Notices. Request for comments from the public
22,332 words·~102 min read·
/register/2006/03/01/06-1907·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Bureau of International Labor Affairs; Request for Information Concerning Labor Rights in the Republic of Korea and Its Laws Governing Exploitative Child Labor AGENCIES: Office of the Secretary, Labor; Office of the United States Trade Representative and Department of State. ACTION: Request for comments from the public. SUMMARY: This notice is a request for comments from the public to assist the Secretary of Labor, the United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary of State in preparing reports regarding labor rights in the Republic of Korea and describing the extent to which it has in effect laws governing exploitative child labor.
The Trade Act of 2002 requires reports on these issues and others when the President intends to use trade promotion authority procedures in connection with legislation approving and implementing a trade agreement. The President assigned the functions of preparing reports regarding labor rights and the existence of laws governing exploitative child labor to the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative. The Secretary of Labor further assigned these functions to the Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative, to be carried out by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of State and the United States Trade Representative.
DATES: Public comments must be received no later than 5 p.m. April 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Persons submitting comments are strongly advised to make such submissions by electronic mail to the following address: *FRFTAKorea@dol.gov.* Submissions by facsimile may be sent to: Howard R. Dobson, Office of International Economic Affairs, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, at
(202)693-4851. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For procedural questions regarding the submissions, please contact Howard R. Dobson, Office of International Economic Affairs, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, at
(202)693-4871, facsimile
(202)693-4851. These are not toll-free numbers. Substantive questions concerning the labor rights report and/or the report on the Republic of Korea's laws governing exploitative child labor should be addressed to Gregory Schoepfle, Acting Director, Office of International Economic Affairs, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone
(202)693-4887, facsimile
(202)693-4851. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On February 2, 2006, in accordance with section 2104(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 2002, the United States Trade Representative
(USTR)notified the Congress of the President's intent to enter into free trade negotiations with the Republic of Korea. The notification letters to the Senate and the House of Representatives can be found on the USTR Web site at *http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Republic_of_Korea_FTA/asset_upload_file123_8900.pdf* and * http://www.ustr.gov/assets/ Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Republic_of_Korea_FTA/asset_upload_file253_8899.pdf, * respectively. In February, USTR announced its intention to hold a public hearing on March 14, 2006, for the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee
(TPSC)to receive written comments and oral testimony from the public to assist USTR in formulating positions and proposals with respect to all aspects of the negotiations (71 FR 6820) (Feb. 9, 2006). USTR intends to launch the negotiations in May 2006. The Trade Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-210) (the Trade Act) sets forth special procedures (Trade Promotion Authority) for approval and implementation of Agreements subject to meeting conditions and requirements in Division B of the Trade Act, “Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority.” Section 2102(a)-(c) of the Trade Act includes negotiating objectives and a listing of priorities for the President to promote in order to “address and maintain United States competitiveness in the global economy” in pursuing future trade agreements. The President assigned several of the functions in section 2102(c) to the Secretary of Labor. (E.O. 13277). These include the functions set forth in section 2102(c)(8), which requires that the President “in connection with any trade negotiations entered into under this Act, submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a meaningful labor rights report of the country, or countries, with respect to which the President is negotiating,” and the function in section 2102(c)(9), which requires that the President “with respect to any trade agreement which the President seeks to implement under trade authorities procedures, submit to the Congress a report describing the extent to which the country or countries that are parties to the agreement have in effect laws governing exploitative child labor.” II. Information Sought Interested parties are invited to submit written information as specified below to be taken into account in drafting the required reports. Materials submitted are expected to be confined to the specific topics of the reports. In particular, agencies are seeking written submissions on the following topics: 1. Labor laws of the Republic of Korea, including laws governing exploitative child labor, and that country's implementation and enforcement of its labor laws and regulations; 2. The situation in the Republic of Korea with respect to core labor standards; 3. Steps taken by the Republic of Korea to comply with International Labor Organization Convention No. 182 on the worst forms of child labor; and 4. The nature and extent, if any, of exploitative child labor in the Republic of Korea. Section 2113(6) of the Trade Act defines “core labor standards” as:
(A)The right of association;
(B)The right to organize and bargain collectively;
(C)A prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor;
(D)A minimum age for the employment of children; and
(E)Acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health. III. Requirements for Submissions This document is a request for facts or opinions submitted in response to a general solicitation of comments from the public. To ensure prompt and full consideration of submissions, it is strongly recommended that interested persons submit comments by electronic mail to the following e-mail address: *FRFTAKorea@dol.gov.* Persons making submissions by e-mail are expected to use the following subject line: “The Republic of Korea: Labor Rights and Child Labor Reports.” Documents must be submitted in WordPerfect, MSWord, or text (.TXT) format. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets is acceptable in Quattro Pro or Excel format. Persons who make submissions by e-mail need not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter is expected to be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission are expected to be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. Written comments will be placed in a file open to public inspection at the Department of Labor, Room S-5317, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, and in the USTR Reading Room in Room 3 of the annex of the Office of the USTR, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. An appointment to review the file at the Department of Labor may be made by contacting Howard R. Dobson at
(202)693-4871. An appointment to review the file at USTR may be made by calling
(202)395-6186. The USTR Reading Room is generally open to the public from 10 a.m.-12 noon and 1 p.m.-4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Appointments must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance. Signed at Washington, DC this 23rd of February 2006. Martha E. Newton, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for International Affairs. [FR Doc. E6-2879 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-28-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Proposed Collection; Comment Request ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment Standards Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Rehabilitation Maintenance Certificate (OWCP-17). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before May 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room S-3201, Washington, DC 20210, telephone
(202)693-0418, fax
(202)693-1451, e-mail *bell.hazel@dol.gov.* Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. *Background:* The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
(OWCP)administers the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) and the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). These Acts provide vocational rehabilitation services to eligible workers with disabilities. Section 8111(b) of the FECA and section 908(g) of the LHWCA provide that persons undergoing such vocational rehabilitation may receive maintenance allowances as additional compensation. The OWCP-17 serves as a bill submitted by the program participant to OWCP, requesting reimbursement of incidental expenses incurred due to participation in an approved rehabilitation effort for the preceding four week period or fraction thereof. This information collection is currently approved for use through August 31, 2006. II. *Review Focus:* The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. *Current Actions:* The Department of Labor seeks approval for the extension of this information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to provide vocational rehabilitation services to injured workers currently unemployed as a result of their injury, to enhance their employment potential. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Title:* Rehabilitation Maintenance Certificate. *OMB Number:* 1215-0161. *Agency Number:* OWCP-17. *Affected Public:* Individual or households; business or other for-profit. *Total Respondents:* 1,300. *Total Responses:* 15,600. *Time per Response:* 10 minutes. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 2,605. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: February 23, 2006. Sue Blumenthal, Acting Chief, Branch of Management Review and Internal Control, Division of Financial Management, Office of Management, Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. E6-2858 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CR-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Summary of Decisions Granting in Whole or in Part Petitions for Modification AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice of affirmative decisions issued by the Administrators for Coal Mine Safety and Health and Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health on petitions for modification of the application of mandatory safety standards. SUMMARY: Under section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) may allow the modification of the application of a mandatory safety standard to a mine if the Secretary determines either that an alternate method exists at a specific mine that will guarantee no less protection for the miners affected than that provided by the standard, or that the application of the standard at a specific mine will result in a diminution of safety to the affected miners. Final decisions on these petitions are based on the petitioner's statements, comments and information submitted by interested persons, and a field investigation of the conditions at the mine. As designee of the Secretary, we have granted or partially granted the requests for modification listed below. In some instances, the decisions are conditioned upon compliance with stipulations stated in the decision. The term FR Notice appears in the list of affirmative decisions below. The term refers to the **Federal Register** volume and page where we published a notice of the filing of the petition for modification. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petitions and copies of the final decisions are available for examination by the public in the Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209. For further information contact Barbara Barron at 202-693-9447. Dated at Arlington, Virginia this 22nd day of February 2006. Robert F. Stone, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances. Affirmative Decisions on Petitions for Modification *Docket No.:* M-2005-004-C. *FR Notice:* 70 FR 7760. *Petitioner:* Lone Mountain Processing, Inc. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.901(a). *Summary of Findings:* Petitioner's proposal is to use a 480-volt, three-phase, 300KW/375kVA diesel-powered generator
(DPG)set to supply power to a three-phase wye connected 300 KVA autotransformer and three-phase, 480-volt and 995-volt power circuits. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the Clover Fork Mine No. 1. The petition for modification is granted for the use of the 300 Kilowatt (kW)/375 Kilovolt Amperes (KVA), 480-volt, diesel-powered generator
