[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13278-13280]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04777]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0653; FRL-9959-05-Region 9]

Approval of Nevada Air Plan Revisions, Clark County Department of
Air Quality and Washoe County Health District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Clark County Department of Air Quality and
Washoe County Health District portions of the Nevada State
Implementation Plan. These revisions concern emissions of particulate
matter from fugitive dust. We are proposing to approve local rules to
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act. We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by April 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0653 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew
Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or
edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4125<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules
    D. Public comment and proposed action
III. Incorporation by reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agencies, Washoe County Health
District (WCHD) and Clark County Department of Air Quality (CCDAQ), and
submitted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency                   Rule No.               Rule title            Revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WCHD...........................  010.000                  Definitions...........        05/26/16        08/15/16
WCHD...........................  040.051                  Wood-Burning Devices..        05/26/16        08/15/16
CCDAQ..........................  26                       Emission of Visible           05/05/15        06/29/15
                                                           Air Contaminants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 16, 2016 and August 11, 2015, the EPA determined that
the submittals for WCHD and CCDAQ, respectively, met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal
EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 010.000 into the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) on February 01, 1972 (33 FR 15080) and Rule
040.051 into the SIP on June 18, 2007 (72 FR 33397). The WCHD adopted
revisions to the SIP-approved versions on May 26, 2016 and NDEP
submitted them to us on August 15, 2016. We approved an earlier version
of Rule 26 into the SIP on August 27, 1981 (46 FR 43141). The CCDAQ
adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on December 30, 2008 and
May 05, 2015, and NDEP submitted them to us on November 20, 2014 and
June 29, 2015, respectively. While we can act on only the most recently
submitted version of the rules, we have reviewed materials provided
with previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    Particulate Matter (PM), including PM equal to or less than 2.5
microns in diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10), contributes to effects that are
harmful to human health and the environment, including premature
mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease,
decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to
vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) requires states to submit regulations that control PM emissions.
WCHD Rule 010.000 was revised to include new definitions, eliminate
obsolete definitions and change some existing definitions applicable to
Rule 040.051, Wood-Burning Devices. WCHD Rule 040.051 was revised to
incorporate requirements from Rule 040.052 (rescinded) and the EPA's
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Wood Heaters. CCDAQ Rule 26
was revised to reference the use of EPA Test Method 9 to determine
compliance with the visible emissions limits. The EPA's technical
support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193). CCDAQ and WCHD regulate areas that
are classified as attainment for the 24-hour PM10 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (see 40 CFR part 81.305). Rule
CCDAQ Rule 26 is comparable to other district rules used to enforce a
visible emissions limit of 20% opacity and WCHD Rules 040.010 and
040.051 fulfill relevant CAA Best Available Control Measures (BACM)
requirements. For these reasons, we believe the rules will not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
(57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992 and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations'' (``the Bluebook,'' U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised
January 11, 1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies'' (``the Little Bluebook'', EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (59 FR 41998,
August 16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document'' (EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We are proposing to approve these rules because they are consistent
with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, and SIP
relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rules.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant
requirements. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
until April 10, 2017. If we take final action to approve the submitted
rules, our final action will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the CCQAD and WCHD rules described in Table 1 of this
preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 19, 2017.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-04777 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 134 (Friday, July 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45232-45233]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0251]

National Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard seeks applications to fill two member
vacancies on the National Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee
(Committee). This Committee advises the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security through the Commandant of the United States Coast
Guard on matters relating to the medical certification determinations
for the issuance of licenses, certification of registry, and merchant
mariners' documents with respect to merchant mariners; medical
standards and guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators
of commercial vessels; medical examiner education; and medical
research.

