[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 71 (Friday, April 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 18072]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2017-0022]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2017-
0148 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for 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).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Barcas<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 21, 2017.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2017-0148.
    Petitioner: Christopher Meinhardt.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 135.605.
    Description of Relief Sought: Air Methods is requesting an
exemption to allow operation of its helicopters in air ambulance
operations without a helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning System
(HTWAS) for a specified period after the implementation date of Sec.
135.605.

[FR Doc. 2017-07574 Filed 4-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 52764]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1137-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Cleanup
Filing eff 9/22/22 to be effective 9/22/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220822-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1138-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement Filing-
Spotlight Energy to be effective 9/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220822-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1139-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: PAL NRA Hartree Partners, LP
SP378771 to be effective 10/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/22/22.
    Accession Number: 20220822-5142.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-1140-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description:Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 8.23.22 Negotiated Rates--
Macquarie Energy LLC R-4090-28 to be effective 9/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/23/22.
    Accession Number: 20220823-5016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/6/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 23, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-18561 Filed 8-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65587-65588]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-154-000]

Carson Hybrid Energy Center LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Carson Hybrid Energy Center LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 14, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the

FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic
service, persons with internet access who will eFile a document and/or
be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 25, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-23643 Filed 10-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6290-6294]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02861]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82650; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Market Data Fees

February 7, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 30, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III 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 proposes to amend the Cboe Data Services (``CDS'') fee
schedule to increase the fees for the BBO, Book Depth, and Complex
Order Book (``COB'') data feeds.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/About CBOE/
CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, 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 the CDS fee schedule to increase the
fees for the BBO, Book Depth, and COB data feeds.
BBO and Book Depth Data Feed
    The BBO Data Feed is a real-time data feed that includes the
following information: (i) Outstanding quotes and standing orders at
the best available price level on each side of the market; (ii)
executed trades time, size, and price; (iii) totals of customer versus
non-customer contracts at the best bid and offer (``BBO''); (iv) all-
or-none contingency orders priced better than or equal to the BBO; (v)
expected opening price and expected opening size; (vi) end-of-day
summaries by product, including open, high, low, and closing price
during the trading session; (vi) recap messages any time there is a
change in the open, high, low or last sale price of a listed option;
(vii) COB information; and (viii) product IDs and codes for all listed
options contracts. The quote and last sale data contained in the BBO
data feed is identical to the data sent to the Options Price Reporting
Authority (``OPRA'') for redistribution to the public.
    The Book Depth Data Feed is a real-time, low latency data feed that
includes all data contained in the BBO Data Feed described above plus
outstanding quotes and standing orders up to the first four price
levels on each side of the market, with aggregate size (``Book
Depth'').
    CDS currently charges a Data Fee, payable by a Customer, of $7,000
per month for internal use and external redistribution of the BBO and/
or Book Depth data feeds.\3\ The Data Fee entitles a Customer to
provide the BBO and/or the Book Depth data feed to an unlimited number
of internal users and Devices \4\ within the Customer. A Customer
receiving the BBO and/or Book Depth data feeds from another Customer is
assessed the Data Fee by CDS pursuant to its own market data agreement
with CDS, and is entitled to use the Data internally and/or distribute
it externally.\5\ All Customers have the same rights to utilize the
data internally and/or distribute it externally as long as the Customer
has entered into a written agreement with CDS for the data and pays the
Data Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A BBO Data Feed ``Customer'' is any person, company or other
entity that, pursuant to a market data agreement with CDS, is
entitled to receive data, either directly from CDS or through an
authorized redistributor (i.e., a Customer or an extranet service
provider), whether that data is distributed externally or used
internally. The CDS fee schedule for Exchange data is located at
https://www.cboe.org/general-info/pdfframed?content=/publish/mdxfees/cboe-cds-fees-schedule-for-cboe-datafeeds.pdf§ion=SEC_MDX_CSM&title=Cboe%20CDS%20Fees%20Schedule.

