[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60756-60759]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24006]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R04-RCRA-2012-0179; FRL-9917-53-Region-4]

Florida: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Florida has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has
determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to
qualify for final authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes
through this immediate final rule. In the ``Proposed Rules'' section of
today's Federal Register, EPA is also publishing a separate document
that serves as the proposal to authorize these changes. EPA believes
this action is not controversial and does not expect comments that
oppose it. Unless EPA receives written comments that oppose this
authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize
Florida's changes to its hazardous waste program will take effect. If
EPA receives comments that oppose this action, EPA will publish a
document in the Federal Register withdrawing today's immediate final
rule before it takes effect, and the separate document published in
today's ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register will serve
as the proposal to authorize the changes.

DATES: This final authorization will become effective on December 8,
2014 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by November 7, 2014.
If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
this immediate final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that this authorization will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
RCRA-2012-0179, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (prior to faxing, please notify the
EPA contact listed below).
     Mail: Send written comments to Anita K. Shipley, Permits
and State Programs Section, RCRA Programs and Materials Management
Branch, RCRA Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Anita
K. Shipley, Permits and State Programs Section, RCRA Programs and
Materials Management Branch, RCRA Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: EPA must receive your comments by November 7, 2014.
Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2012-0179. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. (For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy.
    You may view and copy Florida's applications and associated
publicly available materials from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the
following locations: EPA, Region 4, RCRA Division, Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least a
week in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita K. Shipley, Permits and State
Programs Section, RCRA Programs and Materials Management Branch, RCRA
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center,
61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; telephone number:
(404) 562-8466; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must
change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to
State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
    New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized States at the
same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. Thus, EPA will
implement those requirements and prohibitions in Florida, including the
issuance of new permits implementing those requirements, until the
State is granted authorization to do so.

B. What decisions has EPA made in this rule?

    On August 10, 2009, July 1, 2010, and August 30, 2012, Florida
submitted final complete program revision applications, seeking
authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program that correspond
to certain Federal rules promulgated between July 1, 2007 and June 30,
2009, and July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011 (also known as RCRA Clusters
XVIII, XIX, and XXI). EPA concludes that Florida's applications to
revise its authorized program meet all of the statutory and regulatory
requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b),
42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR Part 271. Therefore, EPA grants Florida
final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the
changes described in the authorization applications, and as outlined
below in Section G of this document.
    Florida has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian Country) and
for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its
revised program applications, subject to the limitations of HSWA, as
discussed above.

C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that the changes described in
Florida's authorization applications will become part of the authorized
State hazardous waste program, and will therefore be federally
enforceable. Florida will continue to have primary enforcement
authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste program. EPA
retains its authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,
including its authority to:
     Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests,
analyses, or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State
program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which Florida is being
authorized by today's action are already effective, and enforceable
requirements under State law, and are not changed by today's action.

D. Why wasn't there a proposed rule before today's rule?

    Along with this immediate final rule, EPA is publishing a separate
document in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register
that serves as the proposal to authorize these State program changes.
EPA did not publish a proposed rule before today because EPA views this
as a routine program change and does not expect comments that oppose
this approval. EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment now,
as described in Section E of this document.

E. What happens if EPA receives comments that oppose this action?

    If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, EPA will
withdraw today's immediate final rule by publishing a document in the
Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any
further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on
the proposed rule mentioned in the previous section, after considering
all comments received during the comment period, and will address all
such comments in a later final rule. You may not have another
opportunity to comment on these State program changes. If you want to

comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.
    If EPA receives comments that oppose only the authorization of a
particular change to the State hazardous waste program, EPA will
withdraw that part of today's immediate final rule but the
authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose
will become effective on the date specified above. The Federal Register
withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will
become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

F. What has Florida previously been authorized for?

    Florida initially received Final authorization on January 29, 1985,
effective February 12, 1985 (50 FR 3908), to implement a RCRA hazardous
waste management program. EPA granted authorization for changes to
Florida's program on December 1, 1987, effective March 3, 1988 (52 FR
45634); December 16, 1988, effective January 3, 1989 (53 FR 50529);
December 14, 1990, effective February 12, 1991 (55 FR 51416); February
5, 1992, effective April 6, 1992 (57 FR 4371); February 7, 1992,
effective April 7, 1992 (57 FR 4738); May 20, 1992, effective July 20,
1992 (57 FR 21351); November 9, 1993, effective January 10, 1994 (58 FR
59367); July 11, 1994, effective September 9, 1994 (59 FR 35266); April
16, 1994, effective October 17, 1994 (59 FR 41979); October 26, 1994,
effective December 27, 1994 (59 FR 53753); April 1, 1997, effective
June 2, 1997 (62 FR 15407); September 18, 2000, effective November 18,
2000 (65 FR 56256); August 23, 2001, effective October 22, 2001 (66 FR
44307); August 20, 2002, effective October 21, 2002 (67 FR 53886 and 67
FR 53889); October 14, 2004, effective December 13, 2004 (69 FR 60964);
August 10, 2007, effective October 9, 2007 (72 FR 44973); and February
7, 2011, effective April 8, 2011 (76 FR 6564). The authorized Florida
program, through RCRA Cluster IV, was incorporated by reference into
the CFR on January 20, 1998, effective March 23, 1998 (63 FR 2896).