DATES: Completed applications should reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or
before September 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Applications should include a cover letter expressing
interest in an appointment to the National Merchant Mariner Medical
Advisory Committee, a resume detailing the applicant's relevant
experience for the position applied for (including the mariner
reference number for the credentials held for professional mariner
applicants), and a brief biography. Applications should be submitted
via email with subject line ``Application for NMEDMAC'' to
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pamela Moore, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer of the National Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory
Committee; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Merchant Mariner Medical
Advisory Committee is a Federal advisory committee. The Committee must
operate under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
(Pub. L. 117-286, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10), and 46 U.S.C. 15109.
    The Committee was established on December 4, 2018, by section 601
of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L.
115-282, 132 Stat. 4192), and is codified in 46 U.S.C. 15104.
    The Committee is required to meet at least once a year in
accordance with 46 U.S.C. 15109(a). We expect the Committee will hold
meetings at least twice a year, at locations across the country
selected by the U.S. Coast Guard.
    Under provisions in 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(6), if you are appointed as
a member of the Committee, your membership term will expire on December
31st of the third full year after the effective date of your
appointment. Under 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(4), the Secretary of Homeland
Security may require an individual to have passed an appropriate
security background examination before appointment to the Committee.
    All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary or
other compensation from the Federal Government. Members may be
reimbursed for travel and per diem in accordance with Federal Travel
Regulations. If you are appointed as a member of the Committee, you
will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a Gratuitous
Services Agreement.
    In this solicitation for Committee members, we will consider
applications for two (2) positions:
     One shall be a health-care professional with particular
expertise, knowledge, and experience regarding the medical examinations
of merchant mariners or occupational medicine and represent health-care
professionals.
     One shall be a professional mariner who has expertise,
knowledge, and experience in occupational requirements for mariners and
represent professional mariners.
    Each member of the Committee must have particular expertise,
knowledge, and experience on matters relating to (1) medical
certification determinations for the issuance of licenses,
certification of registry, and merchant mariners' documents with
respect to merchant mariners; (2) medical standards and guidelines for
the physical qualifications of operators of commercial vessels; (3)
medical examiner education; and (4) medical research.
    The members who will hold the two positions described above will be
appointed to represent the interest of their respective groups and
viewpoints and are not Special Government Employee as defined in 18
U.S.C. 202(a).
    In order for the Department, to fully leverage broad-ranging
experience and education, the National Merchant Mariner Medical
Advisory Committee must be diverse with regard to professional and
technical expertise. The Department is committed to pursuing
opportunities, consistent with applicable law, to compose a committee
that reflects the diversity of the Nation's people.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the
Committee, email your application to [email protected] as
provided in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Applications must
include: (1) a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to
the National Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee; (2) a resume
detailing the applicant's relevant experience and (3) a brief biography
of the applicant by the deadline in the DATES section of this notice.
The U.S. Coast Guard will not consider incomplete or late applications.

    Dated: June 27, 2023.
Jeffrey G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2023-14947 Filed 7-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49465-49469]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1952

[Docket ID. OSHA 2014-0019]
RIN 1218-AC92

Arizona State Plan for Occupational Safety and Health

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

ACTION: Proposed rejection of State initiated plan change;
reconsideration of final approval of State plan; and request for
written comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires state plans to
provide safety standards ``at least as effective as'' those of Federal
OSHA. The legislature of Arizona enacted a fall protection standard for
residential roofing that provides fall protection at heights above 15
feet, while that of OSHA provides protection to workers at 6 feet. OSHA
is proposing to take action to require Arizona to revise its standard
to provide equivalent protection. OSHA is initiating two concurrent
administrative proceedings which would officially reject Arizona's fall
protection standard, and rescind the ``final approval'' status of the
Arizona state plan in the construction industry, to allow OSHA to
enforce Federal construction safety standards pending enactment by
Arizona of an ``at least as effective'' fall protection standard. OSHA
is soliciting written comments to ensure that all relevant information,
views and data are available to the Assistant Secretary. If requested,
a public hearing may be held on these issues.

DATES: Comments and requests for a hearing must be received by
September 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Written comments: Submit comments, identified by docket
number OSHA-2014-0019, or regulatory information number (RIN) 1218-
AC92, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Follow the instructions on-line for making electronic submissions; or
    Fax: If your submission, including attachments, does not exceed 10
pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
    U.S. mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier
service: Submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket
Office, Docket Number OSHA-2014-0019, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is<PHONE_NUMBER>). Deliveries (hand,
express mail, messenger and courier service) are accepted during the
Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15
a.m.-4:45 p.m., EDT.
    Instructions for submitting comments: All submissions must include
the docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2014-0019) or the RIN number (RIN
1218-AC92) for this rulemaking. Because of security-related procedures,
submission by regular mail may result in significant delay. Please
contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures for making submissions by hand delivery, express delivery
and messenger or courier service.