    \4\ A ``Device'' means any computer, workstation or other item
of equipment, fixed or portable, that receives, accesses and/or
displays data in visual, audible or other form.
    \5\ A Customer may choose to receive the data from another
Customer rather than directly from CDS's system because it does not
want to or is not equipped to manage the technology necessary to
establish a direct connection to CDS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the Data Fee for both the BBO and
Book Depth data feeds from $7,000 per month to $9,000 per month.\6\ The
Exchange is not proposing to amend the User Fee for either the BBO or
Book Depth data feeds. The Data Fee for the Book Depth data feed will
continue to be waived for Customers who also purchase the companion BBO
data feed.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange also proposes to amend the first column of the
BBO Data Feed fees to identify Cboe as ``Cboe Options'' to be
consistent with the Depth Book and COB data feed fee descriptions.
    \7\ Such COB Data Feed Customers are still subject to User Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

COB Data Feed
    The COB Data Feed is a real-time data feed that includes data
regarding the Exchange's Complex Order Book and related complex order
information. The COB Data Feed contains the following information for
all Exchange-traded complex order strategies (multi-leg strategies such
as spreads, straddles and buy-writes): (i) Outstanding quotes and
standing orders on each side of the market with aggregate size, (ii)
data with respect to executed trades (``last sale data''), and (iii)
totals of customer versus non-customer contracts.
    CDS currently charges Customers \8\ of the COB Data Feed a Data Fee
of $100 per month plus applicable User Fees. The Exchange now proposes
to increase the Data Fee for the COB data feed from $100 to $3,000 per
month. The Exchange notes that it had previously charged a Data Fee of
$3,000 per month for the COB Feed \9\ and later reduced that fee to its
current rate to incentive further redistribution of the data feed.\10\
The Exchange now proposes to return the fee for the COB data feed to
its original rate to bring the cost of the data feed in line with that
of similar data feeds offered by other exchanges. The Exchange is not
proposing to amend the User Fee for either the COB data feed. The Data
Fee for the COB Data Feed would continue to be waived for Customers of
the BBO and/or Book Depth data feeds.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A Customer is any person, company or other entity that,
pursuant to a market data agreement with CDS, is entitled to receive
data, either directly from CDS or through an authorized
redistributor (i.e., a Customer or an extranet service provider),
whether that data is distributed externally or used internally. The
CDS fee schedule for Exchange data is located at https://www.cboe.org/general-info/pdfframed?content=/publish/mdxfees/cboe-cds-fees-schedule-for-cboe-datafeeds.pdf§ion=SEC_MDX_CSM&title=Cboe%20CDS%20Fees%20
Schedule.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70683 (October 15,
2013), 78 FR 62798 (October 22, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-087).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73955 (December 30,
2014), 80 FR 598 (January 6, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2014-094).
    \11\ Such COB Data Feed Customers are still subject to User
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange intends to implement the proposed fees on February 1,
2018.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\13\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other recipients of
Exchange data. The Exchange believes that the proposed

rates are equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly
to all recipients of Exchange data. The Exchange believes the proposed
fees are competitive with those charged by other venues and, therefore,
reasonable and equitably allocated to recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 11(A) of the Act \14\ in that it supports (i) fair
competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and
between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and
(ii) the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information
with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities.
Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of
Regulation NMS,\15\ which provides that any national securities
exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably
discriminatory. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted
self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority
and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It
was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data
available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for
the provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \15\ 17 CFR 242.603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair
discrimination because all of the Exchange's customers and market data
vendors who subscribe to the above data feeds will be subject to the
proposed fees. The above data feeds are distributed and purchased on a
voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data
distributors are required by any rule or regulation purchase this data
or to make this data available. Accordingly, distributors and users can
discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an
assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Firms have a wide
variety of alternative market data products from which to choose, such
as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and
consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make any
proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing
alternatives to any customers.
    In addition, the fees that are the subject of this rule filing are
constrained by competition. As explained below in the Exchange's
Statement on Burden on Competition, the existence of alternatives to
the above data feeds further ensure that the Exchange cannot set
unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when
vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. That is, the
Exchange competes with other exchanges (and their affiliates) that
provide similar market data products. For example, the above data feeds
provide investors with alternative market data and competes with
similar market data product currently offered by other exchanges. If
another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to distribute
its similar product than the Exchange charges for the above data feeds,
prospective users likely would not subscribe to, or would cease
subscribing to either market data product.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission is not required to undertake
a cost-of-service or rate-making approach. The Exchange believes that,
even if it were possible as a matter of economic theory, cost-based
pricing for non-core market data would be so complicated that it could
not be done practically.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange believes that cost-based pricing would be
impractical because it would create enormous administrative burdens
for all parties, including the Commission, to cost-regulate a large
number of participants and standardize and analyze extraordinary
amounts of information, accounts, and reports. In addition, it is
impossible to regulate market data prices in isolation from prices
charged by markets for other services that are joint products. Cost-
based rate regulation would also lead to litigation and may distort
incentives, including those to minimize costs and to innovate,
leading to further waste. Under cost-based pricing, the Commission
would be burdened with determining a fair rate of return, and the
industry could experience frequent rate increases based on
escalating expense levels. Even in industries historically subject
to utility regulation, cost-based ratemaking has been discredited.
As such, the Exchange believes that cost-based ratemaking would be
inappropriate for proprietary market data and inconsistent with
Congress's direction that the Commission use its authority to foster
the development of the national market system, and that market
forces will continue to provide appropriate pricing discipline. See
Appendix C to NYSE's comments to the Commission's 2000 Concept
Release on the Regulation of Market Information Fees and Revenues,
which can be found on the Commission's website at http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/s72899/buck1.htm. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 73816 (December 11, 2014), 79 FR 75200
(December 17, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-64) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish an
Access Fee for the NYSE Best Quote and Trades Data Feed, Operative
December 1, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BBO Data Feed
    The Exchange believes the proposed increase in the Data Fee for BBO
data is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would
apply equally to all Customers. The Exchange believes the proposed Data
Fee is reasonable because it compares favorably to fees that other
markets charge for similar products. For example, Nasdaq PHLX LLC
(``PHLX'') charges Internal Distributors a monthly fee of $4,500 per
organization and External Distributors a monthly fee of $5,000 per
organization for its ``TOPO Plus Orders'' data feed, which like the BBO
Data Feed includes top-of-book data (including orders, quotes and
trades) and other market data.\17\ Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'') offers a
``Top Quote Feed'', which includes top-of-book data, and a separate
``Spread Feed'', which like the BBO Data Feed includes order and quote
data for complex strategies. ISE charges distributors of its Top Quote
Feed a base monthly fee of $3,000 and distributors of its Spread Feed a
base monthly fee of $3,000 \18\ (totally $6,000 in the aggregate to
receive the same data as offered by the BBO feed). The Exchange
believes the proposed rate is reasonable based on the value of the
market data included in the BBO feed and the market share that the data
represents. The Exchange also notes that Customers who receive the BBO
feed may also receive the Book Depth and COB data feeds at no extra
charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Section IX of the PHLX Pricing Schedule (setting forth
the fees for proprietary market data).
    \18\ See Sections VIII(h) and (I) of the Nasdaq ISE Schedule of
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Book Depth Data Feed
    The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee for the Book Depth Data
Feed is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would
apply equally to all Customers. The Exchange believes the proposed Data
Fee is reasonable because it compares favorably to fees that other
markets charge for similar products. For example, PHLX charges Internal
Distributors a monthly fee of $4,000 and External Distributors a
monthly fee of a $4,500 for its Depth data feed that includes full
depth of quotes and orders and last sale data for options listed on
PHLX.\19\ In addition, ISE charges a $5,000 per month distributor fee
for its Real-time Depth of Market data feed.\20\ The Exchange also
notes that Customers who receive the Book Depth feed may also receive
the BBO and COB data feeds at no extra charge. The Exchange believes
the proposed rate is reasonable based on the value of the market data
included in the BBO feed and the market share that the data represents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 17.
    \20\ See Section VIII(f) of the Nasdaq ISE Schedule of Fees.

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

COB Data Feed
    The Exchange believes the proposed Data Fee for the COB Data Feed
is equitable, reasonable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they
would apply equally to all Customers of the COB Data Feed. The Exchange
notes that it had previously charged a Data Fee of $3,000 per month for
the COB Feed \21\ and later reduced that fee to its current rate to
incentive further redistribution of the data feed.\22\ The Exchange now
proposes to return the fee for the COB data feed to its original rate
to bring the cost of the data feed in line with that of similar data
feeds offered by other exchanges. For example, ISE charges distributors
of its Spread Feed a base monthly fee of $3,000,\23\ equal to what the
Exchange proposes to charge for the COB data feed. The Exchange also
notes that Customers who receive the BBO and Book Depth feeds may also
receive the COB data feed at no extra charge. The Exchange believes the
proposed rate is reasonable based on the value of the market data
included in the COB feed and the market share that the data represents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70683 (October 15,
2013), 78 FR 62798 (October 22, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-087).
    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73955 (December 30,
2014), 80 FR 598 (January 6, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2014-094).
    \23\ See Sections VIII(I) of the Nasdaq ISE Schedule of Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
Exchange's ability to price the BBO, Book Depth, ad COB data feeds is
constrained by: (i) Competition among exchanges that compete with each
other in a variety of dimensions; (ii) the existence of inexpensive
real-time consolidated data and market-specific data and free delayed
data; and (iii) the inherent contestability of the market for
proprietary data.
    An exchange's ability to price its proprietary data feed products
is constrained by (1) the existence of actual competition for the sale
of such data, (2) the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and
(3) the existence of alternatives to proprietary data.
    The Existence of Actual Competition. The Exchange believes
competition provides an effective constraint on the market data fees
that the Exchange, through CDS, has the ability and the incentive to
charge. The Exchange has a compelling need to attract order flow from
market participants in order to maintain its share of trading volume.
This compelling need to attract order flow imposes significant pressure
on the Exchange to act reasonably in setting its fees for market data,
particularly given that the market participants that will pay such fees
often will be the same market participants from whom the Exchange must
attract order flow. These market participants include broker-dealers
that control the handling of a large volume of customer and proprietary
order flow. Given the portability of order flow from one exchange to
another, any exchange that sought to charge unreasonably high data fees
would risk alienating many of the same customers on whose orders it
depends for competitive survival. The Exchange currently competes with
fourteen options exchanges (including its affiliate, C2) for order
flow.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Commission has previously made a finding that the
options industry is subject to significant competitive forces. See
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59949 (May 20, 2009), 74
FR 25593 (May 28, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-97) (order approving ISE's
proposal to establish fees for a real-time depth of market data
offering).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in the case of products that are distributed through
market data vendors, the market data vendors themselves provide
additional price discipline for proprietary data products because they
control the primary means of access to certain end users. These vendors
impose price discipline based upon their business models. For example,
vendors that assess a surcharge on data they sell are able to refuse to
offer proprietary products that their end users do not or will not
purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google,
impose price discipline by providing only data that they believe will
enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute to their
advertising revenue. Similarly, Customers will not offer the BBO, Book
Depth or COB Data Feeds unless these products will help them maintain
current users or attract new ones. For example, a broker-dealer will
not choose to offer the BBO, Book Depth or COB Data Feeds to its retail
customers unless the broker-dealer believes that the retail customers
will use and value the data and the provision of such data will help
the broker-dealer maintain the customer relationship, which allows the
broker-dealer to generate profits for itself. Professional users will
not request any of these feeds from Customers unless they can use the
data for profit-generating purposes in their businesses. All of these
operate as constraints on pricing proprietary data products.
    Joint Product Nature of Exchange Platform. Transaction execution
and proprietary data products are complementary in that market data is
both an input and a byproduct of the execution service. In fact, market
data and trade executions are a paradigmatic example of joint products
with joint costs. The decision whether and on which platform to post an
order will depend on the attributes of the platforms where the order
can be posted, including the execution fees, data quality, and price
and distribution of their data products. The more trade executions a
platform does, the more valuable its market data products become. The
costs of producing market data include not only the costs of the data
distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's broker-
dealer customers view the costs of transaction executions and market
data as a unified cost of doing business with the exchange.
    Analyzing the cost of market data product production and
distribution in isolation from the cost of all of the inputs supporting
the creation of market data and market data products will inevitably
underestimate the cost of the data and data products. Thus, because it
is impossible to obtain the data inputs to create market data products
without a fast, technologically robust, and well-regulated execution
system, system costs and regulatory costs affect the price of both
obtaining the market data itself and creating and distributing market
data products. It would be equally misleading, however, to attribute
all of an exchange's costs to the market data portion of an exchange's
joint products. Rather, all of an exchange's costs are incurred for the
unified purposes of attracting order flow, executing and/or routing
orders, and generating and selling data about market activity. The
total return that an exchange earns reflects the revenues it receives
from the joint products and the total costs of the joint products.
    The level of competition and contestability in the market is
evident in the numerous alternative venues that compete for order flow,
including 15 options self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') markets, as
well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various forms of
alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools

and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Competition among
trading platforms can be expected to constrain the aggregate return
that each platform earns from the sale of its joint products, but
different platforms may choose from a range of possible, and equally
reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering total costs.
For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to attract
orders, charge relatively low prices for market data products (or
provide market data products free of charge), and charge relatively
high prices for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose
a strategy of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders,
setting relatively high prices for market data products, and setting
relatively low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this
environment, there is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices
for one of the joint products in an industry in which suppliers face
competitive constraints with regard to the joint offering.
    The Existence of Alternatives. The Exchange is constrained in
pricing the BBO, Book Depth and COB Data Feeds by the availability to
market participants of alternatives to purchasing these products. The
Exchange must consider the extent to which market participants would
choose one or more alternatives instead of purchasing the exchange's
data. Other options exchanges can and have produced their own top-of-
book, book depth and complex strategies market data products, and thus
are sources of potential competition for CDS. For example, as noted
above, ISE and PHLX offer market data products that compete with the
BBO, Book Depth and COB Data Feeds. The large number of SROs, BDs, and
ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are currently capable
of producing it provides further pricing discipline for proprietary
data products. Each SRO, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce
proprietary data products, and many currently do. In addition, the OPRA
data feed is a significant competitive alternative to the BBO and last
sale data included in the BBO and Book Depth Data Feeds.
    The existence of numerous alternatives to the Exchange's products,
including proprietary data from other sources, ensures that the
Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably
discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect these
alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary data
product if its cost to purchase is not justified by the returns any
particular vendor or subscriber would achieve through the purchase.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \25\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \26\
thereunder. 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2018-013 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-CBOE-2018-013. 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 website (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 website 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-CBOE-2018-013 and should be submitted on
or before March 6, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02861 Filed 2-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51618-51621]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20592]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0030]

IAPMO EGS: Application for Recognition

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of the
International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials EGS
(IAPMO), for recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory
(NRTL), and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant this
recognition.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before September 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by any of the following methods:
    1. Electronically: Submit comments and attachments electronically
at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the instructions online for making electronic
submissions.
    2. Facsimile: If submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, commenters may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    3. Regular or express mail, hand delivery, or messenger (courier)
service: Submit comments, requests, and any attachments to the OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2013-0030, Technical Data Center, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number: (877) 889-
5627). Note that security procedures may result in significant delays
in receiving comments and other written materials by regular mail.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of materials by express mail, hand
delivery, or messenger service. The hours of operation for the OSHA
Docket Office are 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    4. Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
the OSHA docket number (OSHA-2013-0030). OSHA places comments and other
materials, including any personal information, in the public docket
without revision, and these materials will be available online at
http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov. Therefore, the Agency cautions
commenters about submitting statements they do not want made available
to the public, or submitting comments that contain personal information
(either about themselves or others) such as Social Security numbers,
birth dates, and medical data.
    5. Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket
Office at the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov index; however, some information
(e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or
download through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket
Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating
docket submissions.
    6. Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before September 29, 2014 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. David W. Johnson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Many of OSHA's workplace standards require that an NRTL test and
certify certain types of equipment as safe for use in the workplace.
NRTLs are independent laboratories that meet OSHA's requirements for
performing safety testing and certification of products used in the
workplace. To

obtain and retain OSHA recognition, NRTLs must meet the legal
requirements in the NRTL Program regulations at 29 CFR 1910.7. More
specifically, to be recognized by OSHA, an organization must: (1) have
the appropriate capability to test, evaluate, and approve products to
assure their safe use in the workplace; (2) be completely independent
of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, and
manufacturers and vendors of products for which OSHA requires
certification; (3) have internal programs that ensure proper control of
the testing and certification process; and (4) have effective reporting
and complaint handling procedures. Recognition is an acknowledgement by
OSHA that the NRTL has the capability to perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
NRTL's scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of
government authority. Recognition of an NRTL by OSHA also allows
employers to use products certified by that NRTL to meet those OSHA
standards that require product testing and certification.
    The Agency processes applications for initial recognition following
requirements in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
OSHA to publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an
application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application,
provides its preliminary finding, and solicits comments on its
preliminary findings. In the second notice, the Agency provides its
final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's
scope of recognition.

II. Notice of the Application for Recognition

    OSHA is providing notice that IAPMO is applying for recognition as
an NRTL. According to public information (see
http:[sol][sol]www.iapmoegs.org/Pages/default.aspx), IAPMO states that
it performs independent testing and listing for pool, spa and bathtub
industries. In its application, IAPMO lists the current address of its
headquarters as: IAPMO EGS, 5001 E. Philadelphia Street, Ontario,
California 91761.
    Each NRTL's scope of recognition has three elements: (1) the type
of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard; (2) the recognized site(s) that have the
technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for the applicable test standards within the
NRTL's scope of recognition; and (3) the supplemental program(s) that
the NRTL may use, each of which allows the NRTL to rely on other
parties to perform activities necessary for testing and certification.
IAPMO applied for initial recognition as an NRTL on April 7, 2009. In
its application, IAPMO requested recognition for six test standards,
one site, and two supplemental programs (Exhibit 14-1--IAPMO Initial
Application for Recognition). The following sections set forth the
requested scope of recognition included in IAPMO's application.

A. Standards Requested for Recognition

    Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in IAPMO's
application for testing and certification of products under the NRTL
Program.

  Table 1--Proposed List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in
                    IAPMO's NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 778............................  Motor-Operated Water Pumps
UL 1081...........................  Swimming Pool Pumps, Filters, and
                                     Chlorinators
UL 1431...........................  Personal Hygiene and Health Care
                                     Appliances
UL 1563...........................  Electric Spas, Equipment Assemblies,
                                     and Associated Equipment
UL 1795...........................  Hydromassage Bathtubs
UL 1951...........................  Electric Plumbing Accessories
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test standards listed above may be approved as U.S. test
standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However,
for convenience, the Agency may use the designations of the standards-
developing organization for the test standards instead of the ANSI
designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL
1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular
test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test
standard or the ANSI version of that standard.

B. Sites Requested for Recognition

    The current address of IAPMO's one site included in its application
for recognition as an NRTL is: IAPMO EGS, 5001 E. Philadelphia Street,
Ontario, California 91761. The NRTL Program requires that at least one
of the recognized sites listed above have the capability to conduct the
product testing in accordance with the appropriate test standard for
the equipment or material being tested and certified.

C. Supplemental Programs

    The supplemental programs listed in IAPMO's application for
recognition as an NRTL include:
    Program 2: Acceptance of testing data from independent
organizations, other than NRTLs.
    Program 9: Acceptance of services other than testing or evaluation
performed by subcontractors or agents (for calibration services only).

III. Preliminary Finding on the Application for Recognition as an NRTL

    OSHA's NRTL Program recognition process involves a thorough
analysis of an NRTL applicant's policies and procedures, and a
comprehensive on-site review of the applicant's testing and
certification activities to ensure that the applicant meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis
of IAPMO's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information.
IAPMO's Ontario, California site has the capability to conduct testing
and certification in accordance with requirements outlined in the test
standard specifications for the test standards listed in Section II. A.
above. OSHA staff also performed a comprehensive on-site assessment of
IAPMO's testing facilities on February 27 and 28, 2014. An overview of
OSHA's assessment of the four requirements for recognition (i.e.,
capability, control procedures, independence, and creditable reports
and complaint handling) are provided below.

A. Capability

    Section 1910.7(b)(1) states that, for each specified item of
equipment or

material to be listed, labeled, or accepted, the NRTL must have the
capability (including proper testing equipment and facilities, trained
staff, written testing procedures, and calibration and quality-control
programs), to perform appropriate testing. OSHA staff performed a
detailed analysis of IAPMO's application packet and reviewed other
pertinent information to assess its capabilities to perform test and
certification activities. OSHA determined that IAPMO has demonstrated
these capabilities through following:
     The IAPMO facility has adequate test areas, energy
sources, and procedures for controlling incompatible activities.
     IAPMO provided a detailed list of its testing equipment.
Review of the application shows that the equipment listed is available
and adequate for the standards for which it seeks recognition.
     IAPMO has detailed procedures for conducting testing,
review, and evaluation, and for capturing the test and other data
required by the test standards for which it seeks recognition.
     IAPMO has detailed procedures addressing the maintenance
and calibration of equipment, and the types of records maintained for,
or supporting laboratory activities.
     IAPMO has sufficient qualified personnel to perform the
proposed scope of testing based on their education, training, technical
knowledge, and experience.
     IAPMO has an adequate quality-control system in place to
conduct internal audits, as well as tracking and resolution of non-
conformances.
    OSHA's on-site assessment of IAPMO's facilities confirmed the
capabilities described in its application packet. While the assessors
found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7,
IAPMO addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL
requirements.

B. Control Procedures

    Section 1910.7(b)(2) requires that the NRTL provide controls and
services, to the extent necessary, for the particular equipment or
material to be listed, labeled, or accepted. These controls and
services include procedures for identifying the listed or labeled
equipment or materials, inspections of production runs at factories to
assure conformance with test standards, and field inspections to
monitor and assure the proper use of identifying marks or labels. OSHA
staff performed a detailed analysis of IAPMO's application packet and
reviewed other pertinent information to assess its control procedures.
OSHA determined that IAPMO has demonstrated these capabilities through
following:
     IAPMO has a quality-control manual and detailed procedures
to address the steps involved to list and certify products.
     IAPMO has a registered certification mark.
     IAPMO has certification procedures to address the
authorization of certifications and audits of factory facilities. The
audits apply to both the initial evaluations and the follow-up
inspections of manufacturers' facilities.
    OSHA's on-site assessment of IAPMO's facilities confirmed the
control procedures described in its application packet. While the
assessors found some non-conformances with the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.7, IAPMO addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the
applicable NRTL requirements.

C. Independence

    Section 1910.7(b)(3) requires that the NRTL be completely
independent of employers that are subject to the testing requirements,
and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials tested
under the NRTL Program. OSHA has a policy for the independence of NRTLs
that specifies the criteria used for determining whether an
organization meets the above requirement (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-
0.3, Appendix C, paragraph V). This policy contains a non-exhaustive
list of relationships that would cause an organization to fail to meet
the specified criteria. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of
IAPMO's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information to
assess its independence. OSHA determined that IAPMO has demonstrated
independence through the following:
     IAPMO is a privately owned organization, and OSHA found no
information regarding ownership that would qualify as a conflict under
OSHA's independence policy.
     IAPMO shows that it has none of the relationships
described above or any other relationship that could subject it to
undue influence when testing for product safety.

D. Credible Reports and Complaint Handling

    Section 1910.7(b)(4) specifies that a NRTL must maintain effective
procedures for producing credible findings and reports that are
objective and free of bias. The NRTL must also have procedures for
handling complaints and disputes under a fair and reasonable system.
OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of IAPMO's application packet
and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its ability to
produce credible results and handle complaints. OSHA determined that
IAPMO has demonstrated these capabilities through the following.
     IAPMO has detailed procedures describing the content of
the test reports, and other detailed procedures describing the
preparation and approval of these reports.
     IAPMO has procedures for recording, analyzing, and
processing complaints from users, manufacturers, and other parties in a
fair manner.
    OSHA's on-site assessment of IAPMO's facilities confirmed the
credible reports and complaint handling procedures described in its
application packet. While the assessors found some non-conformances
with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7, IAPMO addressed these issues
sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL requirements.
    OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent documentation,
as well as the results of the on-site assessment, indicate that IAPMO
can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition
as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory for its site located in
Ontario, California. The OSHA staff, therefore, preliminarily
recommended that the Assistant Secretary approve the application. This
preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary
approval of IAPMO's application.
    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether IAPMO meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition as an NRTL. Comments
should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters
needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating
the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request
for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any
extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period.
OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately
justified. To obtain or review copies of the publicly available
information in IAPMO's application, including pertinent documents
(e.g., exhibits) and all submitted comments, contact the Docket Office,
Room N-2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, at the above address; these materials also are
available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-
2013-0030.
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues

raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary
whether to grant IAPMO's application for recognition as an NRTL. The
Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the
application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may
undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the Federal
Register.

IV. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 25, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-20592 Filed 8-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P