporting
requirements. Under these requirements, certain employers were required
to electronically submit 2016 Form 300A data to OSHA by July 1, 2017.
    On June 28, 2017, the Department proposed to delay the initial
deadline for electronic submission of 2016 Form 300A data from July 1,
2017, to December 1, 2017, to provide the new administration the
opportunity to review the new electronic reporting requirements prior
to their implementation and allow affected entities sufficient time to
familiarize themselves with the electronic reporting system, which was
not made available until August 1, 2017 (82 FR 29261).
    On August 14, 2017, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) received an alert from the United States Computer
Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) in the Department of Homeland
Security that indicated a potential compromise of

user information for OSHA's Injury Tracking Application (ITA). The ITA
was taken off-line as a precaution. A complete scan was conducted by
the National Information Technology Center (NITC). The NITC confirmed
that there was no breach of the data in the ITA and that no information
in the ITA was compromised. Public access to the ITA was restored on
August 25, 2017.
    In establishing the effective date of this action, the Agency
invokes the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows
the action to be immediately effective for ``good cause'' rather than
subject to the requirement in the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553(d)) that a minimum of 30 days is required before a rule may
become effective. The nature of this action, which is to delay the
submission deadline for completed 2016 Form 300A data that could not
have been complied with as of the submission date in the original rule,
makes it unnecessary and impractical to delay the effectiveness of this
action by 30 days.
    In this preamble, OSHA references comments in Docket No. OSHA-2013-
0023, the docket for this rulemaking. References to documents in this
rulemaking are given as ``Ex.'' followed by the document number. The
docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal
eRulemaking Portal.

II. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule

A. Comments Received on the Proposed Delay of Compliance Date

    The June 28, 2017, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposed to
delay the initial submission deadline for 2016 Form 300A data to
December 1, 2017. In the NPRM, OSHA also announced its intent to issue
a separate proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove other provisions
of the prior final rule and to seek comment on those provisions in that
separate proposal. This final rule only addresses comments specific to
the delay of the July 1, 2017, compliance date. In the NPRM, OSHA
described its intent to provide employers a four-month window to submit
their Form 300A data between the launch of the ITA on August 1 and the
proposed due date of December 1. In order to remain consistent with the
intent to provide a four-month window, OSHA has added two weeks to the
proposed compliance date of December 1, 2017, to compensate for the
time employers were unable to access the ITA in August. With the launch
of the electronic reporting system on August 1, and the revised
deadline of December 15, employers will still have four months (August,
September, October, November, and part of December) to submit their
data.
    OSHA received 72 substantive comments on its proposal to delay the
submission deadline for completed 2016 Form 300A data to December 1,
2017.
    Many commenters supported the proposed delay. Several commenters
commented that a delay was necessary because employers were not able to
meet the July 1, 2017, deadline because OSHA's electronic data
collection system was not expected to be operational until August 1,
2017 (Ex. 1842, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1868, 1874, 1876, 1885, 1888, 1889,
1890, 1891, 1894, 1902, 1908). For example, the National Federation of
Independent Business (NFIB) commented that ``NFIB strongly supports a
delay until at least December 1, 2017. Small and independent businesses
should not be required to comply with a rule when compliance is
impossible'' (Ex. 1842). OSHA agrees with these comments. The data
collection system was not made available to the public until August 1,
2017. Because the data collection system was not available until after
the initial July 1, 2017 deadline, it was impossible for employers to
comply with that provision of the regulation.
    Other commenters mentioned that a delay would give OSHA more time
to assure that the data collection Web site functions smoothly when it
does go live. The North American Die Casting Association (NADCA)
commented that a delay would give OSHA more time to deal with potential
glitches in the Web site (Ex. 1894). Joseph Xavier commented that a
delay would also give OSHA more time to make sure that the Web site is
easy to use (Ex. 1887). In response, OSHA notes that the Agency
originally planned to launch the electronic reporting system at the end
of February, which would have given employers four months (March,
April, May, June) to submit their data before the original deadline of
July 1. The new reporting deadline of December 15, 2017, maintains the
four-month window (August, September, October, November, and part of
December) for employers to submit the required data.
    Several commenters supported the proposed delay on the grounds that
it would be helpful to employers for various reasons. Many commenters
stated that a delay would give employers more time to familiarize
themselves with the electronic reporting system (Ex. 1858, 1876, 1885,
1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1894, 1899, 1902, 1906). For example, the
Edison Electric Institute commented that ``[e]lectronic submission of
OSHA 300A forms will require time for EEI members to become familiar
with the electronic reporting system, determine whether any IT system
or other changes will be necessary to submit OSHA 300A forms
electronically, and train employees in how to use the system (Ex.
1899). As above, OSHA notes that employers will have the same amount of
time between system launch date and deadline (i.e., four months) as
they would originally have had under the May 2016 final rule. Other
commenters mentioned that a delay would give more time for
establishments to be educated about the new requirements (Ex. 1877,
1891). OSHA agrees that delaying the deadline from July 1, 2017, to
December 15, 2017, gives more time for establishments to be educated
about the requirements of the final rule published in May 2016.
    Many commenters also supported the proposed delay as a means to
allow OSHA more time to reevaluate the May 2016 final rule (Ex. 1856,
1860, 1872, 1874, 1877, 1885, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1893, 1894, 1902,
1904, 1906, 1907, 1912). For example, the Precision Machined Products
Association (PMPA) commented that a delay until December 1, 2017, would
``allow the Administration an opportunity to review the new electronic
reporting requirements prior to implementation'' (Ex. 1902). Other
commenters supported the proposed delay as a first step, but they more
strongly supported an even longer delay. Several commenters commented
that the proposed five-month delay did not provide OSHA enough time to
reconsider the final rule as mentioned in the NPRM (Ex. 1842, 1886,
1898, 1904, 1911, 1912, 1913). For example, Associated Builders and
Contractors, Inc. (ABC) commented that ``ABC is concerned that the
delay will not be sufficient to allow OSHA to complete its
reconsideration of the numerous challenged aspects of the rule'' (Ex.
1912). This final rule delays the compliance date to submit employers'
2016 Form 300A data because it was infeasible for employers to comply
with the July 1, 2017 deadline. As stated in the proposal, OSHA intends
to issue a separate proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove other
provisions of the prior final rule and to seek comment on those
provisions in that separate proposal. The separate rulemaking will
afford OSHA the time necessary to give full reconsideration to
substantive issues concerning the May 6, 2016, final rule.
    Many commenters also indicated that the proposed five-month delay
would be more burdensome for establishments than a longer delay. Some
commenters commented that a five-month delay

would create confusion among the regulated community, given that the
rule could change after the proposed December 1, 2017, submission
deadline or potentially be subject to even more delays in
implementation (Ex. 1877, 1904, 1912, 1913). Several commenters also
stated that a five-month delay could cause establishments to waste
resources in an effort to comply with a regulation that could change
later (Ex. 1905, 1911, 1912, 1913). For example, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce (USCC) commented that ``[m]erely delaying the submission of
these reports suggests OSHA will activate the requirement on December
1. Employers will begin preparing to submit their forms months ahead of
that date. If OSHA then concludes, through the comprehensive
rulemaking, to rescind this requirement, then employers will have spent
their resources for no purpose'' (Ex. 1911). The USCC and the Coalition
for Workplace Safety (CWS) further commented that the four-month period
between when the data collection Web site goes live and the proposed
submission deadline is not long enough to make sure that the digital
recordkeeping systems currently in use would be compatible with OSHA's
Web site (Ex. 1911, 1913). The American Coating Association (ACA)
raised an additional concern about enterprises with many
establishments, commenting that ``corporate headquarters submitting
reports on behalf of establishments within its ownership would face
difficulty in collecting and electronically submitting forms by the
proposed December 1, 2017 deadline'' (Ex. 1905).
    In response, OSHA agrees with the comment that a longer compliance
delay could help to prevent further delays in implementation. OSHA has
determined that the additional two-week delay to December 15, 2017 will
help the Agency avoid further delays by ensuring that its electronic
reporting system functions properly. OSHA disagrees that a more
substantial delay is needed. OSHA notes that the collection of 2016
Form 300A is currently underway. As indicated in the May 6, 2016, final
rule, OSHA will use the data collected to more efficiently focus its
outreach and enforcement resources towards establishments that are
experiencing high rates of occupational injuries and illnesses. OSHA
intends to issue a separate proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove
other provisions of the prior final rule and to seek comment on those
provisions in that separate proposal. This final rule only delays the
compliance date to submit employers' 2016 Form 300A data. In addition,
employers were already required to complete, certify, and post the 2016
OSHA Form 300A by February 1, 2017, so OSHA does not expect employers
to face difficulty collecting and electronically submitting the data
from the 2016 OSHA Form 300A by December 15, 2017.
    There were also many commenters who opposed the proposed delay of
the initial submission deadline to December 1, 2017. Several commenters
commented that a delay would result in a longer time before various
groups (employers, employees, researchers, labor unions, etc.) could
use the 2016 Form 300A injury and illness data to prevent future
injuries and illnesses in the workplace (Ex. 1846, 1866, 1871, 1873,
1875, 1878, 1879, 1896, 1900, 1901, 1903, 1909, 1910). For example,
Change to Win commented that the current final rule should be
implemented as rapidly as possible to ``aggressively reduce the
nation's unacceptable burden of workplace injury, illness, disability
and death'' (Ex. 1871). In a related concern, the American College of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine commented that the rule should
be enacted without delay because the injury and illness data could be
used to help develop better health care policies and medical treatments
for injured workers (Ex. 1880).
    Other commenters commented that a delay would result in a longer
time before employers would have incentives to create safer workplaces
through the benchmarking of injury and illness rates (Ex. 1866, 1873,
1875, 1878, 1884, 1901). For example, Public Citizen commented that it
did not support the proposed delay because the data collected under the
final rule would motivate employers ``to compare their safety records
against other firms in their industry and set goals for improvement''
(Ex. 1866).
    Many commenters also opposed the proposed delay because it would
result in a longer time before OSHA could use establishment-level
injury and illness data to identify and target workplace hazards (Ex.
1866, 1871, 1873, 1875, 1878, 1879, 1884, 1896, 1900, 1901, 1903, 1909,
1910). For example, National Nurses United indicated that they were
against the delay because ``OSHA Form 300A data is vital in the
effective targeting of OSHA enforcement and compliance assistance
resources. OSHA uses this information to develop injury and illness
prevention plans and to efficiently direct OSHA's scarce resources to
worksites that pose the most serious hazards for workers'' (Ex. 1900).
The Service Employees International Union expressed a related concern
in its opposition to the delay, commenting that ``workers and employers
will not be able to enjoy the benefits of the regulation during the
five month delay . . . [including] [i]mprovement in the quality of the
information submitted to OSHA'' (Ex. 1884). The Council of State and
Territorial Epidemiologists and the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters provided a similar comment (Ex. 1903, 1909).
    In addition to the above concerns related to occupational health
and safety, other commenters indicated that the delay was not necessary
for employers. Several commenters commented that there was no need for
a delay given that the final rule did not impose any new recordkeeping
requirements on employers (Ex. 1866, 1869, 1873, 1878, 1879, 1900,
1901, 1910). Some commenters also stated that a delay was not necessary
because employers have already known about the requirements of the
final rule for an ample amount of time (Ex. 1869, 1879, 1896, 1903).
    Other commenters opposed the delay by noting that OSHA has provided
no rationale or justification for the delay (Ex. 1873, 1878, 1900,
1901, 1903, 1909). For example, the Utility Workers Union of America
commented that ``[i]n its proposal, OSHA provides no justification for
the proposed delay from July to December of this year'' (Ex. 1901).
Other commenters also opposed the delay on the ground that the part of
the final rule subject to delay is already in effect and must therefore
be enforced (Ex. 1879, 1900). The National Employment Law Project
further commented that such a ``non-enforcement policy would be, in
effect, an Administrative Stay of this part of the rule, in violation
of the Administrative Procedure Act'' (Ex. 1879). National Nurses
United provided a similar comment (Ex. 1900).
    In response to all of these comments, OSHA notes that compliance
with the regulation was impossible, and OSHA must delay the initial
submission deadline because the Agency did not make the electronic
reporting system available before the July 1, 2017, submission deadline
in the May 2016 final rule. OSHA agrees with commenters that the delay
in the compliance date will cause an initial delay in the Agency's
ability to use the data for inspection and outreach purposes, but only
on a temporary basis during this initial collection year. The Agency
will be able to use the submitted

data for inspection and outreach purposes after December 15, 2017.

B. The Final Rule

    OSHA concludes the appropriate course of action is to delay the
compliance date to December 15, 2017. OSHA agrees with those commenters
supporting a delay of the initial submission deadline because OSHA did
not make the electronic reporting system available before the July 1,
2017, submission deadline in the May 2016 final rule. OSHA also agrees
with commenters that employers will need sufficient time to learn and
understand the reporting requirements and electronic reporting system,
especially during the initial year of the data collection. OSHA
believes the four-month period between the launch of the data
collection system on August 1, and a compliance date of December 15,
will provide employers sufficient time to provide the required data to
OSHA. As noted above, OSHA has delayed by two weeks the proposed
compliance date of December 1, 2017, to compensate for the time
employers were unable to access the ITA in August. OSHA also has
determined that this two-week delay will allow the Agency to avoid
future delays by ensuring that the electronic reporting system
functions properly.
    OSHA does not agree with commenters who called for a substantially
longer delay. OSHA reiterates that it intends to issue a separate
proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove other provisions of the prior
final rule and to seek comment on those provisions in that separate
proposal; this final rule only delays the compliance date to submit
employers' 2016 Form 300A data. The separate rulemaking will afford
OSHA the time necessary to give full reconsideration to substantive
issues concerning the May 6, 2016, final rule.
    OSHA also notes, as above, that employers will have the same four
months' worth of time with the delayed date as they would have had with
the original date. In addition, OSHA notes that the original final rule
was published in May 2016 and that file specifications for electronic
submission have been available on the OSHA Web site since February
2017.
    Finally, OSHA notes that employers were already required to
complete, certify, and post the 2016 OSHA Form 300A by February 1,
2017, so OSHA does not expect employers to have difficulty collecting
and electronically submitting the data from the 2016 OSHA Form 300A by
December 15, 2017. On August 1, the first day the system launched,
employers created 668 accounts, registered 1,000 establishments, and
completed the submission of calendar year 2016 data from 919 OSHA Form
300As. OSHA believes that the four months from the launch date of
August 1, 2017, to the new delayed deadline of December 15, 2017,
provide ample time for employers to submit their 2016 data and for the
agency to conduct additional outreach to employers to inform them of
their obligations.
    OSHA's August 1, 2017, launch of the electronic reporting system
moots the comments calling for an immediate implementation of the
reporting requirements because data collection began on that launch
date. OSHA agrees with commenters that the delay in the compliance date
will cause an initial delay in the Agency's ability to use the data for
inspection and outreach purposes, but only on a temporary basis during
the initial collection year. The Agency will be able to use the
submitted data after December 15, 2017.

III. Final Economic Analysis

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require that OSHA estimate the
benefits, costs, and net benefits of proposed and final regulations.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act also require OSHA to estimate the
costs, assess the benefits, and analyze the impacts of certain rules
that the Agency promulgates. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct
agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts,
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules,
and promoting flexibility.
    In the Preliminary Economic Analysis, OSHA proposed to delay the
deadline for electronic submission of Form 300A data under the
regulation from July 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017.
    To calculate the private-sector cost for provisions in the current
regulation impacted by the proposed delay of the first year's
submission date from July 1, 2017 to December 1, 2017, OSHA subtracted
costs not applicable to the proposed delay from the original private-
sector cost of the final rule. The subtracted costs include the costs
of familiarization and checking by unregulated establishments (both of
which would have taken place after the rule was published in May 2016),
the costs of the non-discrimination provision (which became enforceable
in 2016), and the costs of submission of case data (the OSHA Log data)
(which is not required until 2018). This yields a cost of $4,845,365
per year. This cost represents the cost of electronically submitting
the required 2016 information from the OSHA Form 300A in 2017. The
affected employers have already gathered and recorded this information,
as required by various provisions of part 1904.
    This delay only affects costs for 2017, because the delay does not
modify the deadlines for electronic submission in subsequent years.
Thus, the only cost savings associated with this change are for
delaying the deadline for the electronic submission of previously-
recorded data by five-and-one-half months, from July 1, 2017 to
December 15, 2017.
    The cost savings of the five and one half month delay are estimated
based on the interest that can now be earned on the funds involved
while the report for the first year is delayed.\1\ At a 3-percent
discount rate, this results in a one-time cost savings of $65,201, or
$7,644 per year annualized over 10 years. At a 7-percent discount rate,
this results in a one-time cost savings of $147,950, or $21,065 per
year annualized over 10 years. OSHA requested comments on these cost
savings calculations but did not receive any public comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The entire derivation is as follows: OSHA begins with a
current private sector cost of the original rule of $4,845,365 times
the discount rate value of the delay of (1+d[caret]-((5.5)/12). OSHA
then subtracts this value (which is $4,837,917 at 3 percent) from
the full value of $4,845,365. This results in a difference of $7,644
in annualized costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency notes that it did not include an overhead labor cost in
the Final Economic Analysis (FEA) for this rule, and all costs of this
final rule are labor costs. OSHA did not receive any comments on the
use of overhead costs in the Preliminary Economic Analysis for this
delay. It is important to note that there is not one broadly accepted
overhead rate and that the use of overhead to estimate the marginal
costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be addressed
before applying overhead costs to analyze the costs of any specific
regulation. There are several approaches to look at the cost elements
that fit the definition of overhead, and there are a range of overhead
estimates currently used within the federal government--for example,
the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,\2\ and

government contractors have been reported to use an average of 77
percent.3 4 Some overhead costs, such as advertising and
marketing, may be more closely correlated with output than with labor.
Other overhead costs vary with the number of new employees. For
example, rent or payroll processing costs may change little with the
addition of 1 employee in a 500-employee firm, but may change
substantially with the addition of 100 employees. If an employer is
able to rearrange current employees' duties to implement a rule, then
the marginal share of overhead costs such as rent, insurance, and major
office equipment (e.g., computers, printers, copiers) would be very
difficult to measure with accuracy (e.g., computer use costs associated
with two hours for rule familiarization by an existing employee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Wage
Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory
Program,'' June 10, 2002.
    \3\ Grant Thornton LLP, 2015 Government Contractor Survey.
(https://www.grantthornton.com/~/media/content-page-files/public-
sector/pdfs/surveys/2015/Gov-Contractor-Survey.ashx).
    \4\ For further examples of overhead cost estimates, please see
the Employee Benefits Security Administration's guidance at https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/technical-appendices/labor-cost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-ria-and-pra-burden-calculations-august-2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If OSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal
cost of labor, without further analyzing an appropriate quantitative
adjustment, and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17
percent on base wages, as was done in a sensitivity analysis in the FEA
in support of OSHA's 2016 final rule on Occupational Exposure to
Respirable Crystalline Silica, the base wages would increase annualized
cost savings by approximately $1,299 per year using a 3-percent
discount rate and by $3,581 a year using a 7-percent discount rate.
    As noted below, OSHA has stated that the data submission
requirements of the original final rule would lead employers to
increase workplace safety and health; although the costs of the safety-
and health-improving actions have not been quantified, the savings
associated with a delay of such costs would be analogous to those
calculated for quantified costs.
    Table 1 summarizes the annualized and one-time cost savings.

            Table 1--Annualized and One-Time Cost Savings \5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                One time
               Cost savings method                 Annualized     cost
                                                     savings    savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3-Percent Discount Rate..........................      $7,644    $65,201
7-Percent Discount Rate..........................      21,065    147,950
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA did not quantify the benefits of the May 2016 final rule. In
the economic analysis of the final rule, OSHA stated that the rule
would improve OSHA's ability to identify, target, and remove safety and
health hazards, thereby preventing workplace injuries, illnesses, and
deaths. In addition, OSHA stated that the data submission requirements
of the final rule would improve the quality of the information
submitted and lead employers to increase workplace safety and health.
OSHA also projected benefits associated with making the data publicly
available. OSHA posits that this relatively brief delay in initial
submissions will not have a meaningful effect on these benefits;
however, because of the lack of quantification, there is some
uncertainty as to what the impact will be. Other aspects of the final
rule that OSHA determined would produce benefits, such as the non-
discrimination provision and the collection of case characteristic data
(OSHA Forms 300, 301) from establishments with 250 or more employees,
would not be altered by this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All cost savings are in 2014 dollars. Costs are annualized
over ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As categorized in Section II, above, OSHA received some comments
stating there would be a loss of benefits because of the delay. The
benefits from the rule will still accrue, but with a delay of, at most,
5 months. In any case, OSHA must delay the initial submission deadline,
because OSHA did not make the electronic reporting system available
before the July 1, 2017 submission deadline in the May 2016 final rule.
Establishments are still required to report their 2016 injury summaries
in 2017, and this information will be available to OSHA, just with a
short delay.
    OSHA concludes that this delay of five months is both economically
and technologically feasible. The delay meets both criteria of
feasibility because the original rule was economically and
technologically feasible without a five-month delay.
    OSHA has considered whether this final rule will have a significant
economic impact on small firms. As a result of these considerations, in
accordance with section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA
certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, OSHA did not
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis or conduct a SBREFA
Panel.

IV. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    Consistent with E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), OSHA has
estimated the annualized cost savings over 10 years for this final rule
to range from $7,644 to $21,065, depending on the discount rate.
Therefore, this final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory
action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this rule can be found
in the rule's economic analysis.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not change the information collections already
approved by OMB under control number 1218-0176.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1904

    Health statistics, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 20, 2017.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Amendments to Standard

    For the reasons stated in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION above, OSHA
amends part 1904 of chapter XVII of title 29 as follows:

PART 1904--RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND
ILLNESSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 1904 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666, 669, 673, Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

Subpart E--Reporting Fatality, Injury and Illness Information to
the Government

0
2. Revise Sec.  1904.41(c)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  1904.41  Electronic submission of injury and illness records to
OSHA.

* * * * *
    (c) Reporting dates. (1) In 2017 and 2018, establishments required
to submit under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section must submit the
required information according to the table in this paragraph (c)(1):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Establishments         Establishments
                                 submitting under       submitting under
                               paragraph (a)(1) of    paragraph (a)(2) of
       Submission year          this section must      this section must             Submission deadline
                               submit the required    submit the required
                              information from this  information from this
                                form/these forms:            form:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017........................  300A.................  300A.................  December 15, 2017.
2018........................  300A, 300, 301.......  300A.................  July 1, 2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-25392 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P