G. What changes is EPA authorizing with this action?

    On August 10, 2009, July 1, 2010, and August 30, 2012, Florida
submitted final complete program revision applications seeking
authorization of its changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA now
makes an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written
comments that oppose this action, that Florida's hazardous waste
program revisions are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Therefore,
EPA grants Florida final authorization for the following program
changes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of federal requirement      Federal register date and page                             Analogous state authority \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
216--Exclusion of Oil-Bearing       73 FR 57, 01/02/08...................  F.A.C. 62-730.020(1) and F.A.C. 62-730.030(1).
 Secondary Materials Processed in
 a Gasification System to Produce
 Synthesis Gas.
217--NESHAP: Final Standards for    73 FR 18970, 04/08/08................  F.A.C. 62-730.180(1) and F.A.C. 62-730.181(1).
 Hazardous Waste Combusters (Phase
 I Final Replacement Standards and
 Phase II) Amendments.
220--Academic Laboratories          73 FR 72912, 12/01/08................  F.A.C. 62-730.030(1) and F.A.C. 62-730.160(1).
 Generator Standards.
225--Removal of Saccharin and its   75 FR 78918, 12/17/10................  F.A.C. 62-730.030(1) and F.A.C. 62-183.
 Salts from the Lists of Hazardous
 Wastes.
226--Corrections to the Academic    75 FR 79304, 10/20/10................  F.A.C. 62-730.160(1).
 Laboratories Generator Standards.
227--Revision of the Land Disposal  76 FR 34147, 06/13/11................  F.A.C. 62-730.183.
 Treatment Standards for Carbamate
 Wastes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Florida provisions for RCRA Cluster XVIII (Checklists 216-217) are from Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Chapter 62-730, effective May 8,
  2009. The Florida provisions for RCRA Cluster XIX (Checklist 220) are from F.A.C. Chapter 62-730, effective June 8, 2010. The Florida provisions for
  RCRA Cluster XXI (Checklists 225-227) are from F.A.C. Chapter 62-730, effective June 29, 2012.

H. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    There are no State requirements in the authorized program revisions
listed above that are considered to be more stringent or broader in
scope than the Federal requirements. However, Florida has made several
State-initiated changes to its regulations that the EPA considers to be
beyond the scope of the Federal program. These broader-in-scope
requirements include the following:
     Form 8700-12F, to the extent that it requires notification
for used oil filter transporters, transfer facilities, processors, and
end users.
     F.A.C. 62-730.171(3)(a)(1), which requires that a transfer
facility's initial notification include a certification that the
proposed location of the transfer facility satisfies the criteria of
F.S. 403.7211(2).
     F.A.C. 62-730.182, which adds criteria to determine
whether changes at a hazardous waste facility constitute a
``substantial modification'' for purposes of the location standards of
F.S. 403.7211.
    Broader-in-scope requirements are not part of the State's
authorized program and EPA cannot enforce them. Although these
requirements must be complied with in accordance with State law, they
are not RCRA requirements.
    With this immediate final rule, EPA is also correcting an error
that appeared in the February 7, 2011, Federal Register document
authorizing certain other changes to Florida's hazardous waste program.
At that time, EPA concluded that Florida's universal pharmaceutical
waste rule, F.A.C. 62-730.186, was broader in scope than the Federal
program. This determination was in error. Florida was previously
authorized on April 1, 1997, 62 FR 15407, for its universal waste
rules, F.A.C. 62-730.185, which allow the State to add additional
wastes to its list of universal wastes. As a result, Florida's addition
of hazardous pharmaceutical waste to its universal waste rules is
appropriate and consistent with 40 CFR part 273, subpart G. Therefore,
at this time, EPA is authorizing the specific management requirements
for universal pharmaceutical waste as set forth at F.A.C. 62-730.186,
as revised on April 23, 2013. These requirements are different, but
equivalent to, the Federal program.

I. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Florida will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue
to administer

any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which EPA
issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until they
expire or are terminated. EPA will not issue any more permits or new
portions of permits for the provisions listed in the Table above after
the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to
implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Florida is
not authorized.

J. How does today's action affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Florida?

    Florida is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program
in Indian Country within the State, which includes the Seminole Tribe
of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida. EPA will
continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in these lands.

K. What is codification and is EPA codifying Florida's hazardous waste
program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by
referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not
codifying the authorization of Florida's changes at this time. However,
EPA reserves the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart K, for the
authorization of Florida's program changes at a later date.

L. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This
action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action
authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and does not
impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State
law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this
action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA
hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This
action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not
make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for
authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
action will be effective December 8, 2014, unless objections to this
authorization are received.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  This action is issued under the authority of
sections 2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b), of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: August 27, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-24006 Filed 10-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37471-37472]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0084]

National Automotive Sampling System

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The NHTSA is conducting a comprehensive review of the National
Automotive Sampling System (NASS) research design and data collection
methods as part of a major effort to modernize the system. Users of
NASS and crash data may comment on the future utility of current data
elements, recommend additional data elements and attributes, and
describe their anticipated data needs.

DATES: Please submit all comments to the Docket by July 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Confidential Information: If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of
your complete submission, including the information you claim to be
confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. In addition, you
should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address
given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions relating to the redesign
effort, please contact Donna Glassbrenner, Mathematical Analysis
Division, NHTSA, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>She may also be reached at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA is undertaking a modernization effort
to upgrade the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) by improving
the information technology (IT) infrastructure, updating and
prioritizing the data collected, reselecting the sample sites and
sample sizes, re-examining the electronic formats in which the crash
data files are made available to the public, and improving data
collection methods and quality control procedures, among other
activities.
    NASS collects crash data on a nationally representative sample of
police-reported motor vehicle traffic crashes and related injuries.
NASS data are used by Federal, State, and local government agencies, as
well as by industry and academia in the U.S. and around the world. The
data enable stakeholders to make informed regulatory, program, and
policy decisions regarding vehicle design and traffic safety. The NASS
system currently has two components: The General Estimates System (GES)
and the Crashworthiness Data System (CDS).