(DPG)set to supply power to three-phase 480- and 995-volt power circuits to move mobile equipment around the mine at the Clover Fork Mine No. 1 with conditions. *Docket No.:* M-2005-034-C. *FR Notice:* 70 FR 32379. *Petitioner:* Hopkins County Coal, LLC. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1103-4(a). *Summary of Findings:* Petitioner's proposal is to install a low-level carbon monoxide detection system as an early warning fire detection system in all belt entries where a monitoring system identifies a sensor location in lieu of identifying each belt flight. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the Elk Creek Mine. The petition for modification is granted for the use of a carbon monoxide monitoring system that identifies the location of sensors in lieu of identifying belt flights at the Elk Creek Mine with conditions. *Docket No.:* M-2005-041-C. *FR Notice:* 70 FR 35710. *Petitioner:* McElroy Coal Company. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.507. *Summary of Findings:* Petitioner's proposal is to use non-permissible submersible pumps installed in bleeder and return entries and sealed areas of the McElroy Mine. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the McElroy Mine. The petition for modification is granted for the use of low- and medium-voltage, three phase, alternating-current submersible pumps(s) installed in return and bleeder entries and sealed areas in the McElroy Mine with conditions. *Docket No.:* M-2005-042-C. *FR Notice:* 70 FR 35710. *Petitioner:* Consolidation Coal Company. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.507. *Summary of Findings:* Petitioner's proposal is to use non-permissible submersible pumps installed in bleeder and return entries and sealed areas of the Shoemaker Mine. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the Shoemaker Mine. MSHA is requiring, for this petition only, that the surface pump control and power circuits be examined in accordance with 30 CFR 77.502 requirements, since the control and power circuits that enter the underground portions of the mine cannot be examined in their entirety to satisfy the requirements of 30 CFR 75.512 or the 30 CFR 75.364(b)(7) weekly examination requirement. The petition for modification is granted for the use of low- and medium-voltage, three-phase, alternating-current submersible pump(s) installed in return and bleeder entries and in sealed areas in the Shoemaker Mine with conditions. *Docket No.:* M-2005-050-C. *FR Notice:* 70 FR 42102. *Petitioner:* Andalex Resources, Inc. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1002. *Summary of Findings:* Petitioner's proposal is to use low-voltage or battery powered non-permissible, electronic testing, diagnostic equipment or other equipment within 150 feet of pillar workings, under controlled conditions. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the Aberdeen Mine. The petition for modification is granted for the use of low-voltage or battery-powered non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment in or inby the last open crosscut or within 150 feet of pillar workings under controlled conditions, for testing and diagnosing the mining equipment for the Aberdeen Mine with conditions. *Docket No.:* M-2005-051-C. *FR Notice:* 70 FR 42103. *Petitioner:* Bear Gap Coal Company. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1100-2(a)(2). *Summary of Findings:* Petitioner's proposal is to use portable fire extinguishers to replace existing requirements where rock dust, water cars, and other water storage equipped with three 10 quart pails is not practical. The petitioner proposes to use two portable fire extinguishers near the slope bottom and an additional portable fire extinguisher within 500 feet of the working face. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the Bear Gap Coal Company #6 Slope Mine. The petition for modification is granted for firefighting equipment in the working section for the Bear Gap Coal Company #6 Slope Mine with conditions. *Docket No.:* M-2005-055-C. *FR Notice:* 70 FR 48984. *Petitioner:* Black Stallion Coal Company, LLC. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.503. *Summary of Findings:* Petitioner's proposal is to use 900 feet of trailing cable on Roof Bolters and Mobile Roof Supports for trailing cables that supply 480-volt, three-phase, alternating current to roof bolters and mobile roof supports. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the Black Stallion Mine. The petition for modification is granted for trailing cables supplying 480-volt, three-phase alternating current to roof bolters and mobile roof supports and 550-volt, three-phase alternating current to shuttle cars for the Black Stallion Mine with conditions. *Docket No.:* M-2005-058-C. *FR Notice:* 70 FR 48984. *Petitioner:* Dodge Hill Mining Company, LLC. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1101-1(b). *Summary of Findings:* Petitioner's proposal is to conduct weekly examinations and functional testing of the deluge fire suppression systems as an alternative method of complying with the standard. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the Dodge Hill Mine No. 1. The petition for modification is granted for the deluge-type water spray systems installed at belt-conveyor drives in lieu of blow-off dust covers for nozzles for the Dodge Hill Mine No. 1 with conditions. *Docket No.:* M-2005-059-C. *FR Notice:* 70 FR 48984. *Petitioner:* Hopkins County Coal, LLC. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1700. *Summary of Findings:* Petitioner's proposal is to plug and mine through oil and gas wells in all mineable coal beds. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the Elk Creek Mine. The petition for modification is granted for the Elk Creek Mine with conditions. *Docket No.:* M-2005-060-C. *FR Notice:* 70 FR 52449. *Petitioner:* Pacific Minerals. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.1100-2(e)(2). *Summary of Findings:* Petitioner's proposal is to use two portable fire extinguishers or one extinguisher having at least twice the minimum capacity in 30 CFR 75.1100-1(e) at each temporary electrical installation at the Bridger Underground Mine. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the Bridger Underground Mine. The petition for modification is granted for the temporary electrical installations provided the petitioner maintains two portable fire extinguishers having at least the minimum capacity specified for a portable fire extinguisher in 30 CFR 75.1100-1(e), or one portable fire extinguisher with twice the minimum capacity specified in 30 CFR 75.1100-2(e) at each of the temporary electrical installations for the Bridger Underground Mine. *Docket No.:* M-2005-061-C. *FR Notice:* 70 FR 52449. *Petitioner:* Andalex Resources, Inc. *Regulation Affected:* 30 CFR 75.500(d). *Summary of Findings:* Petitioner's proposal is to use low-voltage or battery-powered non-permissible, electronic testing, diagnostic equipment or other, in or inby the last open crosscut under controlled conditions. This is considered an acceptable alternative method for the Aberdeen Mine. The petition for modification is granted for the use of low-voltage or battery-powered non-permissible electronic testing and diagnostic equipment in or inby the last open crosscut or within 150 feet of pillar workings or longwall face, under controlled conditions, for testing and diagnosing the mining equipment at the Aberdeen Mine with conditions. [FR Doc. E6-2848 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [V-04-1] Commonwealth Dynamics, Inc., Mid-Atlantic Boiler & Chimney, Inc., 1 and R and P Industrial Chimney Co., Inc.; Grant of a Permanent Variance 1 Designated as Alberici Mid-Atlantic, LLC (“Alberici”) on the notice of an application for a permanent variance and interim order published at 69 FR 48754. Mid-Atlantic Boiler & Chimney, Inc. (“MAB&C”) has acquired Alberici's chimney-construction assets, including equipment, contracts, and employees. Prior to this acquisition, Alberici notified employees who were being transferred to MAB&C that it has requested OSHA to transfer its interest in the variance application and interim order to MAB&C. In addition, an authorized representative for MAB&C certified that MAB&C agrees to comply with the grant of an interim order published at 69 FR 48754, and to comply with the conditions of the variance grant resulting from the variance application. (See Ex. 5-19.) AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor. ACTION: Notice of a grant of a permanent variance. SUMMARY: This notice announces the grant of a permanent variance to Commonwealth Dynamics, Inc., Mid-Atlantic Boiler & Chimney, Inc., and R and P Industrial Chimney Co., Inc. (“the employers”). The permanent variance addresses the provision that regulates the tackle used for boatswains' chairs (29 CFR 1926.452 (o)(3)), as well as the provisions specified for personnel hoists by paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of 29 CFR 1926.552. Instead of complying with these provisions, the employers must comply with a number of alternative conditions listed in this grant; these alternative conditions regulate rope-guided personnel-hoisting systems used during inside or outside chimney construction to raise or lower employees in personnel cages, personnel platforms, and boatswains' chairs between the bottom landing of a chimney and an elevated work location. Accordingly, OSHA finds that these alternative conditions protect employees at least as well as the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1926.452(o)(3) and 1926.552(c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16). DATES: The effective date of the permanent variance is March 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For information about this notice contact Ms. MaryAnn S. Garrahan, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Room N-3655, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2110; fax
(202)693-1644. You may obtain additional copies of this notice from the Office of Publications, Room N-3101, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-1888. For electronic copies of this notice, contact the Agency on its Web page at *http://ww.osha.gov* , and select “ **Federal Register** ,” “Date of Publication,” and then “2005.” *Additional information also is available from the following OSHA Regional Offices:* U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, JFK Federal Building, Room E340, Boston, MA 02203, telephone:
(617)565-9860, fax:
(617)565-9827. U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 201 Varick St., Room 670, New York, NY 10014, telephone:
(212)337-2378, fax:
(212)337-2371. U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, the Curtis Center, Suite 740 West, 170 South Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106-3309, telephone:
(215)861-4900, fax:
(215)861-4904. U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth St., SW., Room 6T50, Atlanta, GA 30303, telephone:
(404)562-2300, fax:
(404)562-2295. U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 230 South Dearborn St., Room 3244, Chicago, IL 60604, telephone:
(312)353-2220, fax:
(312)353-7774. U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, City Center Square, 1100 Main St., Suite 800, Kansas City, MO 64105, telephone:
(816)426-5861, fax:
(816)426-2750. U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 525 Griffin St., Room 602, Dallas, TX 75202, telephone:
(214)767-4731/-4736 (ext. 224), fax:
(214)767-4693/-4188. U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 1999 Broadway, Suite 1690, P.O. Box 46550, Denver, CO 80201-6550, telephone:
(720)264-6550, fax:
(720)264-6585. U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 71 Stevenson St., Room 420, San Francisco, CA 94105, telephone:
(415)975-4310, fax:
(415)744-4319. U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, 1111 Third Ave., Suite 715, Seattle, WA 98101-3212, telephone:
(206)553-5930, fax:
(206)553-6499. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In the past 30 years, a number of chimney-construction companies have demonstrated to OSHA that several personnel-hoist requirements ( *i.e.* , paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of 29 CFR 1926.552), as well as the tackle requirements for boatswains' chairs ( *i.e.* , paragraph (o)(3) of 29 CFR 1926.452), result in access problems that pose a serious danger to their employees. These companies requested permanent variances from these requirements, and proposed alternative equipment and procedures to protect employees while being transported to and from their elevated worksites during chimney construction and repair. The Agency subsequently granted these companies permanent variances based on the proposed alternatives (see 38 FR 8545 (April 3, 1973), 44 FR 51352 (August 31, 1979), 50 FR 40627 (October 4, 1985), 52 FR 22552 (June 12, 1987), and 68 FR 52961 (September 8, 2003)). 2 2 Zurn Industries, Inc. received two permanent variances from OSHA. The first variance, granted on May 14, 1985 (50 FR 20145), addressed the boatswains'-chair provision (then in paragaph (l)(5) of 29 CFR 1926.451), as well as the hoist-platform requirements of paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(14)(i) of 29 CFR 1926.552. The second variance, granted on June 12, 1987 (52 FR 22552), includes these same paragraphs, as well as paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), and (c)(16) of 29 CFR 1926.552. On October 27, 2003, January 20, 2004, and March 16, 2004, Commonwealth Dynamics, Inc., R and P Industrial Chimney Co., Inc., and Mid-Atlantic Boiler & Chimney, Inc., respectively, applied for a permanent variance from the same personnel-hoist and boatswains'-chair requirements as the previous companies, and proposed as an alternative to these requirements the same equipment and procedures approved by OSHA in the earlier variances. The Agency published their variance application in the **Federal Register** on August 10, 2004 (69 FR 48754). OSHA received no hearing requests in response to these **Federal Register** notices. However, a private individual and a number of States and Territories having OSHA-approved safety and health programs (“State-Plan States and Territories”) submitted comments on the proposed alternative. In addition, several other State-Plan States and Territories have commented on an earlier variance application involving the same standards submitted by other employers engaged in chimney construction and repair; 3 OSHA is relying on these previous comments to determine the position of these State-Plan States and Territories on the variance application submitted by the present employers. (See sections IV (“Comments on the Proposed Variance”) and V (“Multi-State Variance”) below for a discussion of these comments.) 