    All comments, including any personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without change and will be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions you
about submitting personal information such as social security numbers
and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download submissions in response to this Federal
Register notice, go to docket number OSHA-2014-0019, at http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, however some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through that
Web page. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register document are available
at http://www.regulations.gov. This document as well as news releases
and other relevant information, is available at OSHA's Web page at
http://www.osha.gov. A copy of the documents referenced in this notice
may also be obtained from the OSHA Docket Office, at the address above.
Other information about the Arizona State Plan is posted on the state's
Web site at http://www.ica.state.az.us/adosh/adosh_main.aspx.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Mr. Francis Meilinger, OSHA Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general and technical information: Mr. Douglas J. Kalinowski,
Director, OSHA Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs, Room N-
3700, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Arizona State Plan

    Arizona administers an OSHA-approved State Plan to develop and
enforce occupational safety and health standards for public and private
sector employers, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of the
Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
667) (``the Act''). The Arizona State Plan received initial Federal
OSHA plan approval on November 5, 1974 (39 FR 39037), and the Arizona
Occupational Safety and Health Division (ADOSH) of the Industrial
Commission of Arizona is designated as the state agency responsible for
administering the State Plan. Pursuant to Section 18(e) of the Act,
OSHA granted Arizona ``final approval'' effective June 20, 1985 (50 FR
25561). Final approval under Section 18(e) requires, among other
things, a finding by the Assistant Secretary that the plan, in actual
operation, provides worker protection ``at least as effective as'' that
provided by Federal OSHA. A final approval determination results in the
relinquishment of Federal concurrent enforcement authority in the state
with respect to occupational safety and health issues covered by the
plan (29 U.S.C. 667(e)).

OSHA's Residential Construction Fall Protection Standard

    On November 25, 1986, OSHA proposed to revise the Federal
construction fall protection standard. The rulemaking record, developed
over a nine-year period, resulted in a more performance-oriented rule,
issued on August 9, 1994 (29 CFR part 1926, subpart M, 59 FR 40672). In
general, the rule requires that an employee exposed to a fall hazard at
a height of six feet or more must be protected by conventional fall
protection, meaning equipment that prevents or arrests the fall.
    In response to feasibility issues about the rule raised by the
residential construction industry, on December 8, 1995, OSHA issued
interim fall protection procedures (STD 3.1) for residential
construction employers that differ from those in the rule. OSHA
Instruction STD 03-00-001 (a plain language rewrite and renumbering of
STD 3.1) set out an interim compliance policy that permitted employers
engaged in certain residential construction activities to use specified
alternative procedures instead of conventional fall protection. These
alternative procedures could be used without a prior showing of
infeasibility or greater hazard and without a written, site-specific
fall protection plan, requirements which apply to exceptions from the
general requirement to use conventional fall protection in other
construction sectors. OSHA never intended STD 03-00-001 to be a
permanent policy; in issuing the Instruction, OSHA stated that the
guidance provided therein would remain in effect until further notice
or until completion of a new formal rulemaking effort addressing these
concerns.
    On July 14, 1999, OSHA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) (64 FR 38078) seeking comments and data on claims of
infeasibility of fall protection requirements for certain construction
activities, which marked the start of its evaluation of STD 03-00-001.
In the ANPR, OSHA stated that the fall protection requirements of
subpart M were already established as reasonably necessary and
appropriate to protect workers and as technologically and economically
feasible for employers. OSHA noted that since the promulgation of
Subpart M, there had been advances in the types and capability of
commercially available fall protection equipment and therefore, OSHA
intended to rescind STD 03-00-001 unless persuasive evidence of
infeasibility or significant safety hazard was presented. OSHA was
willing to consider, and sought additional information on, specific
concerns raised by employers engaged in certain residential
construction activities.
    After considering all comments submitted on the record, OSHA
concluded that, overall, there was no persuasive evidence that most
residential construction employers would be unable to find a safe and
feasible means of protecting workers from falls in accord with Subpart
M, 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13). Therefore, on December 16, 2010, OSHA's
Compliance Guidance for Residential Construction (STD 03-11-002)
canceled OSHA's interim enforcement policy (STD 03-00-001) on fall
protection for certain residential construction activities, and
required employers engaged in residential construction to fully comply
with 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13). This new guidance informed State Plans
that, in accordance with the Act, they must each have a compliance
directive on fall protection in residential construction that, in
combination with applicable State Plan standards, resulted in an
enforcement program that is at least as effective as Federal OSHA's
program (75 FR 80315, Dec. 22, 2010).

