54064 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1 Demand Response Compensation in Organized 

Wholesale Energy Markets, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 75 FR 15,362, 130 FERC ¶ 61,213 

(issued March 18, 2010), as supplemented by 

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Notice of Technical Conference (Supplemental 

Notice), 75 FR 47,499, 132 FERC ¶ 61,094 (issued 

August 2, 2010). As stated in the Supplemental 

Notice, comments are due within 30 days of the 

date of the technical conference. Supplemental 

Notice P 19. 

Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8931, Caroline.Daly@ferc.gov. Helen Dyson (Legal Information), Office 

of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–8856, 

helen.dyson@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Supplemental Notice of Technical 

Conference and Notice of Comment 

Date 

• August 27, 2010 

Take notice that on September 13, 

2010, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission will convene a staff-led 

technical conference regarding two 

issues pertaining to demand response 

compensation, as previously 

announced: (1) If the Commission were 

to adopt a net benefits test for 

determining when to compensate 

demand response providers, what, if 

any, requirements should apply to the 

methods for determining net benefits; 

and (2) what, if any, requirements 

should apply to how the costs of 

demand response are allocated.1

Comments concerning matters 

addressed at the technical conference 

and other issues related to this 

proceeding are due on or before October 

13, 2010. Details concerning the 

technical conference and comment 

procedures are set forth below. 

I. Technical Conference 

The technical conference will be held 

on September 13, 2010, starting at 9 a.m. 

(EST), in the Commission Meeting 

Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. The conference 

will be open for the public to attend and 

advance registration is not required. 

Members of the Commission may attend 

the conference. 

As indicated in the Supplemental 

NOPR, the panelists are invited to 

discuss their views on the possible 

adoption of a net benefits test, including 

the methodologies for determining net 

benefits, and a methodology for 

allocating the costs of demand response. In addition to the above-referenced 

issues and other matters directly 

relevant to this proceeding, discussions 

at the public technical conference may 

relate to matters pending in the 

following additional proceedings: 

Docket No. ER10–765–000, California 

Independent System Operator, Inc. 

(CAISO); and Docket Nos. ER09–1049– 

000, ER09–1049–002, and ER09–1049– 

003, Midwest Independent System 

Operator, Inc. The agenda for this conference is 

attached. If any changes occur, the 

revised agenda will be posted on the 

Calendar of Events page on the 

Commission’s Web site, http:// 

www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. To 

ensure that all speakers have an 

opportunity to address the issues, and to 

have ample time for discussion, 

speakers are asked to limit their opening 

remarks to five minutes. Speakers are 

requested to file their opening remarks 

in this docket and to bring 30 copies to 

the conference. 

Transcripts of the conference will be 

available immediately for a fee from Ace 

Reporting Company (202–347–3700 or 

1–800–336–6646). They will be 

available for free on the Commission’s 

eLibrary system and on the Calendar of 

Events approximately one week after the 

conference. 

A free Webcast of the technical 

conference in this proceeding will be 

available. Anyone with Internet access 

interested in viewing this conference 

can do so by navigating to http:// 

www.ferc.gov’s Calendar of Events and 

locating the appropriate event in the 

Calendar. The Calendar of Events will 

contain a link to the applicable Webcast 

option. The Capitol Connection 

provides technical support for the 

Webcasts and offers the option of 

listening to the conferences via phonebridge for a fee. If you have any 

questions, visit http:// 

www.CapitolConnection.org or call (703) 

993–3100. 

Commission conferences are 

accessible under section 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For 

accessibility accommodations, please 

send an e-mail to accessibility@ferc.gov 

or call toll free 1–866–208–3372 (voice) 

or 202–208–1659 (TTY), or send a FAX 

to 202–208–2106 with the required 

accommodations. 

For more information about the 

technical conference or comment 

procedures, please contact: 

David Hunger (Technical Information), 

Office of Energy Policy and 

Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8148, David.Hunger@ferc.gov. Caroline Daly (Technical Information) 

Office of Energy Policy and 

Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8931, Caroline.Daly@ferc.gov. 