3 The previous variance application was from American Boiler and Chimney Co. and Oak Park Chimney Corp. (68 FR 52961, September 8, 2003). Commonwealth Dynamics, Inc., Mid-Atlantic Boiler & Chimney, Inc., and R and P Industrial Chimney Co., Inc. (“the employers”) construct, remodel, repair, maintain, inspect, and demolish tall chimneys made of reinforced concrete, brick, and steel. This work, which occurs throughout the United States, requires the employers to transport employees and construction material to and from elevated work platforms and scaffolds located, respectively, inside and outside tapered chimneys. While tapering contributes to the stability of a chimney, it necessitates frequent relocation of, and adjustments to, the work platforms and scaffolds so that they will fit the decreasing circumference of the chimney as construction progresses upwards. To transport employees to various heights inside and outside a chimney, the employers proposed in their variance application to use a hoist system that lifts and lowers personnel-transport devices that include personnel cages, personnel platforms, or boatswains' chairs. In this regard, the employers proposed to use personnel cages, personnel platforms, or boatswains' chairs solely to transport employees with the tools and materials necessary to do their work, and not to transport only materials or tools on these devices in the absence of employees. In addition, the employers proposed to attach a hopper or concrete bucket to the hoist system to raise or lower material inside or outside a chimney. The employers also proposed to use a hoist engine, located and controlled outside the chimney, to power the hoist system. The proposed system consisted of a wire rope that: spools off the winding drum (also known as the hoist drum or rope drum) into the interior of the chimney; passes to a footblock that redirects the rope from the horizontal to the vertical planes; goes from the footblock through the overhead sheaves above the elevated platform; and finally drops to the bottom landing of the chimney where it connects to a personnel- or material-transport device. The cathead, which is a superstructure at the top of a derrick, supports the overhead sheaves. The overhead sheaves (and the vertical span of the hoist system) move upward with the derrick as chimney construction progresses. Two guide cables, suspended from the cathead, eliminate swaying and rotation of the load. If the hoist rope breaks, safety clamps activate and grip the guide cables to prevent the load from falling. The employers proposed to use a headache ball, located on the hoist rope directly above the load, to counterbalance the rope's weight between the cathead sheaves and the footblock. Additional conditions that the employers proposed to follow to improve employee safety included: • Attaching the wire rope to the personnel cage using a keyed-screwpin shackle or positive-locking link; • Adding limit switches to the hoist system to prevent overtravel by the personnel-or material-transport devices; • Providing the safety factors and other precautions required for personnel hoists specified by the pertinent provisions of 29 CFR 1926.552(c), including canopies and shields to protect employees located in a personnel cage from material that may fall during hoisting and other overhead activities; • Providing falling-object protection for scaffold platforms as specified by 29 CFR 1926.451(h)(1); • Conducting tests and inspections of the hoist system as required by 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2) and 1926.552(c)(15); • Establishing an accident-prevention program that conforms to 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(3); • Ensuring that employees who use a personnel platform or boatswains' chair wear full-body harnesses and lanyards, and that the lanyards are attached to the lifelines during the entire period of vertical transit; and • Securing the lifelines (used with a personnel platform or boatswains' chair) to the rigging at the top of the chimney and to a weight at the bottom of the chimney to provide maximum stability to the lifelines. II. Proposed Variance From 29 CFR 1926.452(o)(3) The employers noted in their variance request that it is necessary, on occasion, to use a boatswains' chair to transport employees to and from a bracket scaffold on the outside of an existing chimney during flue installation or repair work, or to transport them to and from an elevated scaffold located inside a chimney that has a small or tapering diameter. Paragraph (o)(3) of 29 CFR 1926.452, which regulates the tackle used to rig a boatswains' chair, states that this tackle must “consist of correct size ball bearings or bushed blocks containing safety hooks and properly 'eye-spliced' minimum five-eighth (5/8) inch diameter first-grade manila rope [or equivalent rope].” The primary purpose of this paragraph is to allow an employee to safely control the ascent, descent, and stopping locations of the boatswains' chair. However, the employers stated in their variance request that, because of space limitations, the required tackle is difficult or impossible to operate on some chimneys that are over 200 feet tall. Therefore, as an alternative to complying with the tackle requirements specified by 29 CFR 1926.452(o)(3), the employers proposed to use the hoisting system described above in section I (“Background”) of this notice to raise or lower employees in a personnel cage to work locations both inside and outside a chimney. In addition, the employers proposed to use a personnel cage for this purpose to the extent that adequate space is available, and to use a personnel platform when using a personnel cage was infeasible because of limited space. When available space makes using a personnel platform infeasible, the employers proposed to use a boatswains' chair to lift employees to work locations. The proposed variance limited use of the boatswains' chair to elevations above the last work location that the personnel platform can reach; under these conditions, the employers proposed to attach the boatswains' chair directly to the hoisting cable only when the structural arrangement precludes the safe use of the block and tackle required by 29 CFR 1926.452(o)(3). III. Proposed Variance from 29 CFR 1926.552(c) Paragraph
(c)of 29 CFR 1926.552 specifies the requirements for enclosed hoisting systems used to transport employees from one elevation to another. This paragraph ensures that employers transport employees safely to and from elevated work platforms by mechanical means during the construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, or demolition of structures such as chimneys. However, this standard does not provide specific safety requirements for hoisting employees to and from elevated work platforms and scaffolds in tapered chimneys; the tapered design requires frequent relocation of, and adjustment to, the work platforms and scaffolds. The space in a small-diameter or tapered chimney is not large enough or configured so that it can accommodate an enclosed hoist tower. Moreover, using an enclosed hoist tower for outside operations exposes employees to additional fall hazards because they need to install extra bridging and bracing to support a walkway between the hoist tower and the tapered chimney. Paragraph (c)(1) of 29 CFR 1926.552 requires the employers to enclose hoist towers located outside a chimney on the side or sides used for entrance to, and exit from, the chimney; these enclosures must extend the full height of the hoist tower. The employers asserted in their proposed variance that it is impractical and hazardous to locate a hoist tower outside tapered chimneys because it becomes increasingly difficult, as a chimney rises, to erect, guy, and brace a hoist tower; under these conditions, access from the hoist tower to the chimney or to the movable scaffolds used in constructing the chimney exposes employees to a serious fall hazard. Additionally, they noted that the requirement to extend the enclosures 10 feet above the outside scaffolds often exposes the employees involved in building these extensions to dangerous wind conditions. Paragraph (c)(2) of 29 CFR 1926.552 requires that employers enclose all four sides of a hoist tower even when the tower is located inside a chimney; the enclosure must extend the full height of the tower. In the proposed variance, the employers contended that it is hazardous for employees to erect and brace a hoist tower inside a chimney, especially small-diameter or tapered chimneys or chimneys with sublevels, because these structures have limited space and cannot accommodate hoist towers; space limitations result from chimney design ( *e.g.* , tapering), as well as reinforced steel projecting into the chimney from formwork that is near the work location. As an alternative to complying with the hoist-tower requirements of 29 CFR 1926.552(c)(1) and (c)(2), the employers proposed to use the rope-guided hoist system discussed in section I (“Background”) of this notice to transport employees to and from work locations inside and outside chimneys. They claimed that this hoist system would make it unnecessary for them to comply with other provisions of 29 CFR 1926.552(c) that specify requirements for hoist towers, including: • (c)(3)—Anchoring the hoist tower to a structure; • (c)(4)—Hoistway doors or gates; • (c)(8)—Electrically interlocking entrance doors or gates that prevent hoist movement when the doors or gates are open; • (c)(13)—Emergency stop switch located in the car; • (c)(14)(i)—Using a minimum of two wire ropes for drum-type hoisting; and • (c)(16)—Construction specifications for personnel hoists, including materials, assembly, structural integrity, and safety devices. The employers asserted that the proposed hoisting system protected employees at least as effectively as the personnel-hoist requirements of 29 CFR 1926.552(c). The following section of this preamble reviews the comments received on the employers' proposed variance. IV. Comments on the Proposed Variance The only comment from the private sector regarding the proposed variance was submitted by Mr. Bradley Glosson of MACB Technical Services (Ex. 4-1). Mr. Glosson recommended adopting American National Safety Standard ASME B30.23 (“Personnel Lifting Systems”), stating: Any variance approved should be based upon a uniform, nationally endorsed and professionally established set of criteria for the safe design and operational issues. Review and consideration of the B30.3 Standard, and the President[i]al Order to use existing National Standards wherever feasible, should be undertaken prior to issuance of this variance. In response to this comment, the Agency notes that the employer seeking a permanent variance proposes the alternative conditions in the variance request. The Agency's responsibility under section (6)(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is to determine “by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, or processes used or proposed to be used * * * will provide employment and places of employment to [their] employees which are as safe and healthful as those which would prevail if [they] complied with the standard.” (See 29 U.S.C. 655.) Therefore, employers, not the Agency, determine what will be proposed as an alternative to an OSHA standard. The “Presidential Order” to which Mr. Glosson refers is most likely Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Circular A-119 (“Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities”), the most recent edition of which was published by OMB on August 19, 2002. The Circular does not refer to variances. Variances are applied narrowly (only to the employers that request them) and typically involve only a few provisions of a standard. As explained above, OSHA's obligation to issue variances is set forth in Section 6(d) of the OSH Act; the granting of these permanent variances is in accord with OSHA's statutory responsibilities. OSHA also received comments from 17 of the 26 States and Territories that operate occupational safety and health State plans approved under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ( *i.e.* , “State-Plan States”; 29 U.S.C. 667). The Agency received these 17 comments after it sent each of these 26 States and Territories a copy of the application and requested that they provide information on whether their standards (the ones that would be affected by the proposed variance) were identical to the corresponding Federal OSHA standards, and, if so, did they agree to accept the alternative conditions proposed by the employers. None of the 17 State-Plan States and Territories that submitted comments provided substantive remarks regarding the conditions proposed in the variance application. Ten of these 17 State-Plan States and Territories reported that they have standards that are identical to the Federal OSHA standards, and that they agreed to accept the proposed alternative. These 10 State-Plan States and one Territory are: Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming (Exs. 5-1, 5-3-1, 5-16, 5-14, , 5-11, 5-10, 5-9, 5-7, 5-6, and 5-5, respectively). Three of the State-Plan States (Kentucky, Michigan, and South Carolina) agreed with the proposed alternative, but did so conditionally. Kentucky (Ex. 5-4) noted that, while it agreed with the terms of the variance, Kentucky statutory law requires affected employers to apply to the State for a State variance. Michigan (Ex. 5-15) agreed to the alternative conditions, but noted that its standards are not identical to the OSHA standards covered by the variance application. Therefore, Michigan cautioned that employers electing to use the variance in that State must comply with several provisions in the Michigan standards that are not addressed in the OSHA standard. South Carolina (Ex. 5-8) indicated that it would accept the alternative conditions, but noted that, for the grant of such a variance to be accepted by the South Carolina Commissioner of Labor, the employers must file the grant at the Commissioner's office in Columbia, South Carolina. Three State-Plan States (Connecticut (Ex. 5-2), New Jersey (Ex. 5-13), and New York (Ex. 5-12)) have OSHA-approved safety and health programs that cover only public-sector ( *i.e.* , State and local government) employment. While OSHA received no comment from the Virgin Islands, its State-Plan program also covers only public-sector employment. Therefore, in these State-Plan States and one Territory, the authority to cover private-sector employers under the variance continues to reside with Federal OSHA. Washington State (Ex. 5-17) could not agree to the alternative conditions because its applicable standards were not identical to the OSHA standards. Therefore, the employers must apply separately for a permanent variance from Washington State. In response to a previous application by chimney-construction companies for an identical variance (see footnote 3), four State-Plan States (Alaska, Nevada, New Mexico, and Vermont) indicated that their standards were the same as the Federal OSHA standards, and agreed to the terms of the variance. Utah agreed to accept the Federal variance, but requires the employers to contact the Occupational Safety and Health Division, Labor Commission of Utah, regarding a procedural formality that must be completed before implementing the variance in that State. California, Iowa, and Hawaii have standards that either differ from the Federal standards or did not agree to the alternative conditions proposed in the variance application, and would not permit the employers to implement in their States any variance resulting from the application without further application to the State. V. Multi-State Variance The variance application stated that the employers perform chimney work in a number of geographic locations in the United States, some of which could include locations in one or more of the States and Territories that operate OSHA-approved safety and health programs under section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“State-Plan States and Territories”; *see* 29 U.S.C. 651 *et seq.* ). State-Plan States and Territories have primary enforcement responsibility over the work performed in those States and Territories. Under the provisions of 29 CFR 1952.9 (“Variances affecting multi-state employers”) and 29 CFR 1905.14(b)(3) (“Actions on applications”), a permanent variance granted by the Agency becomes effective in State-Plan States and Territories as an authoritative interpretation of the applicants' compliance obligation when:
(1)The relevant standards are the same as the Federal OSHA standards from which the applicants are seeking the permanent variance; and
(2)the State-Plan State or Territory does not object to the terms of variance application. OSHA requested comments on this application from each of the State-Plan States and Territories. The Agency noted in its request that, absent any comment, it would assume that the State or Territory's position regarding this variance application was the same as the position it took on a previous variance application ( *see* footnote 3). As noted under the previous section, several State-Plan States and Territories did not submit comments on this variance application, indicating that they continue to maintain their previous positions regarding the alternative conditions proposed under this variance application. The following paragraph provides a summary of the positions taken by the State-Plan States and Territories on the proposed alternative conditions. The following thirteen State-Plan States and one Territory have identical standards and agreed to accept the alternative conditions: Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. Of the remaining 12 States and Territories with OSHA-approved State plans, three of the States and one Territory (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands) cover only public-sector employees and have no authority over the private-sector employees addressed in the variance application ( *i.e.* , that authority continues to reside with Federal OSHA). Additionally, four States (Kentucky, Michigan, South Carolina, and Utah) accepted the proposed alternative when specific additional requirements are fulfilled, while three States and one Territory (California, Hawaii, Iowa, and Washington) either had different requirements in their standards or declined to accept the terms of the variance. Based on the responses received from State-Plan States and Territories, the permanent Federal OSHA variance will be effective in the following State-Plan States and one Territory: Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, and Wyoming; and in Kentucky, Michigan, South Carolina, and Utah when the employers meet specific additional requirements. However, this permanent variance does not apply in Washington, California, Hawaii, or Iowa. As stated earlier, in the three States and one Territory (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and the Virgin Islands) that have State-Plan programs that cover only public-sector employees, authority over the employers under the permanent variance continues to reside with Federal OSHA. VI. Decision Commonwealth Dynamics, Inc., Mid-Atlantic Boiler & Chimney, Inc., and R and P Industrial Chimney Co., Inc. seek a permanent variance from the provision that regulates the tackle used for boatswains' chairs (29 CFR 1926.452 (o)(3)), as well as the provisions specified for personnel hoists by paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of 29 CFR 1926.552. Paragraph (o)(3) of 29 CFR 1926.452 states that the tackle used for boatswains' chairs must “consist of correct size ball bearings or bushed blocks containing safety hooks and properly ‘eye-spliced’ minimum five-eighth ( 5/8 ) inch diameter first-grade manila rope [or equivalent rope].” The primary purpose of this provision is to allow an employee to safely control the ascent, descent, and stopping locations of the boatswains' chair. The proposed alternative to these requirements allows the employer to use a boatswains' chair to lift employees to work locations inside and outside a chimney when both a personnel cage and a personnel platform are infeasible. The employers proposed to attach the boatswains' chair to the hoisting system described as an alternative for paragraph
(c)of 29 CFR 1926.552. Paragraph
(c)of 29 CFR 1926.552 specifies the requirements for enclosed hoisting systems used to transport personnel from one elevation to another. This paragraph ensures that employers transport employees safely to and from elevated work platforms by mechanical means during construction work involving structures such as chimneys. In this regard, paragraph (c)(1) of 29 CFR 1926.552 requires employers to enclose hoist towers located outside a chimney on the side or sides used for entrance to, and exit from, the structure; these enclosures must extend the full height of the hoist tower. Under the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of 29 CFR 1926.552, employers must enclose all four sides of a hoist tower located inside a chimney; these enclosures also must extend the full height of the tower. As an alternative to complying with the hoist-tower requirements of 29 CFR 1926.552(c)(1) and (c)(2), the employers proposed to use a rope-guided hoist system to transport employees to and from elevated work locations inside and outside chimneys. The proposed hoist system includes a hoist machine, cage, safety cables, and safety measures such as limit switches to prevent overrun of the cage at the top and bottom landings, and safety clamps that grip the safety cables if the main hoist line fails. To transport employees to and from elevated work locations, the employers proposed to attach a personnel cage to the hoist system. However, when they can demonstrate that adequate space is not available for the cage, they may use a personnel platform above the last worksite that the cage can reach. Further, when the employers show that space limitations make it infeasible to use a work platform for transporting employees, they have proposed to use a boatswains' chair above the last worksite serviced by the personnel platform. Using the proposed hoist system as an alternative to the hoist-tower requirements of 29 CFR 1926.552(c)(1) and (c)(2) eliminates the need to comply with the other provisions of 29 CFR 1926.552(c) that specify requirements for hoist towers. Accordingly, the employers have requested a permanent variance from these and related provisions ( *i.e.* , paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16)). After reviewing the variance application, as well as the comments made to the record regarding the application, OSHA has made only minor editorial amendments and technical corrections to the proposed variance. 4 Therefore, under section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), and based on the record discussed above, the Agency finds that when the employers comply with the conditions of the following order, their employees will be exposed to working conditions that are at least as safe and healthful as they would be if the employers complied with paragraph (o)(3) of 29 CFR 1926.452, and paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of 29 CFR 1926.552. 4 Among the technical corrections, OSHA added two conditions to the permanent variance. The first condition is a new paragraph 1(b) that requires the employers to use personnel cages, personnel platforms, or boatswains' chairs only to transport employees with the tools and materials necessary to do their work, and to attach a hopper or concrete bucket to the hoist system for transporting other materials and tools inside or outside a chimney. The second condition revises paragraph 2(b) in the variance application by adding a requirement that employers attach a boatswains' chair to the hoisting cable only when they can demonstrate that the structural arrangement of the chimney precludes the safe use of the block and tackle required by 29 CFR 1926.452(o)(3). Both of these technical corrections are consistent with language proposed by the employers and described in section III ( SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ) of their variance application (see 69 FR 48755 and 48756). VII. Order OSHA issues this order authorizing Commonwealth Dynamics, Inc., Mid-Atlantic Boiler & Chimney, Inc., and R and P Industrial Chimney Co., Inc. (“the employers”) to comply with the following conditions instead of complying with paragraph (o)(3) of 29 CFR 1926.452 and paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16) of 29 CFR 1926.552: 1. Scope of the Permanent Variance
(a)This permanent variance applies only when the employers use a rope-guided hoist system during inside or outside chimney construction to raise or lower their employees between the bottom landing of a chimney and an elevated work location on the inside or outside surface of the chimney.
(b)When using a rope-guided hoist system as specified in this permanent variance, the employers must:
(i)Use the personnel cages, personnel platforms, or boatswains' chairs raised and lowered by the rope-guided hoist system solely to transport employees with the tools and materials necessary to do their work; and
(ii)Attach a hopper or concrete bucket to the rope-guided hoist system to raise and lower all other materials and tools inside or outside a chimney.
(c)Except for the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1926.452(o)(3) and 1926.552(c)(1) through (c)(4), (c)(8), (c)(13), (c)(14)(i), and (c)(16), the employers must comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR parts 1910 and 1926. 2. Replacing a Personnel Cage With a Personnel Platform or a Boatswains' Chair
(a)*Personnel platform.* When the employers demonstrate that available space makes a personnel cage for transporting employees infeasible, they may replace the personnel cage with a personnel platform when they limit use of the personnel platform to elevations above the last work location that the personnel cage can reach.
(b)*Boatswains' chair.* Employers must:
(i)Before using a boatswains' chair, demonstrate that available space makes it infeasible to use a personnel platform for transporting employees;
(ii)Limit use of a boatswains' chair to elevations above the last work location that the personnel platform can reach; and
(iii)Use a boatswains' chair in accordance with block-and-tackle requirements specified by 29 CFR 1926.452(o)(3), unless they can demonstrate that the structural arrangement of the chimney precludes such use. 3. Qualified Competent Person
(a)The employers must:
(i)Provide a qualified competent person, as specified in paragraphs
(f)and
(m)of 29 CFR 1926.32, who is responsible for ensuring that the design, maintenance, and inspection of the hoist system comply with the conditions of this grant and with the appropriate requirements of 29 CFR part 1926 (“Safety and Health Regulations for Construction”); and
(ii)Ensure that the qualified competent person is present at ground level to assist in an emergency whenever the hoist system is raising or lowering employees.
(b)The employers must use a qualified competent person to design and maintain the cathead described under Condition 8 (“Cathead and Sheave”) below. 4. Hoist Machine
(a)*Type of hoist.* The employers must designate the hoist machine as a portable personnel hoist.
(b)*Raising or lowering a transport.* The employers must ensure that:
(i)The hoist machine includes a base-mounted drum hoist designed to control line speed; and
(ii)Whenever they raise or lower a personnel or material hoist ( *e.g.* , a personnel cage, personnel platform, boatswains' chair, hopper, concrete bucket) using the hoist system:
(A)The drive components are engaged continuously when an empty or occupied transport is being lowered ( *i.e.* , no “freewheeling”);
(B)The drive system is interconnected, on a continuous basis, through a torque converter, mechanical coupling, or an equivalent coupling ( *e.g.* , electronic controller, fluid clutches, hydraulic drives).
(C)The braking mechanism is applied automatically when the transmission is in the neutral position and a forward-reverse coupling or shifting transmission is being used; and
(D)No belts are used between the power source and the winding drum.
(c)*Power source.* The employers must power the hoist machine by an air, electric, hydraulic, or internal-combustion drive mechanism.
(d)*Constant-pressure control switch.* The employers must:
(i)Equip the hoist machine with a hand- or foot-operated constant-pressure control switch ( *i.e.* , a “deadman control switch”) that stops the hoist immediately upon release; and
(ii)Protect the control switch to prevent it from activating if the hoist machine is struck by a falling or moving object.
(e)*Line-speed indicator.* The employers must:
(i)Equip the hoist machine with an operating line-speed indicator maintained in good working order; and
(ii)Ensure that the line-speed indicator is in clear view of the hoist operator during hoisting operations.
(f)*Braking systems.* The employers must equip the hoist machine with two
(2)independent braking systems ( *i.e.* , one automatic and one manual) located on the winding side of the clutch or couplings, with each braking system being capable of stopping and holding 150 percent of the maximum rated load.
(g)*Slack-rope switch.* The employers must equip the hoist machine with a slack-rope switch to prevent rotation of the winding drum under slack-rope conditions.