Arizona's Residential Construction Fall Protection Standard

    On June 16, 2011, ADOSH adopted STD 03-11-002, but on June 17,
2011, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) immediately stayed the
enforcement of this directive. Then on November 30, 2011 the ICA lifted
the stay, effective January 1, 2012. On March 27, 2012, a new law, SB
1441, was signed into legislation, requiring conventional fall
protection in residential construction whenever an employee is working
at a height of fifteen or more feet or whenever a roof slope is steeper
than 7:12, and creating

an exception if implementation of conventional fall protection is
``infeasible or creates a greater hazard.'' SB 1441 was codified as
Arizona Revised Statute, Title 23, Ch. 2, Art 13 (A.R.S. 23-492), which
sets forth fall protection requirements for residential construction
work in the state. ADOSH then adopted the requirements of A.R.S. 23-492
as a state standard (Ariz. Admin. Code R20-5-601.01). On April 22,
2014, a new law, SB 1307, which makes certain revisions to A.R.S. 23-
492, was signed into law. This revised version of the state statute
makes some relatively minor changes to its fall protection
requirements, does not alter the 15-foot height for conventional fall
protection, and contains a conditional repeal provision.
    The OSH Act requires State Plans to have standards that are at
least as effective as Federal OSHA's standards (29 USC 667(c)(2)). In
most instances, state standards are adopted by the designated state
occupational safety and health agency, and are forwarded to OSHA as
supplements to the State Plan (29 CFR 1953.4). In this instance,
however, the legislature itself provided the standard (Ariz. Admin.
Code R20-5-601.01). Accordingly, the State Plan supplement at issue in
this Federal Register document is referred to as the ``state statute''
rather than ``standard'' or ``supplement,'' the terms used in OSHA's
procedural regulations.

Steps Prior to This Document

    Following an extensive review of the Arizona statute, on December
7, 2012, OSHA sent a letter to ADOSH stating that Federal OSHA has
determined that the state statute is not at least as effective as the
Federal equivalent in ensuring protection of residential construction
workers. Since that time, OSHA has held numerous meetings and phone
calls with Arizona stakeholders, ADOSH and the Industrial Commission of
Arizona, which oversees ADOSH. The OSHA National Office in Washington,
DC also spoke with staff from the Governor's Chief of Staff at the end
of 2013 to express OSHA's concerns about the state statute.
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 1953.6(e), OSHA sent Arizona a letter to show
cause why a proceeding to reject the state statute and reconsider the
State's Final Approval Status should not be commenced, on March 19,
2014. That letter gave the State 30 days to respond, a time
subsequently extended to one week after the 2014 Arizona legislative
session adjourned. On May 1, 2014, Arizona submitted its response. The
response letter pointed to the passage of SB 1307, which is discussed
below. The response letter also argued that because SB 1307 would be
effective in late July 2014, the instant proceeding to reject A.R.S.
23-492 was moot. OSHA does not agree. The changes to A.R.S. 23-492
implemented by SB 1307 are limited, and OSHA has considered the
substance of those changes in this notice. Moreover, the main
provisions of A.R.S. 23-492 which are the basis for OSHA's proposed
rejection of the state statute, including the 15-foot trigger height
for conventional fall protection, remain in both the old and new
versions of the state statute. Additional arguments in the response
letter address the merits of whether Arizona's statute is at least as
effective as the Federal fall protection standard. As explained below,
OSHA does not believe that either the original or revised statute is at
least as effective as the Federal standard, and thus OSHA continues to
believe that there is cause to commence a proceeding to reject the
state statute and reconsider the State's Final 18(e) Approval Status.