Helen Dyson (Legal Information), Office 

of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, (202) 502–8856, 

Helen.Dyson@ferc.gov. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21974 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1908 

[Docket No. OSHA–2010–0010] 

RIN 1218–AC32 

Consultation Agreements: Proposed 

Changes to Consultation Procedures 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to revise 

its regulations for the federally-funded 

On-site Consultation Program to: Clarify 

the ability of the Assistant Secretary to 

define sites which would receive 

inspections regardless of Safety and 

Health Achievement and Recognition 

Program (SHARP) exemption status; 

allow Compliance Safety and Health 

Officers to proceed with enforcement 

visits resulting from referrals at sites 

undergoing Consultation visits and at 

sites that have been awarded SHARP 

status; and, limit the deletion period 

from OSHA’s programmed inspection 

schedule for those employers 

participating in the SHARP program. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before November 2, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number OSHA–2010–0010, or 

regulatory information number (RIN) 

1218–AC32, by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronically: You may 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; 

Fax: If your submission, including 

attachments, does not exceed 10 pages, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54065 

you may fax them to the OSHA Docket 

Office at (202) 693–1648; or 

Mail, hand delivery, express mail, 

messenger or courier service: You must 

submit your comments, and attachments 

to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket 

Number OSHA–2010–0010, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Room N–2625, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 

693–2350 (OSHA’s TTY number is (877) 

889–5627). 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., e.t. 

Instructions for submitting comments: 

All submissions must include the 

docket number (Docket No. OSHA– 

2010–0010) or the RIN number (RIN 

1218–AC32) 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 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

OSHA cautions you about submitting 

personal information such as social 

security numbers and birthdates. For 

further information on submitting 

comments, plus additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this notice. 

Docket: To read or download 

submissions in response to this Federal 

Register notice, go to docket number 

OSHA–2010–0010, 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

press inquiries: MaryAnn Garrahan, 

Acting Director, OSHA, Office of 

Communications, Room N–3647, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–1999. For general 

and technical information: Steven F. 

Witt, Director, OSHA Directorate of 

Cooperative and State Programs, Room 

N–3700, U.S. Department of Labor 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington 

DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–2200. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background: The OSHA On-Site 

Consultation Program 

The Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), through 

cooperative agreements with agencies in 

48 states, the District of Columbia and 

several U.S. territories, administers and 

provides Federal funding for the On-site 

Consultation Program. In the states of 

Kentucky and Washington, and in the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on-site 

consultation services are provided to 

employers in the private sector as part 

of an OSHA-approved state plan funded 

by Federal grants under section 23(g) of 

the Occupational Safety and Health 

(OSH) Act. The On-site Consultation 

Program provides well-trained 

professional safety and health 

personnel, at no cost and upon request 

of an employer, to conduct worksite 

visits to identify occupational hazards 

and provide advice on compliance with 

OSHA regulations and standards. 

Priority in providing on-site 

consultation visits is accorded to 

smaller employers in more hazardous 

industries. 

The On-site Consultation Program 

was first authorized by Congressional 

appropriations action in 1974. On July 

16, 1998, The On-site Consultation 

Program was codified as a new 

subsection of 21(d) of the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act with the 

enactment of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration Compliance 

Assistance Authorization Act (CAAA), 

Public Law 105–197. OSHA’s On-site 

Consultation Program is administered in 

accordance with regulations at § 1908. 

These regulations provide, among other 

things, rules and procedures for State 

consultants performing worksite visits. 

Following the successful completion of 

an on-site consultation visit, employers 

may seek to participate in OSHA 

Consultation’s SHARP (Safety and 

Health Achievement Recognition 

Program). The program recognizes 

employers who have demonstrated 

exemplary achievements in workplace 

safety and health by receiving a 

comprehensive safety and health 

consultation visit, correcting all 

workplace safety and health hazards, 

adopting and implementing effective 

safety and health management systems, 

and agreeing to request further 

consultative visits if major changes in 

working conditions or processes occur 

that may introduce new hazards. Part 

1908 currently allows employers 

meeting these specific program 

requirements an exemption from 

programmed OSHA inspections for one 

year. 

In this Federal Register notice, OSHA 

proposes revisions to these rules and 

procedures, as well as poses questions, 

and requests interested members of the 

public to submit any data, views, or 

arguments relevant to these proposed 

changes, during a 60-day public 

comment period. 

II. Proposed Changes to 29 CFR Part 

1908 

Revisions Delineating the Relationship 

With OSHA Enforcement 

1. Other Critical Inspections 

Under current § 1908.7(b)(4)(ii), 

although worksites granted Safety and 

Health Achievement Recognition 

Program (SHARP) status and those 

working towards achieving SHARP 

status (Pre-SHARP) are either deleted or 

deferred from the programmed 

inspection lists, they are still eligible for 

non-programmed inspections in the 

following categories: 

A. Imminent danger. 

B. Fatality/Catastrophe. 

C. Formal Complaints. 

At times, however, special 

circumstances may make it necessary to 

conduct an inspection or investigation 

at an establishment ordinarily exempt 

because of the employer’s participation 

in the OSHA On-site Consultation 

Program. One such situation might arise 

in connection with workplace accidents 

that generate widespread public concern 

about a particular hazard or substance. 

As part of a national response to these 

hazards, OSHA may need to conduct 

programmed inspections of all sites 

within a specific industry. An onsite 

OSHA investigation might also be 

appropriate in the rare circumstance 

where a subsequent accident or other 

event at a particular establishment 

makes it advisable for OSHA to revisit 

the site. For this reason OSHA is 

proposing the addition of a fourth 

category, ‘‘other critical inspections as 

determined by the Assistant Secretary,’’ 

to the list of permissible inspections for 

worksites which have otherwise been 

deleted or deferred from programmed 

inspection lists as a result of SHARP or 

Pre-SHARP participation. Although 

Section 21(d) does not contain an 

explicit exception to allow for 

programmed inspections under these 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
54066 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

circumstances, it does allow OSHA 

discretion related to programmed 

exceptions by stating that an employer 

‘‘may’’ be exempt from an inspection if 

the employer meets the criteria for 

recognition and exemption delineated 

by the statute. This addition is also 

consistent with current requirements of 

part 1908, as this particular exception 

already exists in § 1908.7(b)(2)(iv), 

which provides the same criteria for 

termination of an ‘‘in progress’’ 

consultation visit. It is not possible to 

define or predict every circumstance 

where an investigation may be 

necessary at a site that is deferred or 

deleted from OSHA’s programmed 

inspection lists as a result of 

consultation activity; accordingly, the 

exception is worded in very general 

terms. To ensure this exception is 

applied only in exceptional 

circumstances where an onsite 

investigation is clearly warranted, such 

investigations must be approved by the 

Assistant Secretary. 

In addition, current § 1908.7(b)(2) is 

internally inconsistent with the 

provisions related to pre-SHARP and 

SHARP in its use of the term 

‘‘Complaints’’ as opposed to ‘‘Formal 

Complaints’’ used in current 

§ 1908.7(b)(4)(ii) when describing the 

categories in which an employer with 

an in-progress consultation visit may be 

subject to termination of the visit and a 

subsequent enforcement inspection. 

While such distinctions do exist 

between the terms ‘‘Formal Complaints’’ 

and ‘‘Complaints,’’ OSHA general 

enforcement policy treats all types of 

complaints in a similar fashion. As a 

result, OSHA does not need to 

distinguish between Formal Complaints 

and Complaints when ascertaining the 

need to interrupt ‘‘in progress’’ or 

SHARP visits. Therefore, for 

consistency, OSHA is proposing to use 

the same language and descriptions for 

the interruptions to all consultation 

visits. 

2. Referrals 

OSHA proposes to add a new category 

which will allow for termination of an 

in-progress onsite consultative visit, as 

well as enforcement inspections at 

worksites that are otherwise in preSHARP or SHARP status. Under the 

current provisions of part 1908, 

enforcement activity may be initiated 

under the following categories: 

(i) Imminent danger investigations; 

(ii) Fatality/catastrophe 

investigations; 

(iii) Complaint investigations; 

(iv) Other critical inspections as 

determined by the Assistant Secretary. 

Current OSHA enforcement policy 

allows inspections to be initiated 

following a referral and are considered 

a type of non-programmed inspection, 

similar to a complaint. In some 

instances, referrals may identify hazards 

or suspected hazards that will 

necessitate termination of consultation 

activity to allow for a non-programmed 

enforcement inspection of that 

particular worksite. With this change, 

referrals will now be a basis to initiate 

enforcement activity at worksites 

subject to deferrals or deletions from 

programmed inspections as a result of 

either an in progress consultation visit, 

or a worksite in pre-SHARP or SHARP 

status. As a result of the above changes, 

unprogrammed inspections will be 

treated consistently for ‘‘in progress’’ 

interruptions and interruptions of 

SHARP and Pre-SHARP status, and will 

occur at the discretion of the Regional 

Administrator (RA). 

3. Removal From Programmed 

Inspection Schedules 

OSHA is proposing to revise 

paragraph § 1908.7(b)(4), Programmed 

Inspection Schedule, to change the 

deletion period from OSHA’s 

programmed inspections list. The 

regulation currently states that 

employers will have their names 

removed from OSHA’s programmed 

inspection schedule for a period of ‘‘not 

less than one year.’’ Today’s proposed 

rule would amend the wording in part 

1908 to more closely conform to the 

exemption period prescribed by section 

21(d) of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act, and would provide that an 

employer that meets the requirements 

set forth in section 21(d) will have the 

name of its establishment removed from 

the general schedule inspection list for 

a period of one year. 

The proposed rule would also address 

the issue of inspection exemptions 

beyond one year. While 21(d) authorizes 

a one-year exemption for a consultation 

participant that successfully meets the 

listed criteria, OSHA retains wide 

discretion under other provisions of the 

OSH Act to set priorities and establish 

inspection schedules. Section 8(g) of the 

Act empowers OSHA to issue rules and 

regulations dealing with the inspection 

of work establishments. Department of 

Labor v. Kast Metals Corp. 744 F.2d 

1145, 1151 (5th Cir. 1984). The agency 

will never have sufficient staff to 

inspect every establishment, and has 

authority under the OSH Act to 

schedule programmed inspections in a 

way that makes efficient use of its 

compliance resources where they can 

have the greatest impact on worker 

safety. Industrial Steel Prod. Co. v. 

OSHA, 845 F.2d 1330, 1331 (5th Cir. 

1988). Rearranging the priority of 

particular establishments within an 

inspection plan is reasonable and 

permissible ‘‘because it furthers OSHA’s 

legitimate goal of efficient resource 

allocation.’’ Id. Many specialized 

inspection plans developed by OSHA, 

such as National Emphasis Programs, 

require investigation of hazards that 

potentially exist at many thousands of 

establishments across the country. 

Having the resources to conduct only a 

finite number of programmed 

inspections, OSHA must direct its 

resources to those establishments most 

likely to present uncorrected hazards. 

Thus, for example, instead of inspecting 

a facility that has had a wall-to-wall 

visit by an On-site Consultation 

professional in the past two years, 

OSHA may reasonably decide to inspect 

an establishment that has had no OSHA 

intervention of any kind. Accordingly, 

existing policy allows for deletion 

periods extending beyond one year. 

While acknowledging OSHA’s lawful 

discretion to establish inspection 

programs that provide for deletions from 

the programmed inspection schedule 

beyond the basic one-year programmed 

inspection deletion under 21(d), the 

proposed rule would place a one-year 

limit on such additional deletions. An 

employer’s fulfillment of the SHARP 

participation requirements involve 

completing all the steps described in 

21(d), a process that can take three years 

or more. Small businesses, which are 

the focus of the consultation program, 

are extremely dynamic and changeable. 

Small enterprises can more quickly 

change their operations, equipment and 

safety procedures without the 

investment of time and materials that a 

larger business might require. 

OSHA recognizes that employer 

participation in voluntary programs 

such as SHARP contributes greatly to 

the statutory goal of eliminating 

hazards, and enables the agency to 

better allocate its scarce compliance 

resources. However, it is also important 

that OSHA retain authority to conduct 

programmed inspections, and that 

establishments be aware they may be 

the subject of such an inspection. Such 

awareness may itself be an incentive for 

vigorous compliance efforts. See Reich 

v. OSHRC, 102 F.3d 1200, 1203 (11th 

Cir. 1997). On balance, OSHA believes 

that, after the expiration of the one-year 

inspection exemption provided under 

21(d), the name of an establishment may 

be deleted from the programmed 

inspection schedule for no more than 

one additional year. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54067 

4. Clarification of Terminology 

Along with the changes proposed 

above, OSHA also wishes to clarify 

terminology used in Part 1908. Thus, 

the types of enforcement exemptions for 

which a worksite may be eligible after 

receiving a safety and health 

consultation visit should be defined and 

described in the same terminology used 

in the Site Specific Targeting (SST) and 

other OSHA enforcement guidance. 

OSHA is proposing, for consistency 

with terminology used in enforcement 

programs such as the SST, to use the 

terms ‘‘deferral’’ and ‘‘deletion’’ when 

describing exemptions from 

programmed inspections. Any deferrals 

and deletions are subject to the time 

periods specified in the proposal and 

not limited by inspection lists under the 

SST. 

III. Preliminary Economic Analysis 

OSHA’s On-site Consultation Program 

is voluntary, both for employers who 

seek this no-cost service and for States 

that provide it. The goal of the proposed 

revisions to existing Consultation 

Agreement regulations is to: (a) Clarify 

the ability of the Assistant Secretary to 

define sites which would receive 

inspections regardless of Safety and 

Health Achievement and Recognition 

Program (SHARP) exemption status; 

(b) allow Compliance Safety and Health 

Officers to proceed with enforcement 

visits resulting from referrals at sites 

undergoing Consultation visits and at 

sites that have been awarded SHARP 

status; (c) limit the deletion period from 

OSHA’s programmed inspection 

schedule for those employers 

participating in the SHARP program. 

OSHA finds that the proposed revisions 

will not impose any new cost on 

affected employers. 

The Agency has not quantified the 

potential cost reductions to employers 

or benefits to employees from the 

proposed revisions to the existing rule. 

The Agency has preliminarily 

concluded that no additional costs will 

be imposed on employers who choose to 

utilize State On-site Consultation 

project services and, therefore, no 

adverse economic impact on those 

employers is foreseen. 

IV. Executive Order 12866 

In terms of economic impact, the rule 

being proposed does not constitute an 

economically significant regulation 

within the meaning of Executive Order 

12866, because it does not have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more; materially affect any 

single sector of the economy; interfere 

with the programs of other Agencies; 

materially affect the budgetary impact of 

grant or entitlement programs; nor result 

in other adverse effects of the kind 

specified in the Executive Order. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification 

The On-site Consultation Program is 

designed to aid small employers, the 

same population identified for the 

protections of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Since 

the proposed revisions do not impose 

new costs on small employers, the 

Assistant Secretary certifies that the 

regulation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Participation 

in the On-site Consultation Program 

both by States and employers is 

voluntary. State agencies that have 

elected to furnish On-site Consultation 

services under cooperative agreements 

with OSHA are not covered entities 

under the RFA. Since the On-site 

Consultation Program is historically 

targeted to small, high-hazard 

workplaces, employers affected by the 

rule would tend to include a substantial 

number of small entities, but, as 

indicated in the foregoing discussion of 

regulatory impacts, the proposal should 

have no measurable economic impact 

on employers. 

VI. Environmental Impact 

The proposed standard has been 

reviewed in accordance with the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 

part 1500), and Department of Labor 

(DOL) NEPA Procedures (29 CFR part 

11). The provisions of the rule focus on 

policies pertaining to exemptions from 

programmed OSHA inspections. 

Consequently, no major negative impact 

associated with the rule is foreseen on 

air, water or soil quality, plant or animal 

life, the use of land or other aspects of 

the environment. 

VII. Unfunded Mandates 

For the purposes of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, as well 

as Executive Order 12875, this proposed 

rule does not include any Federal 

mandate that may result in increased 

expenditures by State, local, and/or 

tribal governments, or increased 

expenditures by the private sector of 

more than $100 million in any year. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

After a thorough analysis of the 

proposed revisions to part 1908, OSHA 

believes that the proposal imposes no 

new collection-of-information 

requirements (i.e., paperwork). The 

current collections-of-information for 

On-site Consultation Agreements (part 

1908) are approved under Office of 

Management and Budget Control 

Number 1218–0110. 

The proposed rule clarifies the ability 

of the Assistant Secretary to define sites 

which would receive inspections, 

allows referrals to initiate inspections at 

sites that are currently undergoing a 

consultative visit, and asks the question 

as to how long a deletion period from 

the programmed OSHA inspection 

schedule for those employers working 

towards or participating in OSHA’s 

recognition and exemption program 

should last. 

On-site Consultation Program visits 

generally impose no paperwork 

requirements on employers. 

Specifically, all that is asked of the 

employer is that the employer agrees to 

correct all serious hazards identified 

during the inspection and post a list of 

serious hazards identified during the 

visit. Alternatively (as noted in the Onsite Consultation Agreements’ approved 

collection of information package 1218– 

0110), there is a paperwork burden on 

the State Consultation Projects. 

However, the paperwork burden on the 

States comes from the On-site 

Consultation visit process. The 

proposed changes to Part 1908 will not 

affect the consultation process, but 

rather only the benefits of the program 

to employers. As a result, since the 

consultation process remains exactly the 

same, no new or additional paperwork 

burden will be imposed on the States as 

a result of the proposed changes to the 

rule. 

Interested parties who wish to 

comment on OSHA’s determination that 

this proposal contains no additional 

paperwork requirements must send 

their written comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for OSHA, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Room 10235, 726 Jackson Place, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503. Parties are also 

encouraged to submit their comments 

on this paperwork determination to 

OSHA along with any other comments 

on the proposed rule. 

IX. Federalism 

The proposed revisions to part 1908 

have been reviewed under Executive 

Order 12612, Federalism (52 FR 41685; 

October 30, 1987), which sets forth 

fundamental federalism principles, 

federalism policymaking criteria, and 

provides for consultation by Federal 

agencies with state or local governments 

when policies are being formulated 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
54068 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

which potentially affect them. Federal 

OSHA meets regularly with 

representatives of state-operated On-site 

Consultation Programs, both 

individually and at meetings of the 

National Association of Occupational 

Safety and Health Consultation 

Programs (OSHCON). OSHA also 

maintains extensive and frequent 

communications with its State Plan 

partner agencies, both individual States 

and through the Occupational Safety 

and Health State Plan Association 

(OSHSPA), the association of State Plan 

States. The issues covered by the 

proposed revisions to part 1908 have 

been discussed with the States. The 

States also have an opportunity to 

submit comments during the 60-day 

public comment period. 

The revisions to part 1908 being 

proposed are generally consistent with 

the requirements and procedures under 

which OSHA and the States have 

administered the On-site Consultation 

Program for many years. OSHA has 

reviewed the proposed revisions and 

finds them to be consistent with the 

policymaking criteria outlined in 

Executive Order 12612. It should be 

noted that cooperative agreements 

pursuant to section 21(d) of the OSH 

Act, and State Plans submitted and 

approved under section 18 of the Act, 

are entirely voluntary Federal programs 

which do not involve imposition of an 

intergovernmental mandate [2 U.S.C. 

1502, 658(5)]. Under § 1908.1(c) States 

and territories operating approved Plans 

under section 18 of the Act shall, in 

accordance with sections 18(b) and 

18(c)(2), establish enforcement policies 

applicable to the safety and health 

issues covered by the State Plan, which 

are at least as effective as the 

enforcement policies established by this 

part, including: (1) A recognition and 

exemption program, (2) inspection 

deferral policies for employers working 

to achieve recognition and exemption 

status, and (3) policies for continuing 

inspections. 

X. Public Participation 

Interested persons including State 

Consultation agencies, employers and 

employees who have experience with or 

an interest in the On-site Consultation 

Program are invited to submit written 

data, views and arguments with respect 

to the proposed amendments part 1908 

during a 60-day public comment period. 

OSHA is interested, among other things, 

in the experiences of State Consultation 

agencies and other affected parties 

regarding the following matters: 

—How would allowing the Assistant 

Secretary to define sites which would 

receive inspections regardless of 

SHARP status affect the willingness of 

employers to seek SHARP 

recognition? 

—How would including referrals as a 

reason to interrupt Consultation visits 

affect employers’ willingness to seek 

On-site Consultation Program 

services? 

—How would limiting the deletion 

period from the programmed 

inspection list for employers 

achieving SHARP affect the On-site 

Consultation Program? 

—What would be the implications of 

eliminating the awarding of deferrals 

for those working to achieve SHARP 

recognition status? 

—Are there different resource 

implications dependent on the length 

of the deletion period? 

Comments must be received on or 

before November 2, 2010, and two 

copies must be submitted to the OSHA 

Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA–2010– 

0010, U.S. Department of Labor, Room 

N–2625, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20210. Comments 

under 10 pages long may be sent via 

FAX to (202) 693–2527 but must be 

followed by an original in a mailed 

submission. Written submissions must 

clearly identify the issue addressed and 

the position taken with regard to each 

issue. All comments submitted to the 

docket during this proceeding will be 

open for public inspection and copying 

at the location specified above. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1908 

Occupational safety and health, 

Programmed inspection schedule, 

Deletion program, Recognition and 

exemption, Inspections. 

Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under 

the direction of David Michaels, PhD 

MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. It is 

issued under sections 7(c), 8, 18, 21(d) 

and 23(g) of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656, 

657, 667, 670 672) and Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 6–96 (62 FR 111), 

January 2, 1997; No. 3–2000 (65 FR 

50017), No. 5–2007 (72 FR 31159). 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of 

August 2010. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

Part 1908 of Title 29 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations is hereby proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 1908—CONSULTATION 

AGREEMENTS—[AMENDED] 

1. Revise the authority citation for 

part 1908 to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 7(c), 8, 18, 21(d) and 

23(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656, 657, 667, 670 

672) and Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 6– 

96 (62 FR 111); No. 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), 

No. 5–2007 (72 FR 31159). 

2. In § 1908.1, revise paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1908.1 Purpose and scope. 

* * * * * 

(c) States operating approved Plans 

under section 18 of the Act shall, in 

accord with section 18(b), establish 

enforcement policies applicable to the 

safety and health issues covered by the 

State Plan which are at least as effective 

as the enforcement policies established 

by this part, including: 

(1) A recognition and exemption 

program (§ 1908.7(b)(4)(i)(B)); 

(2) Inspection deferral policies for 

employers working to achieve 

recognition and exemption status 

(§ 1908.7(b)(4)(i)(A)); and 

(3) Policies for continuing inspections 

at worksites that have received 

exemption status (§ 1908.7(b)(4)(ii)). 

3. In § 1908.7, revise paragraphs 

(b)(2), (b)(4)(i), and (b)(4)(ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1908.7 Relationship to enforcement. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) The Consultant shall terminate an 

onsite consultative visit already in 

progress where one of the following 

kinds of OSHA compliance inspections 

is about to take place: 

(i) Imminent danger inspections; 

(ii) Fatality/catastrophe inspections; 

(iii) Complaint inspections; 

(iv) Referral inspections as 

determined necessary by the RA; 

(iv) Other critical inspections as 

determined by the Assistant Secretary. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) Deletion, Deferral, Recognition and 

Exemption Programs—(A) Preparation 

for Recognition and Exemption 

Program. When an employer requests 

participation in a recognition and 

exemption program, and undergoes a 

consultative visit covering all 

conditions and operations in the place 

of employment related to occupational 

safety and health; corrects all hazards 

that were identified during the course of 

the consultative visit within established 

time frames; has begun to implement all 

the elements of an effective safety and 

health program; and agrees to request a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54069 

consultative visit if major changes in 

working conditions or work processes 

occur which may introduce new 

hazards, OSHA’s Programmed 

Inspections at that particular site may be 

deferred while the employer is working 

to achieve recognition and exemption 

status. 

(B) Employers who meet all the 

requirements for recognition and 

exemption will have the names of their 

establishments removed from OSHA’s 

Programmed Inspection Schedule for a 

period of one year. The exemption 

period will extend from the date of 

issuance by the Regional Office of the 

certificate of recognition. OSHA may in 

its discretion establish inspection 

programs that provide for an additional 

deletion period, but such additional 

deletion period shall not exceed one 

year. 

(ii) Inspections. OSHA will continue 

to make inspections in the following 

categories at sites that achieved 

recognition status and have been 

granted deletions from OSHA’s 

Programmed Inspection Schedule; and 

at sites granted inspection deferrals as 

provided for under paragraph 

(b)(4)(i)(A) of this section: 

(A) Imminent danger inspections; 

(B) Fatality/catastrophe inspections; 

(C) Complaint inspections; 

(D) Referral inspections as determined 

necessary by the RA; 

(E) Other critical inspections as 

determined by the Assistant Secretary. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–22058 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0265] 

RIN 1625—AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 

Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

withdrawing its notice of proposed 

rulemaking concerning the operation of 

the Pennington Avenue Bridge, at mile 

0.9, across Curtis Creek at Baltimore, 

MD. The requested change would have 

allowed the bridge to operate from a 

remote location at the City of Baltimore 

Transportation Management Center. The 

proposed rule is being withdrawn 

because of the many concerned 

comments sent from the primary 

waterway users that transit the bridge. 

DATES: The notice of proposed 

rulemaking is withdrawn on September 

3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking is available for 

inspection or copying at the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2010–0265 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box 

and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice, 

call or e-mail Lindsey Middleton, Fifth 

Coast Guard District; telephone (757) 

398–6629, e-mail 

Lindsey.R.Middleton@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing material in 

the docket, call Renee V. Wright, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, 

telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On June 2, 2010, we published an 

NPRM entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation 

Regulation Curtis Creek, Baltimore, MD’’ 

in the Federal Register (75 FR 30747– 

30750). The rulemaking concerned 

eliminating the need for a bridge tender 

by allowing the bridge to be operated 

from a remote location at the City of 

Baltimore Transportation Management 

Center. This proposed change would 

have maintained the bridge’s current 

operating schedule set forth in 33 CFR 

117.5 that states: Drawbridges shall 

open promptly and fully for the passage 

of vessels when a request to open is 

given. 

Withdrawal 

The City of Baltimore, the owner of 

the Pennington Avenue Bridge, had 

requested a change in the operating 

procedures to allow the bridge to be 

opened from a remote location at the 

City of Baltimore Transportation 

Management Center. 

The Coast Guard received several 

comments opposing the proposed rule 

change. We conducted a lengthy and 

thorough investigation that included a 

site visit of the bridge and the Baltimore 

City Transportation Management 

Center. We also conducted a meeting at 

the Coast Guard Yard in Baltimore, MD 

with the primary waterway users that 

transit the bridge, staff from the City of 

Baltimore’s Transportation division, and 

their contracted consulting company. 

Our investigation along with the 

majority of the comments revealed that 

the rulemaking could impose critical 

service delays to the various industries 

that rely on a timely bridge opening. 

This withdrawal is based on the reason 

that this change would not improve the 

bridge usage for roadway and waterway 

users. 

Authority: This action is taken under the 

authority of 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

Dated: August 15, 2010, 

William D. Lee, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22034 Filed 9–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 76 

RIN 2900–AN43 

U.S. Paralympics Monthly Assistance 

Allowance 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

establish regulations for the payment of 

a monthly assistance allowance to 

military veterans training to make the 

United States Paralympics team, as 

authorized by section 703 of the 

Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 

2008. The proposed rule would 

facilitate the payment of a monthly 

assistance allowance to a veteran with a 

service-connected or nonserviceconnected disability if the veteran is 

competing for a slot on or selected for 

the United States Paralympics team or is 

residing at a United States Paralympics 

training center. The proposed rule 

would require submission of an 

application to establish eligibility for 

the allowance and certification by the 

United States Paralympics. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through http:// 

www.Regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to Director, Regulations 

Management (02REG), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., 

NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 

20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026. 

Comments should indicate that they are 

submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900– 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1