(h)*Frame.* The employers must ensure that the frame of the hoist machine is a self-supporting, rigid, welded-steel structure, and that holding brackets for anchor lines and legs for anchor bolts are integral components of the frame.
(i)*Stability.* The employers must secure hoist machines in position to prevent movement, shifting, or dislodgement.
(j)*Location.* The employers must:
(i)Locate the hoist machine far enough from the footblock to obtain the correct fleet angle for proper spooling of the cable on the drum; and
(ii)Ensure that the fleet angle remains between one-half degree ( 1/2 °) and one and one-half degrees (1 1/2 °) for smooth drums, and between one-half degree ( 1/2 °) and two degrees (2°) for grooved drums, with the lead sheave centered on the drum. 1 1 This variance adopts the definition of, and specifications for, fleet angle from *Cranes and Derricks,* H. I. Shapiro, *et al.* (eds.); New York: McGraw-Hill; 3rd ed., 1999, page 592. Accordingly, the fleet angle is “[t]he angle the rope leading onto a [winding] drum makes with the line perpendicular to the drum rotating axis when the lead rope is making a wrap against the flange.”
(k)*Drum and flange diameter.* The employers must:
(i)Provide a winding drum for the hoist that is at least 30 times the diameter of the rope used for hoisting; and
(ii)Ensure that the winding drum has a flange diameter that is at least one and one-half (1 1/2 ) times the winding-drum diameter.
(l)*Spooling of the rope.* The employers must *never* spool the rope closer than two
(2)inches (5.1 cm) from the outer edge of the winding-drum flange.
(m)*Electrical system.* The employers must ensure that all electrical equipment is weatherproof.
(n)*Limit switches.* The employers must equip the hoist system with limit switches and related equipment that automatically prevent overtravel of a personnel cage, personnel platform, boatswains' chair, or material-transport device at the top of the supporting structure and at the bottom of the hoistway or lowest landing level. 5. Methods of Operation
(a)*Employee qualifications and training.* The employers must:
(i)Ensure that only trained and experienced employees, who are knowledgeable of hoist-system operations, control the hoist machine; and
(ii)Provide instruction, periodically and as necessary, on how to operate the hoist system, to each employee who uses a personnel cage for transportation.
(b)*Speed limitations.* The employers must not operate the hoist at a speed in excess of:
(i)Two hundred and fifty
(250)feet (76.9 m) per minute when a personnel cage is being used to transport employees;
(ii)One hundred
(100)feet (30.5 m) per minute when a personnel platform or boatswains' chair is being used to transport employees; or
(iii)A line speed that is consistent with the design limitations of the system when only material is being hoisted.
(c)*Communication.* The employers must:
(i)Use a voice-mediated intercommunication system to maintain communication between the hoist operator and the employees located in or on a moving personnel cage, personnel platform, or boatswains' chair;
(ii)Stop hoisting if, for any reason, the communication system fails to operate effectively; and
(iii)Resume hoisting only when the site superintendent determines that it is safe to do so. 6. Hoist Rope
(a)*Grade.* The employers must use a wire rope for the hoist system ( *i.e.* , “hoist rope”) that consists of extra-improved plow steel, an equivalent grade of non-rotating rope, or a regular lay rope with a suitable swivel mechanism.
(b)*Safety factor.* The employers must maintain a safety factor of at least eight
(8)times the safe workload throughout the entire length of hoist rope.
(c)*Size.* The employers must use a hoist rope that is at least one-half (1/2) inch (1.3 cm) in diameter.
(d)*Inspection, removal, and replacement.* The employers must:
(i)Thoroughly inspect the hoist rope before the start of each job and on completing a new setup;
(ii)Maintain the proper diameter-to-diameter ratios between the hoist rope and the footblock and the sheave by inspecting the wire rope regularly (see Conditions 7(c) and 8(d) below); and
(iii)Remove and replace the wire rope with new wire rope when any of the conditions specified by 29 CFR 1926.552(a)(3) occurs.
(e)*Attachments.* The employers must attach the rope to a personnel cage, personnel platform, or boatswains' chair with a keyed-screwpin shackle or positive-locking link.
(f)*Wire-rope fastenings.* When the employers use clip fastenings ( *e.g.* , U-bolt wire-rope clips) with wire ropes, they must:
(i)Use Table H-20 of 29 CFR 1926.251 to determine the number and spacing of clips;
(ii)Use at least three
(3)drop-forged clips at each fastening;
(iii)Install the clips with the “U” of the clips on the dead end of the rope; and
(iv)Space the clips so that the distance between them is six
(6)times the diameter of the rope. 7. Footblock
(a)*Type of block.* The employers must use a footblock:
(i)Consisting of construction-type blocks of solid single-piece bail with a safety factor that is at least four
(4)times the safe workload, or an equivalent block with roller bearings;
(ii)Designed for the applied loading, size, and type of wire rope used for hoisting;
(iii)Designed with a guard that contains the wire rope within the sheave groove;
(iv)Bolted rigidly to the base; and
(v)Designed and installed so that it turns the moving wire rope to and from the horizontal or vertical direction as required by the direction of rope travel.
(b)*Directional change.* The employers must ensure that the angle of change in the hoist rope from the horizontal to the vertical direction at the footblock is approximately 90°.
(c)*Diameter.* The employers must ensure that the line diameter of the footblock is at least 24 times the diameter of the hoist rope. 8. Cathead and Sheave
(a)*Support.* The employers must use a cathead ( *i.e.* , “overhead support”) that consists of a wide-flange beam, or two
(2)steel-channel sections securely bolted back-to-back to prevent spreading.
(b)*Installation.* The employers must ensure that:
(i)All sheaves revolve on shafts that rotate on bearings; and
(ii)The bearings are mounted securely to maintain the proper bearing position at all times.
(c)*Rope guides.* The employers must provide each sheave with appropriate rope guides to prevent the hoist rope from leaving the sheave grooves when the rope vibrates or swings abnormally.
(d)*Diameter.* The employers must use a sheave with a diameter that is at least 24 times the diameter of the hoist rope. 9. Guide Ropes
(a)*Number and construction.* The employers must affix two
(2)guide ropes by swivels to the cathead. The guide ropes must:
(i)Consist of steel safety cables not less than one-half (1/2) inch (1.3 cm) in diameter; and
(ii)Be free of damage or defect at all times.
(b)*Guide rope fastening and alignment tension.* The employers must fasten one end of each guide rope securely to the overhead support, with appropriate tension applied at the foundation.
(c)*Height.* The employers must rig the guide ropes along the entire height of the hoist-machine structure. 10. Personnel Cage
(a)*Construction.* A personnel cage must be of steel-frame construction and capable of supporting a load that is four
(4)times its maximum rated load capacity. The employers also must ensure that the personnel cage has:
(i)A top and sides that are permanently enclosed (except for the entrance and exit);
(ii)A floor securely fastened in place;
(iii)Walls that consist of 14-gauge, one-half ( 1/2 ) inch (1.3 cm) expanded metal mesh, or an equivalent material;
(iv)Walls that cover the full height of the personnel cage between the floor and the overhead covering;
(v)A sloped roof constructed of one-eighth ( 1/8 ) inch (0.3 cm) aluminum, or an equivalent material; and
(vi)Safe handholds ( *e.g.* , rope grips—but *not* rails or hard protrusions 2 ) that accommodate each occupant. 2 To reduce impact hazards should employees lose their balance because of cage movement.
(b)*Overhead weight.* A personnel cage must have an overhead weight ( *e.g.* , a headache ball of appropriate weight) to compensate for the weight of the hoist rope between the cathead and footblock. In addition, the employers must:
(i)Ensure that the overhead weight is capable of preventing line run; and
(ii)Use a means to restrain the movement of the overhead weight so that the weight does *not* interfere with safe personnel hoisting.
(c)*Gate.* The personnel cage must have a gate that:
(i)Guards the full height of the entrance opening; and
(ii)Has a functioning mechanical lock that prevents accidental opening.
(d)*Operating procedures.* The employers must post the procedures for operating the personnel cage conspicuously at the hoist operator's station.
(e)*Capacity.* The employers must:
(i)Hoist no more than four
(4)occupants in the cage at any one time; and
(ii)Ensure that the rated load capacity of the cage is at least 250 pounds (113.4 kg) for each occupant so hoisted.
(f)*Employee notification.* The employers must post a sign in each personnel cage notifying employees of the following conditions:
(i)The standard rated load, as determined by the initial static drop test specified by Condition 10(g) (“Static drop tests”) below; and
(ii)The reduced rated load for the specific job.
(g)*Static drop tests.* The employers must:
(i)Conduct static drop tests of each personnel cage that comply with the definition of “static drop test” specified by section 3 (“Definitions”) and the static drop-test procedures provided in section 13 (“Inspections and Tests”) of American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)standard A10.22-1990 (R1998) (“American National Standard for Rope-Guided and Nonguided Worker's Hoists—Safety Requirements”);
(ii)Perform the initial static drop test at 125 percent of the maximum rated load of the personnel cage, and subsequent drop tests at no less than 100 percent of its maximum rated load; and
(iii)Use a personnel cage for raising or lowering employees only when no damage occurred to the components of the cage as a result of the static drop tests. 11. Safety Clamps
(a)*Fit to the guide ropes.* The employers must:
(i)Fit appropriately designed and constructed safety clamps to the guide ropes; and
(ii)Ensure that the safety clamps do not damage the guide ropes when in use.
(b)*Attach to the personnel cage.* The employers must attach safety clamps to each personnel cage for gripping the guide ropes.
(c)*Operation.* The safety clamps attached to the personnel cage must:
(i)Operate on the “broken rope principle” defined in section 3 (“Definitions”) of ANSI standard A10.22-1990 (R1998);
(ii)Be capable of stopping and holding a personnel cage that is carrying 100 percent of its maximum rated load and traveling at its maximum allowable speed if the hoist rope breaks at the footblock; and
(iii)Use a pre-determined and pre-set clamping force ( *i.e.* , the “spring compression force”) for each hoist system.
(d)*Maintenance.* The employers must keep the safety-clamp assemblies clean and functional at all times. 12. Overhead Protection
(a)The employers must install a canopy or shield over the top of the personnel cage that is made of steel plate at least three-sixteenth (3/16) of an inch (4.763 mm) thick, or material of equivalent strength and impact resistance, to protect employees ( *i.e.* , both inside and outside the chimney) from material and debris that may fall from above.
(b)The employers must ensure that the canopy or shield slopes to the outside of the personnel cage. 3 3 Paragraphs
(a)and
(b)were adapted from OSHA's Underground Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.800(t)(4)(iv)). 13. Emergency-Escape Device
(a)*Location.* The employers must provide an emergency-escape device in at least one of the following locations:
(i)In the personnel cage, provided that the device is long enough to reach the bottom landing from the highest possible escape point; or
(ii)At the bottom landing, provided that a means is available in the personnel cage for the occupants to raise the device to the highest possible escape point.