While the GES captures information on all types of traffic crashes, the
CDS focuses on more severe crashes involving passenger vehicles to
better document the consequences to vehicles and occupants in crashes--
i.e., crashworthiness.
    NASS was originally designed in the 1970's, and has not received
significant revision since that time with regard to the type of data
collected and the sites of data collection. Over the last three
decades, NHTSA understands that the scope of traffic safety studies
have expanded and the data needs of the transportation community have
increased and significantly changed. In addition, the distribution of
the U.S. population has shifted over the past 23 years, and there is a
growing need for the collection of information that addresses issues of
crash avoidance. Recognizing the importance of this data, NHTSA is
pursuing data improvement initiatives that will enhance the quality of
the data collected and the overall effectiveness of the NASS.
    This modernization effort includes the following major objectives:
     Propose data elements for the crash investigation portion
of NASS that are responsive to the current and future needs of both
internal and external data users;
     Develop a detailed, executable sample design and data
collection protocol blueprint that meets data needs in an effective and
efficient manner while still maintaining national representativeness;
     Modernize the information technology (IT) infrastructure;
     Re-examine the electronic formats in which the crash data
files are made available to the public; and
     Examine using new data collection methods and quality
control procedures to improve data quality and timeliness.
    In order to meet these objectives, NHTSA invites stakeholders to
comment on the current data elements, propose new data elements, make
suggestions on the research design and data collection protocol for the
modernized study, and make any other suggestions they feel NHTSA should
consider to improve crash data.
    Current NASS data elements, coding instructions, and descriptive
materials can be reviewed on NHTSA's Web site at: http://nhtsa.gov/NASS.

Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator for the National Center for Statistics and
Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2012-15228 Filed 6-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 71697-71699]
[DOCID:fr24no10-82]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0096; FRL-8837-3]

Pesticide Products; Registration Applications

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is
hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these
applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the file symbol(s) of interest as listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID number and the
file symbol(s) of interest as listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the docket without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Regulatory Action Leader listed in
the table in this unit:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Telephone No. and E-mail
  Regulatory  action leader              address                   Mailing address            File symbol(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Gross..................<PHONE_NUMBER>;               Biopesticides and Pollution   87301-R
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>          Prevention Division (7511P)
                                                             Office of Pesticide
                                                             Programs, Environmental
                                                             Protection Agency 1200
                                                             Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
                                                             Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Susanne Cerrelli............<PHONE_NUMBER>;               Do..........................  74267-E, 74267-G,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                  74267-U
Leonard Cole................<PHONE_NUMBER>;               Do..........................  52991-EA
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cheryl Greene...............<PHONE_NUMBER>;               Do..........................  87485-87485-R
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jeannine Kausch.............<PHONE_NUMBER>;               Do..........................  85004-A, 85004-L,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                   85004-T, 85004-U
Ann Sibold..................<PHONE_NUMBER>;               Do..........................  84059-RE
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining

whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person associated with the file symbol of interest
and listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
If you are commenting on a docket that addresses multiple products,
please indicate to which file symbol(s) your comment applies.
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered
pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(4) of
FIFRA, EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications
does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications.
    File symbol: 87301-R. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0247.
Applicant: Catherine Byrd, Wagner Regulatory Associates, Inc., P.O. Box
640, Hockessin, DE 19707 (on behalf of Biocontrol Technologies, S. L.,
Parc Cientific de Barcelona, C/Baldiri Reixac, 15-2; 08028 Barcelona,
Spain). Product name: T34 Biocontrol. Active ingredient: Trichoderma
asperellum strain T34 at 12.0%. Proposed classification/Use: Greenhouse
use on non-food crops.
    File symbol: 74267-E. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0499.
Applicant: Gary Libman, GNL Consultation Services, 25 Casa Hermosa,
Albuquerque, NM 87112 (on behalf of Premier Horticulture, 1, avenue
Premier, Rivi[egrave]re-du-Loup, Quebec, Canada G5R 6C1). Product name:
GHA 180 Biological Fungicide. Active ingredient: Bacillus pumilus
strain GHA180 at 0.43%. Proposed classification/Use: Fungicide for
greenhouse and enclosed nursery use to treat growing media and
ornamentals, vegetable plants, ground cover and deciduous trees and
plants, and manufacturing use.
    File symbol: 74267-G. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0499.
Applicant: Gary Libman, GNL Consultation Services, 25 Casa Hermosa,
Albuquerque, NM 87112 (on behalf of Premier Horticulture, 1, avenue
Premier, Rivi[egrave]re-du-Loup, Quebec, Canada G5R 6C1). Product name:
Pro-Mix GHA180. Active ingredient: Bacillus pumilus strain GHA180 at
0.001%. Proposed classification/Use: Fungicide with growing medium for
greenhouse or contained nurseries use to germinate seeds and cultivate
transplants of ornamental, vegetable, fruit, agricultural and tobacco
plants.
    File symbol: 74267-U. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0499.
Applicant: Gary Libman, GNL Consultation Services, 25 Casa Hermosa,
Albuquerque, NM 87112 (on behalf of Premier Horticulture, 1, avenue
Premier, Rivi[egrave]re-du-Loup, Quebec, Canada G5R 6C1). Product name:
Pro-Mix Tandem. Active ingredient: Bacillus pumilus strain GHA180 at
0.001%. Proposed classification/Use: Fungicide with growing medium for
greenhouse or contained nurseries use to germinate seeds and cultivate
transplants of ornamental, vegetable, fruit, agricultural and tobacco
plants.
    File symbol: 52991-EA. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0804.
Applicant: Bedoukian Research, Inc., 21 Finance Drive, Danbury, CT
06810. Product name: Bedoukian Citral. Active ingredient: Citral at
96.0%. Proposed classification/Use: Manufacturing-use product.
    File symbol: 84059-RE. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0079.
Applicant: Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., 2121 Second Street, Suite B-
107, Davis, CA 95618. Product name: MBI-005 EP. Active ingredient:
Killed, non-viable Streptomyces acidiscabies strain RL-110\T\. Proposed
classification/Use: Herbicide for use on cereal grains, corn, rice.
Please note: The Notice of Receipt for the manufacturing-use product
(EPA file symbol 84059-RR) was published in a separate notice (see 75
FR 11175; March 10, 2010; FRL-8811-6).
    File symbol: 85004-A. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0806.
Applicant: MacIntosh and Associates, Inc., 1203 Hartford Avenue, Saint
Paul, MN 55116-1622 (on behalf of Pasteuria Bioscience, Inc., 12085
Research Drive, Suite 185, Alachua, FL 32615). Product name: Pasteuria
nishizawae--Pn1. Active ingredient: Pasteuria nishizawae--Pn1 at 0.01%.
Proposed classification/Use: Manufacturing-use product.
    File symbol: 85004-L. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0808.
Applicant: MacIntosh and Associates, Inc., 1203 Hartford Avenue, Saint
Paul, MN 55116-1622 (on behalf of Pasteuria Bioscience, Inc., 12085
Research Drive, Suite 185, Alachua, FL 32615). Product name: Pasteuria
reniformis--seed treatment. Active ingredient: Pasteuria reniformis--
Pr3 at 0.01%. Proposed classification/Use: Preplant and commercial seed
treatment for control of reniform nematode (Rotylenchulus reniformis).
    File symbol: 85004-T. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0806.
Applicant: MacIntosh and Associates, Inc., 1203 Hartford Avenue, Saint
Paul, MN 55116-1622 (on behalf of Pasteuria Bioscience, Inc., 12085
Research Drive, Suite 185, Alachua, FL 32615). Product name: Pasteuria
nishizawae--seed treatment. Active ingredient: Pasteuria nishizawae--
Pn1 at 0.01%. Proposed classification/Use: Preplant and commercial seed
treatment for control of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines).
    File symbol: 85004-U. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0808.
Applicant: MacIntosh and Associates, Inc., 1203 Hartford Avenue, Saint
Paul, MN 55116-1622 (on behalf of Pasteuria

Bioscience, Inc., 12085 Research Drive, Suite 185, Alachua, FL 32615).
Product name: Pasteuria reniformis--Pr3. Active ingredient: Pasteuria
reniformis--Pr3 at 0.01%. Proposed classification/Use: Manufacturing-
use product.
    File symbol: 87485-E. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0685.
Applicant: Michael T. Novak; Keller and Heckman, LLP; 1001 G Street,
NW.; Washington, DC 20001(on behalf of DSM Food Specialities BV; P.O.
Box 12600 MA Delft; The Netherlands). Product name: Natamycin L. Active
ingredient: Natamycin at 10.34%. Proposed classification/Use:
Fungicide.
    File symbol: 87485-R. Docket number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0685.
Applicant: Michael T. Novak; Keller and Heckman, LLP; 1001 G Street,
NW.; Washington, DC 20001(on behalf of DSM Food Specialities BV, P.O.
Box 12600 MA Delft; The Netherlands). Product name: NATAMYCIN TGAI.
Active ingredient: Natamycin at 91.02%. Proposed classification/Use:
Technical product.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: November 9, 2010.
W. Michael McDavit,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-29224 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 212 (Friday, November 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51312-51313]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23922]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81976; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-43]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rules 700, 1322, and 517

October 30, 2017.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 October 16, 2017, Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to make minor corrective changes
to Exchange Rule 700, Exercise of Option Contracts; Rule 1322, Options
Communications; and Rule 517, Quote Types Defined.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/ at MIAX Options'
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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 700, Exercise of
Option Contracts; Rule 1322, Options Communications; and Rule 517,
Quote Types Defined, to make minor non-substantive corrective changes.
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 700 to remove a
duplicate item identifier. The Exchange recently amended Rule 700 by
adding new paragraph (h).\3\ However, the Exchange inadvertently
numbered the paragraph as (h) when it should have been numbered as (l).
The Exchange is not proposing any change to the wording of the Rule or
to its application. The Exchange is only proposing to amend Rule 700(h)
to be renumbered to Rule 700(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81739 (September 27,
2017), 82 FR 46111 (October 3, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1322, Options
Communications to make minor corrective changes to the numerical list
item identifiers to properly conform to the hierarchical heading scheme
used throughout the Exchange's rulebook. Paragraph (a) currently reads,
``Definitions. For purposes of this Rule and any interpretation
thereof, `options communications' consist of:.'' The language after the
word ``Definition'' should be in a separate sub-paragraph, therefore,
the Exchange proposes to amend this Rule to move the language after the
word ``Definition'' to sub-paragraph (a)(1). Accordingly, sub-
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) will be renumbered as (a)(1)(i)
through (a)(1)(iii); sub-paragraph (a)(4) will be renumbered as (a)(2);
sub-paragraphs (a)(4)(1) through (a)(4)(3) will be renumbered as
(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iii); sub-paragraph (a)(5) will be renumbered
as (a)(3); sub-paragraphs (a)(5)(A) through (a)(5)(F) will be
renumbered as (a)(3)(i) through (a)(3)(vi); sub-paragraphs (h)(i)
through (h)(viii) will be renumbered as (h)(1) through (h)(8); and
finally, the reference to Rule (a)(4) located in current Rule (a)(5)
will be renumbered to reference Rule (a)(2).
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 517(a)(2)(i)
to correct a typographical error. Currently, the second to last
sentence reads ``[i]f the Exchange determines to establish a limit, it
will be no more ten Day eQuotes on the same side of an individual
option.'' The word ``than'' is missing between the words ``more'' and
``ten.'' Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend the sentence to read
``[i]f the Exchange determines to establish a limit, it will be no more
than ten Day eQuotes on the same side of an individual option.''
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \5\ in particular, in that
they are 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, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes promote just and
equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because the proposed rule change corrects minor

typographical errors and corrects errors in the hierarchical heading
scheme to provide uniformity in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange
notes that the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 700, Exercise of
Option Contracts; Rule 1322, Options Communications; and Rule 517,
Quote Types Defined do not alter the application of each rule. As such,
the proposed amendments would foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national exchange system. In particular, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes will provide greater clarity to
Members \6\ and the public regarding the Exchange's Rules. It is in the
public interest for rules to be accurate and concise so as to eliminate
the potential for confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    MIAX Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will
have no impact on competition as it is not designed to address any
competitive issues but rather is designed to add additional clarity to
existing rules and to remedy minor non-substantive issues in the text
of various rules identified in this proposal.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition as the Rules apply equally
to all Exchange Members.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\8\ thereunder, the Exchange has designated this proposal as one that
effects a change that: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) by its terms, does not
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR- MIAX-2017-43 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2017-43. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2017-43 and should be
submitted on or before November 24, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23922 Filed 11-2-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30556-30557]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0034; Notice 1]

Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas Inc., Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Toyo Tire Holdings of Americas, Inc., (Toyo) has determined
that certain Open Country R/T light truck tires, do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536
Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles. Toyo filed a noncompliance
report dated March 15, 2021, and later amended it on April 2, 2021.
Toyo simultaneously petitioned NHTSA on April 2, 2021, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. This notice announces receipt of Toyo's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before June 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, General Engineer,
NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Toyo has determined that certain Toyo Open Country R/T light truck
tires, do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119, New
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More Than 4,536
Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) and Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119). Toyo filed
a noncompliance report dated March 15, 2021, and later amended it on
April 2, 2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Toyo simultaneously petitioned NHTSA on
April 2, 2021, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Toyo's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 518 Toyo Open Country R/T light truck tires, size
35X12.50R20LT 125Q, manufactured between January 29, 2021, and March 8,
2021, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Toyo explains that the noncompliance was due to a mold error in
which the sidewall with the partial TIN incorrectly states the load
range as required by paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119. Specifically,
the tires were marked: LOAD RANGE E when they should have been marked:
LOAD RANGE F.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S6.5(j) of FMVSS No. 119 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. The subject tires are required to be marked
on each sidewall with the letter designating the tire load range.

V. Summary of Toyo's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Toyo's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Toyo. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the
views of the Agency. Toyo describes the subject noncompliance and
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety. In support of its petition, Toyo submitted the
following reasoning:
    During production, the plate containing the load range letter was
not changed on the sidewall containing the partial TIN when production
was converted from the load range ``E'' tire to the load range ``F''
tire.
    Toyo stated that the affected tire mold was immediately corrected
after this issue was discovered and all future production will have the
correct load range letter.
    For the 35X12.50R20LT tire size, Load Range E tires have a maximum
load carrying capacity of 1,450 kg (3,195 lbs.) at 450 kPa (65 PSI);
Load Range F tires have a maximum load carrying capacity of 1,650 kg
(3,640 lbs.) at 550 kPa (80 PSI). Thus, even if a consumer were to rely
on the incorrect load range designation on the non-serial sidewall,

there would be no associated risk of overloading.
    Toyo says that NHTSA has previously granted inconsequentiality
petitions for similar FMVSS noncompliances and cited sections from the
following previous petitions that NHTSA had been granted:
     Guizhou Tyre Corporation; Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance. 78 FR 12828, February 25, 2013.
     Yokohama Tire Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance. 84 FR. 64403, November 21, 2019.
     Tireco, Inc., Ruling on Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance. 81 FR 58550, August 25, 2016.
    Toyo says that the subject tires meet all other performance and
regulatory requirements of FMVSS No. 119. Further, Toyo also says that
they have not received any complaints, claims, or warranty adjustments
related to this noncompliance.
    Toyo concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety as these tires have a higher load
carrying capacity than the incorrect marking indicates, therefore, the
marking will not cause an operator to overload the tires. Thus, Toyo
believes that its petition to be exempted from providing notification
of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for
the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject equipment that Toyo no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after Toyo
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-10770 Filed 5-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


November 20, 2013 PUBLIC COMMENTS SOUGHT:
Draft Guidelines for Product Environmental Performance Standards & Ecolabels for Voluntary Use in Federal Procurement
DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR PRODUCT ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS & ECOLABELS
                                       #
                                Guideline Name
                                   Guideline
                                      B/L
                              Source of Guideline
                               Other References
Section I: Guidelines for the Process for Developing  Standards
                                       1
Open Participation
Reasonable efforts were made to ensure participation was open to all directly and materially affected persons. There was no undue financial barrier for participation.
                                       B
ANSI Essential Requirements
ISO 14024; ISO 14020; ISO/ IEC Guide 59; IFAN 1
                                       2
Voting Open
Voting membership on decision-making body was not conditional upon membership in any organization.
                                       L
ANSI Essential Requirements
IFAN; WTO TBT Annex 3 & Decision G/TBT/9
                                       3
Reasonable Voting Qualifications
Voting membership on decision-making body was not unreasonably restricted on basis of technical qualifications or other such requirements.
                                       B
ANSI Essential Requirements
IFAN; WTO TBT Annex 3 & Decision G/TBT/9
                                       4
Progress/Updates are Communicated
Timely and adequate notice of standards activity was announced in suitable media as appropriate to demonstrate the opportunity for participation by all directly and materially affected persons.
                                       B
ANSI Essential Requirements
ISO/IEC Guide 59; WTO TBT Annex 3
                                       5
Transparent
The process was transparent through significant stages of the standard's development and operation.[2]
                                       B
ISO 14024
ANSI Essential Requirements; ISO 14020; ISO/IEC Guide 59; WTO TBT Annex 3 & Decision G/TBT/9
                                       6
Consideration of All Viewpoints
The standards development process included fair and equitable consideration of all viewpoints.
                                       B
ANSI Essential Requirements
IAF; IFAN; ISO 14020; ISO 14024
                                       7
Diversity of Interests
Participation from diverse interest categories was actively sought with the objective of achieving balance so that no single interest category constitutes a majority of the membership of the decision-making body.[3]
                                       B
ANSI Essential Requirements
IAF; IFAN
                                       8
No Funding Conflicts
Funding sources for standards development did not create conflicts of interest.
                                       B
ISO 14024
ISO/IEC Guide 59; IFAN
                                       9
Consensus Effort
Reasonable efforts were made to achieve consensus throughout the process; prompt consideration was given to all views, and evidence of consensus[4] reached was documented.
                                       B
ISO 14024
ANSI Essential Requirements; IFAN; WTO TBT Annex 3 & Decision G/TBT/9
                                      10
Effort to Resolve Objections
An effort to resolve all objections was made in a fair and unbiased way. Commenters were informed of the resolution of their comments and advised of their right to appeal.
                                       B
ANSI Essential Requirements
ISO 14020; ISO 14024; WTO TBT Annex 3 & Decision G/TBT/9
                                      11
Appeals Mechanism
Written procedures contain an appeals mechanism for the prompt and impartial handling of procedural complaints regarding any action or inaction of the decision-making body.
                                       B
ANSI Essential Requirements
ISO/IEC Guide 59; IFAN
                                      12
Appeals Open
Appeals procedures provide for participation by all parties concerned without imposing an undue financial or administrative burden on them.
                                       B
ANSI Essential Requirements

                                      13
Good-faith on Conflicts
A standards developing organization shall make a good-faith effort to resolve potential conflicts with the requirements of other existing standards and to coordinate standardization activities.
                                       B
ANSI Essential Requirements
ISO 14020; ISO 14024;; IFAN; WTO TBT Annex 3 & Decision G/TBT/9
                                      14
Standards Updated
Standards are revised or reaffirmed every five years at minimum.
                                       B
ANSI Essential Requirements
ISO 14020; ISO 14024; IFAN
Section II: Guidelines for the Environmental Effectiveness of the Standards
                                       1
Functional Performance
Final product standards require that the product's functional performance is consistent with comparable conventional products or standard industry test methods.
                                       B
FAR 23.103 Sustainable acquisitions: (c) The required products in the contract actions
ISO 14024
                                       2
Align with Relevant Standards
To avoid duplication or confusion in the marketplace, standards for green products align with relevant existing standards, including building upon existing, federal, regional, national, and international standards where relevant to the scope and goals of the standard.
                                       B

ISO 14024; WTO TBT Annex 3
                                       3
Measurability
The product environmental performance criteria are measurable.
                                       B
ISO 14024

                                       4
Credible Scientific Reasoning
The criteria reflect a credible scientific reasoning process and reference, incorporate or are based on the best available science.
                                       B
ISO 14024

                                       5
Performance-Based
The criteria are performance-based when such criteria may reasonably be used in lieu of prescriptive criteria.
                                       L
OMB A-119

                                       6
Lifecycle Stages
The standard's developer considered the full range of product life cycle stages. Exclusion of a significant lifecycle stage is explained in the standard or other appropriate, publicly available documentation. [6]
                                       L
ISO 14024

                                       7
Multiple Environmental Attributes
Standards developers considered the full range of environmental attributes. Exclusion of a significant environmental attribute is explained in the standard or other appropriate, publicly available documentation.[7]
                                       L

ISO 14024
                                       8
Weighting Methodologies
If a standard uses methodologies to weight and aggregate multiple attributes into a single score, those methodologies are well-documented in the standard.
                                       B

                                       9
Hotspots
Where there are certain lifecycle stages or attributes that dominate the opportunity for environmental improvement, those significant attributes (or "hotspots") are clearly defined and given greater emphasis in differentiating environmental performance. If additional attributes are addressed, the standard clearly identifies any known trade-offs between attributes.[8]
                                       B

ISO 14024; FTC
                                      10
Significant Measurable Difference
Product environmental criteria differentiate products from others in the product category, based on a significant measurable difference in environmental impact for the environmental attribute(s) for which the product makes a claim.
                                       B
ISO 14024
FTC
                                      11
Intrinsic Hazards
Product environmental criteria focus on the intrinsic hazards of chemicals, and require safer substitutes to the extent possible, considering existing data and availability of functional alternatives.[9]
                                       L

                                      12
Ingredient Disclosure
The standard encourages manufacturers to disclose ingredients in products (to other businesses in the supply chain and/or consumers).[1][0]
                                       L

                                      13
Impact Assessment Disclosure
The standard encourages manufacturers to disclose the results of life cycle assessments and other product environmental or human health assessments that have been conducted.[1][1]
                                       L

Section III: Guidelines for Conformity Assessment[1][2]
                                       1
Follow Relevant Standards
Conformity assessment bodies follow relevant International Standards, and other normative documents.

                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO/IEC 17050-1 & -2
                                       2
Independence
The decision-making process of bodies involved in conformity assessment (including those evaluating, inspecting and testing conformity to standards) are independent from those organizations to whom they are providing their services.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO/IEC 17011, 17020 and 17021
                                       3
Slide Fee Scale
Conformity assessment bodies offer a sliding scale of certification fees in order to be accessible to small businesses.
                                       L

                                       4
Accreditation
Conformity assessment bodies are accredited as being in compliance with relevant International Standards, and other normative documents.

                                       L
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO/IEC 17050-1& 2,17020,17021, 17025,ISO 17011

OR apply the evaluation factors below, which are consistent with the requirements of internationally accepted standards for operations of a conformity assessment body.
                                       _

                                      4.1
Objective & Impartial Structure
Conformity assessment bodies are structured in such a way that they are able to provide an objective and impartial evaluation of conformity. Decisions are based on the objective evidence of conformity (or nonconformity) obtained by the body.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO/IEC 17021
                                      4.2
Free from Undue Pressures
Conformity assessment bodies ensure that management and personnel are free from any undue commercial, financial and other pressures that could compromise the confidentiality, objectivity or impartiality of its process and decisions.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO/IEC 17011,17025, ISO 14024
                                      4.3
Documented Procedures
The conformity assessment process followed has documented procedures
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO/IEC 17021
                                      4.4
Take All Necessary Steps to Evaluate Conformance
Conformity assessment bodies take all steps necessary to evaluate conformance with the relevant product standard requirements.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65

                                      4.5
Role Separation
Each decision on conformity is taken by a person(s) different from those who carried out the evaluation of conformity.
                                       L
ISO/IEC Guide 65

                                      4.6
Certification Conditions Specified
The conditions for granting, maintaining and extending certification and the conditions under which certification may be suspended or withdrawn, partially or in total are specified in the conformity assessment process.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65

                                      4.7
Records Management
Conformity assessment bodies establish and maintain procedures to control all documents and data that relate to its functions. Records are identified, managed and disposed of in such a way as to protect the confidentiality of conformity assessment related information.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO/IEC 17011,  17020, 17021, I17025
                                      4.8
Dispute Resolution Procedures
Conformity assessment bodies have documented policies and procedures for the resolution of complaints, appeals and disputes.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO/IEC 17011, 17021
                                      4.9
Chain-of-Custody Procedures
The conformity assessment bodies have effective traceability or chain-of-custody procedures where this is necessary to ensure qualified products meet the standard
                                       L

                                     4.10
Periodic Evaluation of Marked Products
Where a conformity assessment body authorizes the continuing use of its mark on products of a type which have been approved to carry the mark it periodically evaluates the marked products to confirm that they continue to conform to the standards.
                                       L
ISO/IEC 17030

                                     4.11
Content of Declarations of Conformity
Declarations of conformity contain at least information on the identity of the issuer of the declaration, the object of the declaration, the standards or other specified requirements with which conformity is declared, and the person signing for and on behalf of the issuer of the declaration of conformity.
                                       B
ISO/IEC 17050-1

                                     4.12
Suitable Action for Misuse
Incorrect, misleading, or unauthorized use of licenses, certificates, or conformity marks is dealt with by suitable action (from the mark owner).
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65, 17030

                                     4.13
Quality Objectives
Conformity assessment bodies define and document commitment to fulfilling quality objectives.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65

                                     4.14
Sufficient Personnel
Conformity assessment bodies employ a sufficient number of personnel having the necessary education, training, technical knowledge and experience for performing conformity assessment functions.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO/IEC 17011,
17020 17021, 17025
                                     4.15
Adequate Facilities & Equipment
Conformity assessment bodies have available suitable and adequate facilities and equipment to permit all required activities to be carried out.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65

                                     4.16
Transparent Process
Certification bodies provide public access to or disclosure of, appropriate and timely information about the certification processes; including its rules and procedures for granting, maintaining, extending, suspending and withdrawing certification.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
 ISO/IEC 17021
                                     4.17
Information on Fees
General information on the fees charged to applicants is provided.

                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65

                                     4.18
Information on Financial Support
Public access to, or disclosure of, a description of the means by which the conformity assessment body obtains financial support is provided.
                                       L

                                     4.19
Information on Scoring
Conformity assessment bodies make publicly available the scoring, credits and levels achieved by products which conform to the standard.
                                       L

Section IV: Guidelines for the Management of Ecolabeling Programs[1][3]
                                       1
Document Commitment to Quality
Programs define and document their policy, objectives for, and commitment to quality.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65

                                       2
Evaluate Effectiveness

The program evaluates the effectiveness of the standard in reducing environmental impacts.
                                       L

                                       3
Dispute Resolution Process
The program has a documented policy and procedure for the resolution of complaints, appeals and disputes.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO 17011
                                       4
Disclose Stakeholders
Stakeholders who are involved in the ongoing governance and/or operations of the program are disclosed.
                                       L

                                       5
Balance of Interests
Formal rules and procedures provide for a balance of interests among stakeholders in program governance.
                                       L

ISO/IEC Guide 65
                                       6
Free from Undue Pressures
Programs ensure that management and personnel are free from any undue commercial, financial and other pressures that could compromise the confidentiality, objectivity or impartiality of their operations and decisions.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
NRDC
                                       7
Limit Administrative Requirements
Administrative ecolabel program requirements are limited to those necessary to establish conformance and operate the program.
                                       L
ISO 14020

                                       8
Information on Financial Support
Public access to, or disclosure of, a description of the means by which the conformity assessment body obtains financial support.
                                       L
ISO 14024
ISO 14020
                                       9
Information on Fees
General information on the fees charged to applicants is provided.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65, ISO 14024
ISO 14020
                                      10
Publicly Available Criteria
The ecolabel's criteria and/or standard are publicly available.[1][4]
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO 14024; ISO 14020; ISEAL Code; IAF
                                      11
Grant the Use of the Mark
The ecolabel program grants the use of the label, mark or declaration when the applicant and its products meet the administrative and technical requirements for the program.
                                       B
ISO 14024

                                      12
Suitable Action for Misuse
Incorrect, misleading, or unauthorized use of licenses, certificates, or conformity marks is dealt with by suitable action (from the mark owner).
                                       B
ISO 14024
ISO/IEC 17030
                                      13
Mutual Recognition
Mutual recognition among ecolabels and standards is encouraged, and may include the mutual recognition of tests, inspections, conformity assessment, and administrative procedures and, where appropriate, product environmental criteria.
                                       L
ISO 14024

                                      14
Publicly Available Directory
The program provides a publicly available directory of labeled products and their suppliers.
                                       B
ISO/IEC  Guide 65
ISO/IEC 17021; ISO 10424
                                      15
Current Directory
The directory of labeled products and their suppliers is kept current.
                                       B
ISO/IEC Guide 65
ISO/IEC 17021
                                      16
Searchable Directory
Information in the directory of labeled products and their suppliers is provided in searchable format.
                                       L

ISO 14024
                                      17
Regional Information
The program provides information on labeled products availability in regional markets.
                                       L
ISO 14020

                                      18
Analyses of Market Uptake
The program conducts periodic analyses of the uptake of the ecolabel in the marketplace and discloses the results.
                                       L

Notes:
   1. IAF International Accreditation Forum: http://www.iaf.nu; IFAN International Federation of Standards Users: http://www.ifan.org; ISO: http://www.iso.org; ISEAL:  http://www.isealalliance.org/code
   2. Transparency implies that information was available to interested parties for inspection and comment where appropriate; and includes selection of product categories; selection and development of product environmental criteria; and product function characteristics.
   3. While this baseline represents an acceptable level of balance, additional steps have been taken by a number of standards development organizations to further ensure a balance of diverse interests (e.g., limiting number of votes per organization, confirming accuracy of affiliations, actively recruiting additional members from other stakeholder categories). Such proactive approaches could be recognized as leadership.
   4. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, consensus "is defined as general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity, and includes a process for attempting to resolve objections by interested parties, as long as all comments have been fairly considered, each objector is advised of the disposition of his or her objection(s) and the reasons why, and the consensus body members are given an opportunity to change their votes after reviewing the comments." http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119#4 Consensus is implemented by standards development organizations in many different ways. For example, some require 75 percent approval of an action while others might require 66 percent or 50 percent for the same action to be approved.
   5. A conflict exists when the terms of a standard are inconsistent or incompatible with the terms of the other standard to the extent that implementation of one standard would preclude proper implementation of the other.
   6. Life cycle stages of a product include sourcing of raw materials, to manufacturing, packaging, transportation, distribution, retailing, use of the product, and management of the product when it is no longer needed (through reuse, repair, upgrading, recycling, or safe disposal). The Federal government recognizes that performing full lifecycle assessments (LCA) is challenging at this time due to cost, access to data, and uncertainties associated with the methodologies and tools. Therefore, this guideline intends to encourage standards developer to use life cycle thinking as they develop criteria for products.
   7. When a standard does not address a significant or major environmental attribute (aka "hotspot"), standards developers are encouraged to explain its exclusion. The intent is to ensure clarity about the relevance of environmental attributes that may be included (or excluded) from the standard. Environmental attributes include, but are not limited to, human and environmental toxicity, environmental fate, air pollution, climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, natural resource depletion, and water quality.
   8. Depending on the product and application, it may be appropriate to develop standards that address those significant attributes, and do not include other, less relevant, attributes or life cycle stages. However, if reliable evidence is available to meaningfully differentiate the performance of that product based on additional environmental attributes of concern or lifecycle stages (e.g., packaging, energy use in manufacturing, etc.), standards for green products should consider addressing those attributes, as well. Claims about products meeting environmental standards should be consistent with the standard's scope and avoid broad claims of environmental performance if other factors were not considered when the standard was developed (e.g. WaterSense is clearly about water, ENERGY STAR about energy, etc.).
   9. A hazard-based approach, grounded in Green Chemistry principles, can reduce the use of hazardous substances, and lower overall risk to people and the environment. Key to this focus is an understanding of the potential hazards of chemicals in products and availability of safer alternatives.
   10. The intent of this guideline is to encourage greater disclosure, while recognizing a number of challenges in doing so for manufacturers, including supply chain complexity and intellectual property confidentiality.
   11. Sound human health and environmental decisions regarding the manufacture, purchase, use, and disposal of products depend on reliable and accessible data on the human health and environmental impact of those products. The intent of this guideline is to encourage the appropriate and voluntary sharing of this information, when it is available, so that others may learn and benefit.
   12. If a standard does not have an associated second- or third-party conformity assessment program, or it is determined that a supplier's declaration is sufficient for a particular product standard, then this category of Guidelines would not be applicable.
   13. The Management of Ecolabeling Programs Guidelines would not apply to product environmental standards that are not associated with an ecolabel.
   14. Publicly available means generally available to all without restriction (other than a fee for purchasing the standard or similar such requirement).