Comparison of OSHA and Arizona's Residential Construction Fall
Protection Standards: How Arizona Is Not at Least as Effective as OSHA

    Federal OSHA's standard for fall protection in residential
construction (29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13)) generally requires conventional
fall protection (fall arrest systems, safety nets, or guardrails) any
time employees are working at heights of six feet or greater.
Alternative fall protection measures may be used only if the employer
can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to
use the specified methods of conventional fall protection (29 CFR
1926.501(b)(13); see also STD 03-11-002). OSHA's standard creates a
presumption that use of conventional fall protection is feasible and
would not create a greater hazard, and puts the burden on employers to
show otherwise (29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13)). In the limited circumstances
in which conventional fall protection is infeasible or creates a
greater hazard, Federal OSHA requires the employer to implement a
written, site-specific fall protection plan that specifies the
alternative measures that will be taken to eliminate or reduce the
possibility of a fall (29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13); STD 03-11-002).
    In contrast, Arizona's fall protection standard, under the statute
passed in 2012, requires very limited, if any, fall protection for
employees working between six and fifteen feet. With respect to work
performed at heights of 15 feet or greater, Arizona's statute has a
provision requiring the use of conventional fall protection unless the
employer demonstrates that the use of such measures is infeasible or
creates a greater hazard (A.R.S. 23-492.02(A)). Arizona's law does
require a fall protection plan, but unlike Federal OSHA, which requires
fall protection plans to be site-specific, Arizona allows employers to
``develop a single fall protection plan covering all construction
operations'' for work performed at heights below fifteen feet (A.R.S.
23-492.07(A)(1)). Additionally, Arizona's statute contains multiple
exceptions to the general requirement for conventional fall protection
that will result in many circumstances in which conventional fall
protection is not required (A.R.S. 23-492.02(B); 23-492.04(D)(1) and
(D)(2); 23-492.04(G)(2); and (G)(3)). It also allows alternative fall
protection to be used, i.e. slide guards and roof jack systems, in
certain circumstances (A.R.S. 23-492.04(G)(1)(b); 23-492.05(B)).
    Arizona's fall protection statute, newly revised in 2014, continues
to require very limited, if any, fall protection for employees working
between six and fifteen feet. At those heights, the statute continues
to require only a fall protection plan, which can be a single plan for
all sites. (SB 1307 Sec. 5(A)(1)). The newer version of the statute,
like the older one, requires conventional fall protection at a height
of 15 feet, and allows an exemption if that fall protection is
infeasible or creates a greater hazard (Sec. 2(A)). Though the revised
statute does eliminate some exemptions to and alternative methods of
fall protection, it still allows other exemptions to conventional fall
protection, SB 1307 Sec. 1(6) and Sec. 3(G)(2), and allows the use of
other alternative methods, i.e. ``eave barriers'' and parapet walls
(Secs. 3(G)(1), 4(A) and 4(B)).
    After reviewing the provisions of both versions of the state
statute, OSHA has concluded that the Arizona statute is not at least as
effective as OSHA's standard. The most notable problematic differences
being Arizona's 15 foot trigger height for using conventional fall
protection as opposed to OSHA's six foot trigger height, the single
fall protection plan for all worksites, and the exceptions to the
requirement for conventional fall protection. On the basis of these
concerns about the state statute, OSHA is initiating a proceeding to
reject the state stature and reconsider the State Plan's Final
Approval, and requests public comment.

Proposed Rejection of Arizona's State Statute and Reconsideration of
Final Approval of the State Plan

    This document proposes to reject the Arizona Revised Statute 23-
492, including the revisions in SB 1307, and concurrently reconsider
the Arizona State Plan's Final Approval pursuant to 29 CFR 1953.6(e)
and 29 CFR 1902.47 et seq., respectively. OSHA is moving forward with
both processes simultaneously with the understanding that
reconsideration of final approval is contingent on successful rejection
of the state statute.
    Arizona must have an enforcement program for residential fall
protection that is at least as effective as OSHA's. As explained in STD
03-11-002:

    States with OSHA-approved State Plans must have a compliance
directive on fall protection in residential construction that, in
combination with applicable State Plan standards, results in an
enforcement program that is at least as effective as Federal OSHA's
program. State plans must adopt the interpretation of ``residential
construction'' and the citation policy described in paragraphs IX
and X of this Instruction or an at least as effective alternative
interpretation and policy.

    SB 1307 contains a conditional repeal provision stating that if
OSHA does reject the state statute, and publishes that decision in the
Federal Register pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.23, then A.R.S. 23-492 is
repealed by operation of law (Sec. 7). Arizona's response to OSHA's
show cause letter argued that if the state statute is repealed, ADOSH
would revert to enforcing 29 CFR part 1926, Subpart M, thus OSHA does
not need to proceed on reconsideration of the State's final approval
status. OSHA will proceed with reconsideration as a part of the
proceeding to reject the Arizona statute. If rejection is successful,
this would establish the basis for OSHA to reconsider the State's final
approval status if the State does not implement and enforce 29 CFR part
1926, Subpart M and STD 03-11-002, or an at least as effective
alternative, in an at least as effective manner. The lack of any such
implementation or enforcement would leave a gap in the State's
enforcement program, but if the State retained its final approval,
neither the State nor Federal OSHA could cover that gap. Any such gap
in the State Plan's enforcement program would serve as the basis for
the Assistant Secretary's reconsideration of 18(e) final approval
status. But as explained below, the Assistant Secretary may stagger the
decisions on rejection and reconsideration, issuing a rejection
decision first, and if it is successful, then delaying the decision on
reconsideration to allow the state time to implement and begin
enforcement of STD 03-11-002.

The Extent of OSHA's Coverage if Arizona's Final Approval Is
Reconsidered

    While the issue at hand is limited to fall protection in
residential construction, it may not be possible or practical to limit
Federal coverage this narrowly, and it would likely extend to all
aspects of construction, including residential, throughout the state.
First, limiting Federal coverage to fall protection is not efficient or
effective because once an inspector is on a worksite, he or she is
obligated to inspect all aspects of the site. For example, if a Federal
inspection is initiated in response to a reported fall hazard, but
electrical, chemical, or equipment hazards are observed, those hazards
would need to be addressed immediately. It would be impractical to
contact ADOSH and have two agencies devoting resources to conduct two
inspections at the same site.
    Second, limiting Federal coverage to residential construction may
not be feasible or effective because it is not always possible, with
simple visual observation of a site, to tell if a structure under
construction is a residence or a business. It may be necessary to
interview individuals at the site, investigate building permits, or
find other information before that determination can be made. It would
not be effective or efficient for an inspector to make these efforts,
determine that a site is not residential, and then leave to conduct
work elsewhere.
    Third, it may be problematic for the regulated public to have
Federal OSHA enforcing requirements in residential construction while
the state enforces in the rest of the construction sector. The two
agencies have different inspection procedures, penalty assessments, and
appeals processes. Many individual contractors work on both residential
and commercial construction projects, and it would be preferable to
avoid oversight by multiple agencies, if possible.
    Fourth, there also may be issues in reconciling the Federal
definition of residential construction in STD 03-11-002, and the
uncertainty of a definition of residential construction in Arizona. For
this reason, it may be difficult to come to an agreement about which
sites fall under residential construction and which are general
construction.

Operational Status Agreement

    OSHA regulations provide that in states with initially-approved
plans, OSHA and the state may enter into an agreement describing the
division of responsibilities between them (29 CFR 1954.3). If the
Assistant Secretary were to make a final decision on reconsideration to
revoke final approval for construction, Federal authority for
discretionary concurrent enforcement would resume, and it may be useful
for OSHA and ADOSH to develop an Operational Status Agreement (OSA)
specifying the level of Federal and state enforcement. The OSA would
also include a timetable for remedial action to make state operations
``as least as effective.'' Notice would be provided in the Federal
Register of any such agreement.

Procedures for the Proceeding and Hearing

    OSHA's regulation on rejection of a State Plan Change, 29 CFR
1953.6(e), refers to procedures in 29 CFR 1902.17 et seq. Then 29 CFR
1902.19, in turn, refers to the procedures in 5 U.S.C. 556-557. OSHA's
regulations on reconsideration of State Plan status, 29 CFR 1902.47 et
seq., refer to procedures in 29 CFR 1902.40 for a hearing. These two
sets of procedures (5 U.S.C. 556-557 and 29 CFR 1902.40) are similar,
and OSHA will adhere to the procedural requirements in both sets of
procedures. OSHA sent Arizona a letter to show cause why a proceeding
to reject the State statute and reconsider the state's Final Approval
Status should not be commenced, per 29 CFR 1953.6(e). This notice sets
forth a 35-day comment period, pursuant to 29 CFR 1902.49, to provide
interested parties an opportunity to provide in writing, data, views
and arguments on the proposed rejection of the Arizona statute and
proposal to reconsider final approval. Relevant materials, including
all public comments, relevant Federal monitoring reports, and other
pertinent documentation will be publically available in OSHA's Docket
Office and on www.regulations.gov, as described above. At the close of
the public comment period, OSHA will review all comments submitted.
    A hearing would be presided over by an Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ), and the pre-hearing procedure may include opportunities for
subpoenas, depositions, and settlement conferences, within the
discretion of presiding ALJ (5 U.S.C. 556(c)). The ALJ may entertain
motions and may dispose of procedural requests, objections, and
comparable matters (29 CFR 1902.40(c)(2)). Under the rules of the
Department of Labor's Office of Administrative Law Judges, the ALJ also
has discretion on the rules for the proceeding (29 CFR 18.1(b)). The

hearing itself would include the presentation of testimony, cross-
examination of witnesses, and the introduction of exhibits, by both
parties (5 U.S.C. 556(d)). A hearing transcript would be created, and
ultimately, OSHA would have the burden of proof (5 U.S.C. 556(d)). At
the conclusion of any hearing, participants in the hearing would have
the opportunity to submit proposed findings, along with supporting
reasons and any additional data, views, or argument, within a period of
thirty days (29 CFR 1902.19 and 1902.40(c)(6)).
    Assuming Arizona does not waive the tentative decision, the
Assistant Secretary will issue a tentative decision, on the basis of
the whole record, either approving or disapproving the state's statute
(29 CFR 1902.21). This tentative decision will include a statement of
the findings and conclusions that form the basis of this decision and
it will be published in the Federal Register (29 CFR 1902.21).
Interested persons participating in the hearing would then have the
opportunity to file exceptions, and objections to those exceptions. Any
exceptions must be filed within thirty days of the tentative decision,
and the objections within a period of time set forth in the tentative
decision (29 CFR 1902.22). Subsequently, the Assistant Secretary will
issue a final decision ruling on each exception and objection and
publish such decision in the Federal Register (29 CFR 1902.22-23). This
publication of the final decision in the Federal Register may also
include the Assistant Secretary's decision on the continuation or
revocation of the Arizona State Plan's affirmative 18(e) determination,
per 29 CFR 1902.52-53, or the two decisions may be issued on a
staggered basis. If the Assistant Secretary's decision is to revoke the
affirmative 18(e) determination, the Federal Register notice containing
that decision will also reflect the Assistant Secretary's determination
that concurrent Federal enforcement and standards authority will be
reinstated within Arizona for a reasonable time until the Assistant
Secretary has either withdrawn approval, or partial approval, of the
plan pursuant to 29 CFR 1955, or has determined that Arizona has once
again met criteria for final approval under section 18(e), (29 CFR
1902.52).
    Pursuant to the regulations cited above, modifying the Arizona
State Plan's status from final to initial approval would give OSHA
concurrent enforcement authority in Arizona, including independent
Federal or joint state and Federal inspections resulting in issuance of
appropriate Federal citations. However, modifying Arizona's final
approval status would not immediately affect Arizona's basic plan
approval and would not eliminate Arizona's legal authority to enforce
state occupational safety and health standards. Pending a final
decision in the proceeding instituted today, OSHA will continue to
exercise Federal authority over safety and health issues excluded from
the scope of coverage of the State Plan; monitoring inspections
including accompanied visits; and other Federal authority not affected
by the June 20, 1985 final approval decision.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210 authorized the
preparation of this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the
authority specified by Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77
FR 3912), and 29 CFR parts 1902, and 1953.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 13, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-19781 Filed 8-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: December 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 231)]
[Notices]
[Page 75187]
[DOCID:fr02de10-32]

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

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 its second field hearing to examine
the municipal securities markets on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 9 a.m.
    The hearing will include panel discussions focusing on market
stability and liquidity, investor impact, self-regulation, accounting
and Build America Bonds.
    The panel discussion and presentations will take place in the
Auditorium of the Commission's headquarters at 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC and will be open to the public with seating on a first-
come, first-served basis. Visitors will be subject to security checks.
The hearing also will be webcast live at http://www.sec.gov.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 29, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30321 Filed 11-30-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45283-45284]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20789]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10254-026]

Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC, Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC;
Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions To
Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New License.
    b. Project No.: 10254-026.
    c. Date filed: November 30, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Pelzer Hydro Company, LLC (Pelzer Hydro),
Consolidated Hydro Southeast, LLC (Consolidated Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Upper Pelzer Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Saluda River in
the Town of Pelzer, in Anderson and Greenville Counties, South
Carolina. The project does not affect federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Beth E. Harris, P.E., Regional Operations
Manager, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., 11 Anderson Street,
Piedmont, SC 29673; Telephone--(864) 846-0042; Email_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OR Kevin Webb, Hydro Licensing Manager, Enel Green
Power North America, Inc., One Tech Drive, Suite 220, Andover, MA
01810; Telephone--(978) 681-1900<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Navreet Deo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests and
requests for cooperating agency status: 60 days from the issuance date
of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests and requests for cooperating agency
status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-10254-026.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The Upper Pelzer Project consists of: (1) A 505-foot-long by
29.7-foot-high granite masonry dam, consisting of (i) a 150-foot-long
non-overflow section, (ii) a 280-foot-long ungated overflow spillway
topped with 4-foot wooden flashboards, and (iii) a 75-foot-long gated
intake section containing six gates; (2) a 25-acre impoundment at a
normal pool elevation of 718.7 feet mean sea level, as measured at the
top of the flashboards; (3) a 260-foot-long by 52-foot-wide forebay
canal channeling flow from 6 canal gates to the project's 2
powerhouses; (4) an upstream concrete powerhouse, protected by a 65-
foot-long trashrack structure with 5.5-inch clear bar spacing for 38
feet of length, and 2-inch clear bar spacing for 27 feet of length,
containing two vertical Francis turbine generating units that total
1,500 kW (kW); (5) a downstream powerhouse, protected by a trashrack
structure with 2-inch clear bar spacing, containing one vertical
Francis turbine generating unit that totals 450 kW; (6) a 95-foot-long
by 74-foot-wide tailrace extending from the upstream powerhouse, and a
132-foot-long by 24-foot-wide tailrace extending from the downstream
powerhouse; (7) a 65-foot-long, 3,300-volt transmission line,
connecting the upper and lower powerhouses with the grid via a 7.2/
12.47 kilovolt transformer; and (8) appurtenant facilities.
    Pelzer Hydro and Consolidated Hydro (co-licensees) operate the
project in a run-of-river mode, with no useable storage or flood
control capacity. There are no minimum flow requirements downstream of
the dam. The project operates under an estimated average head of 25
feet, including the 4-foot spillway flashboards. The impoundment

water surface elevation is maintained at 718.7 feet. River flows
between 159 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 1,200 cfs are used for
power generation, while flows in excess of 1,200 cfs are passed over
the spillway. A single manually operated, low level outlet gate located
in the unregulated spillway portion of the dam is used to drain the
impoundment during maintenance activities. The total installed capacity
of the project is 1,950 kW between the three generating units. The
project generates approximately 6,223 megawatt-hours annually, which
are sold to a local utility.
    The co-licensees propose to continue to operate and maintain the
Upper Pelzer Project as is required in the existing license, and to
develop canoe portage facilities. The co-licensees also propose to
release a continuous minimum flow of 15 cfs or inflow, whichever is
less, from the project dam in order to maintain aquatic habitat and
water quality conditions in the 115-foot-long reach between the dam and
the upstream powerhouse tailrace.
    Other than the development of canoe portage facilities, no new
construction or major project modifications are proposed.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must: (1) Bear in all capital letters the title protest
or motion to intervene; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application.

    Dated: September 21, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20789 Filed 9-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P