(b)*Operating instructions.* The employers must ensure that written instructions for operating the emergency-escape device are attached to the device.
(c)*Training.* The employers must instruct each employee who uses a personnel cage for transportation on how to operate the emergency-escape device:
(i)Before the employee uses a personnel cage for transportation; and
(ii)Periodically, and as necessary, thereafter. 14. Personnel Platforms and Fall-Protection Equipment
(a)*Personnel platforms.* When the employers elect to replace the personnel cage with a personnel platform in accordance with Condition 2(a) of this variance, they must:
(i)Ensure that an enclosure surrounds the platform, and that this enclosure is at least 42 inches (106.7 cm) above the platform's floor;
(ii)Provide overhead protection when an overhead hazard is, or could be, present; and
(iii)Comply with the applicable scaffolding strength requirements specified by 29 CFR 1926.451(a)(1).
(b)*Fall-protection equipment.* Before employees use work platforms or boatswains' chairs, the employers must equip the employees with, and ensure that they use, full body harnesses, lanyards and lifelines as specified by 29 CFR 1926.104 and the applicable requirements of 29 CFR 1926.502(d). This requirement includes securing the lifelines to the top of the chimney and to a weight at the bottom of the chimney, and ensuring the employees' lanyards are attached to the lifeline during the entire period of vertical transit. 15. Inspections, Tests, and Accident Prevention
(a)The employers must:
(i)Conduct inspections of the hoist system as required by 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2);
(ii)Ensure that a competent person conducts daily visual inspections of the hoist system; and
(iii)Inspect and test the hoist system as specified by 29 CFR 1926.552(c)(15).
(b)The employers must comply with the accident-prevention requirements of 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(3). 16. Welding
(a)The employers must use only qualified welders to weld components of the hoisting system.
(b)The employers must ensure that the qualified welders:
(i)Are familiar with the weld grades, types, and materials specified in the design of the system; and
(ii)Perform the welding tasks in accordance with 29 CFR part 1926, subpart J (“Welding and Cutting”). VII. Authority and Signature Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC directed the preparation of this notice. This notice is issued under the authority specified by section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008), and 29 CFR part 1905. Signed at Washington, DC on January 30, 2005. Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor. [FR Doc. E6-2959 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: NARA is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to OMB for approval the information collection described in this notice. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted to OMB at the address below on or before March 31, 2006 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Desk Officer for NARA, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5167. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301-837-1694 or fax number 301-837-3213. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on December 7, 2005 (70 FR 72860 and 72861). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collection to OMB for approval. In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points:
(a)Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA;
(b)the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of information technology; and
(e)whether small businesses are affected by this collection. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection: *Title:* Online Reproduction Orders for National Archives Records. *OMB number:* 3095-NEW. *Agency form number:* N/A. *Type of review:* Regular. *Affected public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated number of respondents:* 13,270. *Estimated time per response:* 10 minutes. *Frequency of response:* On occasion. *Estimated total annual burden hours:* 2,680 hours. *Abstract:* In December, 2003, NARA launched Order Online!, its online ordering mechanism. With the availability of an Internet-based ordering system (Order Online!), NARA has made accessible online certain reproduction order forms (replicas of the NATF Series 80 Forms and the NATF 36). In the near future, NARA plans to make available custom orders for the remaining types of reproduction services, to allow researchers to submit reproduction orders and remit payment electronically. The information that NARA proposes to collect for quoted reproduction orders includes the descriptive information (information necessary to search for the records), payment information (e.g., credit card type, credit card number, and expiration date), customer name, shipping and billing address, and phone number. NARA also proposes to offer customers the option of submitting their e-mail address as a means of facilitating communication such as order confirmation, status updates, and issue handling. Dated: February 22, 2006. Martha Morphy, Acting Assistant Archivist for Information Services. [FR Doc. E6-2835 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE Notice of Meetings AGENCY: U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. ACTION: Notice of meetings. SUMMARY: The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science is holding an open business meeting to discuss Commission programs and administrative matters. Commissioners will review programs related to the Commission's strategic initiatives. Each of the Commission's task forces will share progress reports and the Commission will discuss future directions and activities. Topics will include
(1)debrief on the symposium at the University of Michigan on Mass Digitization Impacts;
(2)debrief on World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis;
(3)the 2006 Health Information Awards;
(4)the White House Conference on Aging;
(5)the Commission's involvement in American Corners;
(6)new measures of library performance and impact;
(7)relationship between school libraries and educational achievement. Date and Time: NCLIS Business Meeting—March 11, 2006, 2 p.m.-3 p.m.; March 12, 2006, 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Addresses: Four Points by Sheraton Ann Arbor, 3200 Boardwalk, Ann Arbor, MI 48108. *Status:* Open meeting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The business meeting is open to the public, subject to space availability. To make special arrangements for physically challenged persons, contact Madeleine McCain, Director of Operations, 1800 M Street, NW., Suite 350 North Tower, Washington, DC 20036, e-mail *mmccain@nclis.gov,* fax 202-606-9203 or telephone 202-606-9200. *Summary:* The U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science is also holding a closed meeting to review budget matters and future directions. Closing this meeting is in accordance with the exemption provided under Title 45, CFR 1703.202(a)(9) *Date and Time:* NCLIS Closed Meeting—March 11, 3-6 p.m. *Addresses:* Four Points by Sheraton Ann Arbor, 3200 Boardwalk, Ann Arbor, MI 48108. *Status:* Closed meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeleine McCain, Director of Operations, U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 1800 M Street, NW., Suite 350 North Tower, Washington, DC 20036, e-mail *mmccain@nclis.gov,* fax 202-606-9203 or telephone 202-606 9200. Dated: February 21, 2006. Trudi Bellardo Hahn, NCLIS Executive Director. [FR Doc. E6-2831 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7528-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-389] Florida Power and Light Company, et al.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Renewed Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Renewed Operating License No. NPF-16, issued to Florida Power and Light Company, *et al.* (the licensee), for operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, located in St. Lucie County, Florida. The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications
(TSs)for the Containment Ventilation System to allow additional corrective actions for inoperable containment purge supply and exhaust valves. On February 14, 2006, the licensee determined, during a routine surveillance that measures leakage in lines penetrating containment, that a containment purge supply valve at St. Lucie Unit 2 was inoperable. The current TSs require the plant to be shut down if the valve cannot be restored to operable status within 24 hours. Due to the nature of the failure and the uniqueness of the valve, the licensee was unable to repair or replace the valve within the required time frame. Instead, a blank flange was installed in place of the inoperable valve and the leak integrity of the penetration was verified. This alternate corrective action is consistent with the standard TSs for Combustion Engineering plants. Following discussions with the licensee, the NRC staff determined that the alternate corrective action provided adequate safety and a Notice of Enforcement Discretion
(NOED)was approved on February 15, 2006, to allow continued operation of St. Lucie Unit 2 with the blank flange in place until the TSs were revised or until March 24, 2006, whichever occurs first. The reason for the exigency is to complete the processing of the proposed amendment within the time frame of the NOED. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not
(1)Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
(1)Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change to the St. Lucie Unit 2 Technical Specifications will allow isolation of the affected penetration using a closed and de-activated automatic valve with resilient seals or a blind flange in the event that one or more containment purge valves are not within valve leakage limits. This action is consistent with the applicable required actions for Condition E of Specification 3.6.3 of NUREG-1432, “Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants.” The containment purge valves are part of the containment purge and/or the continuous purge/hydrogen purge systems. The containment purge valves are not accident initiators. In addition, neither the containment purge nor the continuous purge/hydrogen purge systems are required for safe shutdown of the reactor or to mitigate the consequences of a design basis accident. The containment purge system is designed to reduce the level of radioactive contamination in the containment atmosphere below the limits of 10 CFR 20 so as to permit personnel access to the containment during shutdown and refueling. The continuous purge/hydrogen purge system is used as a not-nuclear-safety backup to the redundant safety-related hydrogen recombiners which maintain containment hydrogen concentration below 4% after a postulated accident. Use of a closed and de-activated automatic valve with resilient seals or a blind flange to isolate a failed penetration provides a barrier to the release of radioactivity for those accidents previously evaluated. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2)Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The containment purge valves are not accident initiators. Use of a closed and de-activated automatic valve with resilient seals or a blind flange to isolate a failed penetration does not introduce any new failure modes. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3)Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Use of a closed and de-activated automatic valve with resilient seals or a blind flange to isolate a failed penetration will ensure that the penetration's pressure retention containment isolation safety function continues to be satisfied. There will be no decrease in the ability of the containment purge or the continuous purge/hydrogen purge systems to perform their containment isolation safety function as assumed in the accident analyses. In addition, use of a closed and de-activated automatic valve with resilient seals or a blind flange to isolate a failed containment purge penetration is consistent with the provisions of Condition E of Specification 3.6.3 of NUREG-1432. Therefore, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(2)courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(3)E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *hearingdocket@nrc.gov;* or
(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at
(301)415-1101, verification number is
(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to M. S. Ross, Managing Attorney, Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated February 21, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of February 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brendan T. Moroney, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-2856 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Abnormal Occurrence Reports: Implementation of Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974; Revised Policy Statement AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Revised Policy Statement on Abnormal Occurrence Criteria and Solicitation of Comments. SUMMARY: This policy statement presents the revised abnormal occurrence
(AO)criteria the Commission uses for selecting AO's for the annual report to Congress as required by section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-438). Section 208 of the act defines an AO as an unscheduled incident or event which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)determines to be significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. The AO criteria have been amended to ensure that the criteria are consistent with the NRC's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year
(FY)2004-2009 and the NRC rulemaking on Title 10, part 35, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 35), “Medical Use of Byproduct Material.” Additionally, risk-informed criteria based on the NRC Accident Sequence Precursor
(ASP)Program and Reactor Oversight Process
(ROP)have been added for selecting abnormal occurrences at commercial nuclear power plants for the report to Congress. The ASP program assesses the risk significance of issues and events. The ROP is a risk-informed, tiered approach to ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants. The ROP is a process for collecting information about licensee performance, assessing the safety significance of the information, taking appropriate actions, and ensuring that licensees correct deficiencies. Some sections of the AO criteria have been restructured. The restructuring accommodates the changes in the criteria and minimizes duplication. Any interested party may submit comments on the criteria for the NRC staff's consideration. The comments should include supporting information. DATES: Submit comments by May 30, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practicable to do so, but cannot be assured consideration. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Comments submitted in writing or electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Mail comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to *SECY@nrc.gov* . If you do not receive a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, call us at
(301)415-1966. Hand-deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays (telephone
(301)415-1966). Fax comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at
(301)415-1101. Publicly available documents may be viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O1-F21, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. The public can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) through the agency's public Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov* . This Web site provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheryl Burrows, telephone:
(301)415-6086; e-mail: *SAB2@nrc.gov* ; USNRC, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Mail Stop T9-F31, Washington, DC 20555-0001. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, Maryland. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-438) defines an abnormal occurrence
(AO)as an unscheduled incident or event which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)determines to be significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-66) requires that AOs be reported to Congress annually. Section 208 requires that the discussion of each event include the date and place, the nature and probable consequences, the cause or causes, and the action taken to prevent recurrence. The Commission must also widely disseminate the AO report to the public within 15 days of sending it to Congress. Abnormal Occurrence Reporting The AO policy statement has been developed to comply with Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. The intent of the act is to keep Congress and the public informed of unscheduled incidents or events which the Commission considers significant from the standpoint of public health and safety. The policy reflects a range of health and safety concerns and applies to incidents and events involving a single individual, as well as those having overall impact on the general public. The AO criteria uses a high reporting threshold to report to Congress only those events considered significant from the standpoint of public health and safety. Licensee Reports This general policy statement will not change the reporting requirements for NRC licensees in Commission regulations, license conditions, or technical specifications (TS). NRC licensees will continue to submit required reports on a wide range of events, including instrument malfunctions and deviations from normal operating procedures that are not significant from the standpoint of the public health and safety but provide data useful to the Commission in monitoring operating trends at licensed facilities and in comparing the actual performance of the facilities with their design and/or licensing basis. Applicability Implementation of section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, “Abnormal Occurrence Reports”, involves the conduct of Commission business and does not impose requirements on licensees or certified facilities. The reports cover certain unscheduled incidents or events related to the manufacture, construction, or operation of a facility or conduct of an activity subject to the requirements of parts 20, 30 through 36, 39, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72 or 76 of Chapter I of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). Agreement States provide information to the NRC on incidents and events involving applicable nuclear materials in their States. Events reported by Agreements States that reach the threshold for reporting as AOs are also published in the “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences.” Abnormal Occurrence General Statement of Policy The Commission will apply the following policy in determining whether an incident or event at a facility or involving an activity that is licensed or otherwise regulated by the Commission is an AO. An incident or event is considered an AO if it involves a major reduction in the protection of public health or safety. The incident or event has a moderate or severe impact on public health or safety and could include, but need not be limited to, the following:
(1)Moderate exposure to, or release of, radioactive material licensed or otherwise regulated by the Commission,
(2)Major degradation of essential safety-related equipment, or
(3)Major deficiencies in the design, construction, or use of management controls for facilities or radioactive material. The criteria for determining whether to consider an incident or event for reporting as an AO are set forth in Appendix A of this policy statement. Commission Dissemination of AO Information The Commission widely disseminates the AO reports to the public. The Commission submits an annual report to Congress on AOs at or associated with any facility or activity which is licensed or otherwise regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. This report gives the date, place, nature, and probable consequences of each AO, the cause or causes of each AO, and any actions taken to prevent recurrence. Appendix A: Abnormal Occurrence Criteria The following criteria are used to determine whether to consider events for reporting as AOs: I. For All Licensees A. Human Exposure to Radiation from Licensed Material. 1. Any unintended radiation exposure to an adult (any individual 18 years of age or older) resulting in an annual total effective dose equivalent
(TEDE)of 250 mSv (25 rem) or more; or an annual sum of the deep dose equivalent (external dose) and committed dose equivalent (intake of radioactive material) to any individual organ other than the lens of the eye, the bone marrow, and the gonads of 2,500 mSv (250 rem) or more; or an annual dose equivalent to the lens of the eye of 1 Sv (100 rem) or more; or an annual sum of the deep dose equivalent and committed dose equivalent to the bone marrow of 1 Sv (100 rem) or more; or a committed dose equivalent to the gonads of 2,500 mSv (250 rem) or more; or an annual shallow-dose equivalent to the skin or extremities of 2,500 mSv (250 rem) or more. 2. Any unintended radiation exposure to any minor (an individual less than 18 years of age) resulting in an annual TEDE of 50 mSv (5 rem) or more, or to an embryo/fetus resulting in a dose equivalent of 50 mSv (5 rem) or more. 3. Any radiation exposure that has resulted in unintended permanent functional damage to an organ or a physiological system as determined by a physician. B. Discharge or dispersal of radioactive material from its intended place of confinement which results in the release of radioactive material to an unrestricted area in concentrations which, if averaged over a period of 24 hours, exceeds 5,000 times the values specified in Table 2 of Appendix B to 10 CFR part 20, unless the licensee has demonstrated compliance with § 20.1301 using § 20.1302(b)(1) or § 20.1302(b)(2)(ii). This criterion does not apply to transportation events. C. Theft, Diversion, or Loss of Licensed Material, or Sabotage or Security Breach. 1 1 Information pertaining to certain incidents may be either classified or under consideration for classification because of national security implications. Classified information will be withheld when formally reporting these incidents in accordance with section 208 of the ERA of 1974, as amended. Any classified details regarding these incidents would be available to the Congress, upon request, under appropriate security arrangements. 1. Any unrecovered lost, stolen, or abandoned sources that exceed the values listed in Appendix P to Part 110, “High Risk Radioactive Material, Category 2.” Excluded from reporting under this criterion are those events involving sources that are lost, stolen, or abandoned under the following conditions: Sources abandoned in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 39.77(c); sealed sources contained in labeled, rugged source housings; recovered sources with sufficient indication that doses in excess of the reporting thresholds specified in AO criteria I.A.1 and I.A.2 did not occur while the source was missing; and unrecoverable sources (sources that have been lost and for which a reasonable attempt at recovery has been made without success) lost under such conditions that doses in excess of the reporting thresholds specified in AO criteria I.A.1 and I.A.2 are not known to have occurred and the agency has determined that the risk of theft or diversion is acceptably low. 2. A substantiated case of actual or attempted theft or diversion of licensed material or sabotage of a facility. 3. Any substantiated loss of special nuclear material or any substantiated inventory discrepancy that is judged to be significant relative to normally expected performance and that is judged to be caused by theft or diversion or by a substantial breakdown of the accountability system. 4. Any substantial breakdown of physical security or material control (i.e., access control containment or accountability systems) that significantly weakened the protection against theft, diversion, or sabotage. 2 2 Due to increased terrorist activities worldwide, the AO report would not disclose specific classified information and sensitive information, the details of which are considered useful to a potential terrorist. Classified information is defined as information that would harm national security if disclosed in an unauthorized manner. 5. Any significant unauthorized disclosures (loss, theft, and/or deliberate) of classified and/or safeguards information that harm national security. D. Initiation of High-Level NRC Team Inspections. 3 3 Initiation of any Incident Investigation Teams, as described in NRC Management Directive
(MD)8.3, “NRC Incident Investigation Program,” or initiation of any Accident Review Groups, as described in MD 8.9, “Accident Investigation.” II. For Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Licensees A. Malfunction of Facility, Structures, or Equipment. 1. Exceeding a safety limit of license technical specification
(TS)[10 CFR 50.36(c)]. 2. Serious degradation of fuel integrity, primary coolant pressure boundary, or primary containment boundary. 3. Loss of plant capability to perform essential safety functions so that a release of radioactive materials which could result in exceeding the dose limits of 10 CFR part 100 or 5 times the dose limits of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion
(GDC)19, could occur from a postulated transient or accident (e.g., loss of emergency core cooling system, loss of control rod system). B. Design or Safety Analysis Deficiency, Personnel Error, or Procedural or Administrative Inadequacy. 1. Discovery of a major condition not specifically considered in the safety analysis report
(SAR)or TS that requires immediate remedial action. 2. Personnel error or procedural deficiencies that result in loss of plant capability to perform essential safety functions so that a release of radioactive materials which could result in exceeding the dose limits of 10 CFR part 100 or 5 times the dose limits of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, GDC 19, could occur from a postulated transient or accident (e.g., loss of emergency core cooling system, loss of control rod drive mechanism). C. Any reactor events or conditions that are determined to be of high safety significance. 4 4 The NRC ROP uses four colors to describe the safety significance of licensee performance. As defined in NRC Management Directive 8.13, “Reactor Oversight Process,” green is used for very low safety significance, white is used for low to moderate safety significance, yellow is used for substantial safety significance, and red is used for high safety significance. Reactor conditions or performance indicators evaluated to be red are considered Abnormal Occurrences. Additionally, Criterion II.C also includes any events or conditions evaluated by the NRC ASP program to have a conditional core damage probability
(CCDP)or change in core damage probability (ΔCDP) of greater than 1×10 −3 . D. Any operating reactor plants that are determined to have overall unacceptable performance or that are in a shutdown condition as a result of significant performance problems and/or operational event(s). 5 5 Any plants assessed by the ROP to be in the unacceptable performance column, as described in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0305, “Operating Reactor Assessment Program.” This assessment of safety performance is based on the number and significance of NRC inspection findings and licensee performance indicators. III. Events at Facilities Other Than Nuclear Power Plants and All Transportation Events A. Events Involving Design, Analysis, Construction, Testing, Operation, Transport, Use, or Disposal of Licensed Facilities or Regulated Materials 1. An accidental criticality [10 CFR 70.52(a)]. 2. A major deficiency in design, construction, control, or operation having significant safety implications that require immediate remedial action. 3. A serious safety-significant deficiency in management or procedural controls. 4. A series of events (in which the individual events are not of major importance), recurring incidents, or incidents with implications for similar facilities (generic incidents) that raise a major safety concern. B. For Fuel Cycle Facilities 1. Absence or failure of all safety-related or security-related controls (engineered and human) for an NRC-regulated lethal hazard (radiological or chemical) while the lethal hazard is present. 2. An NRC-ordered safety-related or security-related immediate remedial action. C. For Medical Licensees A medical event that: 1. Results in a dose that is: a. Equal to or greater than 1Gy (100 rad) to a major portion of the bone marrow or to the lens of the eye; or equal or greater than 2.5 Gy (250 rad) to the gonads; or b. Equal to or greater than 10 Gy (1,000 rad) to any other organ or tissue; and 2. Represents either: a. A dose or dosage that is at least 50 percent greater than that prescribed, or b. A prescribed dose or dosage that:
(i)Is the wrong radiopharmaceutical or unsealed byproduct material; or
(ii)Is delivered by the wrong route of administration; or
(iii)Is delivered to the wrong treatment site; or
(iv)Is delivered by the wrong treatment mode; or
(v)Is from a leaking source or sources; or
(vi)Is delivered to the wrong individual or human research subject. IV. Other Events of Interest The Commission may determine that events other than AOs may be of interest to Congress and the public and should be included in an appendix to the AO report as “Other Events of Interest.” Such events include, but are not necessarily limited to, events that do not meet the AO criteria but that have been perceived by Congress or the public to be of high health and safety significance, have received significant media coverage, or have caused the NRC to increase its attention to or oversight of a program area, or a group of similar events as a result of which licensed materials entered the public domain in an uncontrolled manner. [5 U.S.C. 552(a)]. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of February, 2006. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-2857 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon written request, copy available from: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. Extension: Form N-54C; SEC File No. 270-184; OMB Control No. 3235-0236. Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ] (the “Act”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. Form N-54C under the Investment Company Act of 1940 [17 CFR 274.54] is a notification to the Commission that a company withdraws its election to be regulated as a business development company. Such a company only has to file a Form N-54C once. It is estimated that approximately 18 respondents per year file with the Commission a Form N-54C. Form N-54C requires approximately 1 burden hour per response resulting from creating and filing the information required by the Form. The total burden hours for Form N-54C would be 18 hours per year in the aggregate. The estimated annual burden of 18 hours represents an increase of 10 hours over the prior estimate of 8 hours. The increase in burden hours is attributable to an increase in the number of respondents from 8 to 18. The estimate of average burden hours for Form N54-C is made solely for the purposes of the Act and is not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Written comments are invited on:
(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Dated: February 22, 2006. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-2850 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53349; File No. SR-Amex-2006-07] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of a Pilot Program That Increases Position and Exercise Limits for Equity Options and Options on the Nasdaq-100 Tracking Stock February 22, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 31, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Amex. The Exchange has filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange seeks a six-month extension of its pilot program increasing the standard position and exercise limits for options on the QQQQ and equity option classes traded on the Exchange (“Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site ( *http://www.amex.com* ), at the Amex's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is requesting to extend its current Pilot Program increasing the standard position and exercise limits for options on the QQQQ and equity option classes traded on the Exchange for a time period of slightly over six months from February 23, 2006, through and including September 1, 2006. The Exchange previously filed a proposed rule change, which was effective upon filing with the Commission, that increased standard position and exercise limits for options on the QQQQ and for equity option classes traded on the Exchange on a pilot basis for a six-month period. 5 Under the Pilot Program, position and exercise limits for options on the QQQQ and equity options classes traded on the Exchange were increased to the following levels: 5 The Pilot Program, which commenced on March 3, 2005, is set to expire on February 23, 2006. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51316 (March 3, 2005), 70 FR 12251 (March 11, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-Amex-2005-029). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52260 (August 15, 2005), 70 FR 48991 (August 22, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-Amex-2005-082, which extended the Pilot Program). 6 Except when the Pilot Program is in effect. Current equity option contract Limit 6 Pilot program equity option contract limit 13,500 25,000 22,500 50,000 31,500 75,000 60,000 200,000 75,000 250,000 Current QQQQ option contract limit Pilot Program QQQQ option contract limit 300,000 900,000 The standard position limits were last increased on December 31, 1998. 7 Since that time there has been a steady increase in the number of accounts that:
(a)Approach the position limit;
(b)exceed the position limit; and
(c)are granted an exemption to the standard limit. Several member firms have petitioned the options exchanges to either eliminate position limits, or in lieu of total elimination, increase the current levels and expand the available hedge exemptions. A review of available data indicates that the majority of accounts that maintain sizable positions are in those option classes subject to the 60,000 and 75,000 tier limits. There also has been an increase in the number of accounts that maintain sizable positions in the lower three tiers. In addition, overall volume in the options market has continually increased over the past five years. The Exchange believes that the increase in options volume and lack of evidence of market manipulation occurrences over the past twenty years justifies the proposed increases in the position and exercise limits. 7 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40875 (December 31, 1998), 64 FR 1842 (January 12, 1999) (SR-Amex-98-22) (approval of increase in position limits and exercise limits). The Exchange has not encountered any problems or difficulties relating to the Pilot Program since its inception. The instant proposed rule change makes no substantive change to the Pilot Program other than to extend it for a time period slightly over six months through September 1, 2006. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act 8 in general and furthers the objective of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 9 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would impose no burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received by the Exchange on this proposal. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the forgoing rule change does not:
(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 11 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 12 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule change. In addition, the Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day pre-operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest because it will allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted. 14 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 13 *Id.* 14 For the purposes only of waiving the pre-operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-Amex-2006-07 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2006-07. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2006-07 and should be submitted on or before March 22, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-2814 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53347; File No. SR-BSE-2006-07] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Its Boston Options Exchange Trading Rules Regarding the Extension of a Pilot Program That Increases the Standard Position and Exercise Limits for Certain Options Traded February 22, 2006. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on February 15, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the BSE. The Exchange has filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The BSE proposes to amend the rules of the Boston Options Exchange (“BOX”), an options trading facility of the BSE, to extend its current pilot program to increase the standard position and exercise limits for equity option contracts and options on the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock (“QQQQ”) (“Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the BSE's Web site *(http://www.bostonstock.com)* , at the BSE's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the BSE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Pilot Program provides for an increase to the standard position and exercise limits for equity option contracts and for options on QQQQs for a six-month period. 5 Specifically, the Pilot Program increased the applicable position and exercise limits for equity options and options on the QQQQ to the following levels: 5 The Pilot Program, which commenced on March 3, 2005, is set to expire on March 3, 2006. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51317 (March 3, 2005), 70 FR 12254 (March 11, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-BSE-2005-10) (“Pilot Program Notice”). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52264 (August 15, 2005), 70 FR 48992 (August 22, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-BSE-2005-37, which extended the Pilot Program). 6 Except when the Pilot Program is in effect. Current equity option contract limit 6 Pilot program equity option contract limit 13,500 25,000 22,500 50,000 31,500 75,000 160,000 200,000 75,000 250,000 Current QQQQ option contract limit Pilot Program QQQQ option contract limit 300,000 900,000 The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot Program for six months is warranted due to positive feedback from members and for the reasons cited in the original rule filing that proposed the adoption of the Pilot Program. 7 In addition, BOX has not encountered any problems or difficulties relating to the Pilot Program since its inception. For these reasons, the BSE requests that the Commission extend the Pilot Program for an additional period of approximately six months, through and including September 1, 2006. 7 *See* Pilot Program Notice, *supra* note 5. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act, 8 in general, and furthers the objective of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 9 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest. 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the forgoing rule change does not:
(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 11 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 12 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule change. In addition, the Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day pre-operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest because it will allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted. 14 12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 13 *Id.* 14 For the purposes only of waiving the pre-operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form *(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml)* ; or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-BSE-2006-07 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BSE-2006-07. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site *(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml)* . Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the BSE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BSE-2006-07 and should be submitted on or before March 22, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 15 15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-2817 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-53348; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-11] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Extension of a Pilot Program That Increases the Standard Position and Exercise Limits for Certain Options Traded on the Exchange February 22, 2006. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on January 31, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the CBOE. The Exchange has filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder, 4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The CBOE proposes to extend an existing pilot program that increases the standard position and exercise limits for certain options traded on the Exchange (“Pilot Program”). The text of the proposed rule change is available on the CBOE's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the CBOE's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Pilot Program, as previously approved by the Commission, provides for an increase to the standard position and exercise limits for equity option contracts and for options on QQQQs for a six-month period. 5 Specifically, the Pilot Program increased the applicable position and exercise limits for equity options on the QQQQ in accordance with the following levels: 5 The proposed extension is actually for six months and ten days. The Pilot Program, which the Commission approved for February 23, 2005, and extended for an additional six months, is set to expire on February 23, 2006. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51244 (February 23, 2005) 70 FR 10010 (March 1, 2005) (order approving SR-CBOE-2003-30, as amended) (“Pilot Program Order”). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52262 (August 15, 2005), 70 FR 48995 (August 22, 2005) (order approving SR-CBOE-2005-61). Current equity option contract limit 6 Pilot program equity option contract limit 13,500 25,000 22,500 50,000 31,500 75,000 60,000 200,000 75,000 250,000 Current QQQQ option contract limit Pilot program QQQQ option contract limit 300,000 900,000 The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot Program for an additional period of slightly over six months, through September 1, 2006. The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot Program for six months is warranted due to the positive feedback from members and for the reasons cited in the original rule filing that proposed the adoption of the Pilot Program. 7 Also, the Exchange has not encountered any problems or difficulties relating to the Pilot Program since its inception. For these reasons, the Exchange requests that the Commission extend the Pilot Program for the aforementioned additional period. 6 Except when the Pilot Program is in effect. 7 *See* Pilot Program Order, *supra* note5. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements provided under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Because the foregoing rule change does not:
(1)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(2)impose any significant burden on competition; and
(3)become operative for 30 days after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 8 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 9 8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 9 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. 10 However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 11 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day pre-operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest because it will allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted. 12 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 11 *Id.* 12 For the purposes only of waiving the pre-operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). The Commission is also exercising its authority to waive the five-day pre-filing requirement. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment from ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File No. SR-CBOE-2006-11 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-11. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-11 and should be submitted on or before March 22, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-1907 Filed 2-28-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 41
Traces to 41 documents
U.S. Code
- Federal agency responsibilities§ 3506
- Standards§ 655
- State jurisdiction and plans§ 667
- Congressional statement of findings and declaration of purpose and policy§ 651
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- Purposes§ 3501
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- Definitions and application§ 78c
CFR
- Protection of low- and medium-voltage three-phase circuits used underground.§ 75.901
- Automatic fire sensor and warning device systems; installation; minimum requirements.§ 75.1103-4
- Power connection points.§ 75.507
- Electric equipment; examination, testing, and maintenance.§ 77.502
- Electric equipment; examination, testing and maintenance.§ 75.512
- Weekly examination.§ 75.364
- Installation of electric equipment and conductors; permissibility.§ 75.1002
- Quantity and location of firefighting equipment.§ 75.1100-2
- Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance.§ 75.503
- Deluge-type water spray systems.§ 75.1101-1
- Oil and gas wells.§ 75.1700
- Type and quality of firefighting equipment.§ 75.1100-1
- Permissible electric equipment.§ 75.500
- Additional requirements applicable to specific types of scaffolds.§ 1926.452
- Material hoists, personnel hoists, and elevators.§ 1926.552
- General requirements.§ 1926.451
- General safety and health provisions.§ 1926.20
- Maryland.§ 1952.9
- Action on applications.§ 1905.14
- Definitions.§ 1926.32
- Rigging equipment for material handling.§ 1926.251
- Underground construction.§ 1926.800
- Safety belts, lifelines, and lanyards.§ 1926.104
- Fall protection systems criteria and practices.§ 1926.502
- Notice for public comment; State consultation.§ 50.91
- Issuance of amendment.§ 50.92
- Hearing requests, petitions to intervene, requirements for standing, and contentions.§ 2.309
- Notification of incidents and lost sources; abandonment procedures for irretrievable sources.§ 39.77
- Technical specifications.§ 50.36
- Reports of accidental criticality.§ 70.52
- Form N-54C, notification of withdrawal of election to be subject to sections 55 through 65 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 filed pursuant to section 54(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.§ 274.54
- Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Trading and Markets.§ 200.30-3
12 references not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 107-210
- 29 CFR 1926
- 29 CFR 1905
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 10 CFR 20
- 10 CFR 2
- Pub. L. 93-438
- 10 CFR 35
- Pub. L. 104-66
- 10 CFR 100
- 10 CFR 50
- 17 CFR 240.19
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Request for comments from the public
Pub. L.Pub. L. 107-210
Cite29 CFR 1926
Cite29 CFR 1905
Cites 53 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources