[Federal Register: May 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 22941-22942]
[DOCID:fr15my09-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Pediatric Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Pediatric Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 23, 2009,
from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Executive Meeting Center,
Plaza Ballroom, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Carlos Pe[ntilde]a, Office of Science and Health
Coordination, Office of the Commissioner (HF-33), Food and Drug
Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane (for express delivery, rm. 14B-08),
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
8732310001. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information
on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On June 23, 2009, the Pediatric Advisory Committee will
review and discuss reports by the agency, as mandated by the Best
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act,
for ALVESCO (ciclesonide), ANDROGEL (testosterone), ASMANEX (mometasone
furoate), COMBIGAN (brimonidine/timolol), DEPAKOTE (divalproex sodium),
DERMA-SMOOTHE F/S (fluocinolone acetate), DIOVAN (valsartan), HEPSERA
(adefovir dipivoxil), INSPRA (eplerenone), MOXATAG (amoxicillin),
OMNARIS (ciclesonide), and ZOMETA (zoledronic acid).
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on
the year 2009 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before June
9, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal oral
presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before June 1, 2009. Time allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 2,
2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Carlos Pe[ntilde]a
at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: May 8, 2009.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-11317 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


Proposed Rule's document and RIA passback submitted to OMB on 3[rd] Round Reviews

R3 5766.6 CAA RMP SCCAP Preamble and Rule NPRM 20220421_EO12866 Initiated_07292022
R3 5766.6 CAA RMP SCCAP RIA NPRM 20220421_EO12866 Initiated_07292022


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Request for Extension of Comment Period: Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0189

We Vapirie LLC have conducted preliminary review of your lengthy proposed regulations and respectfully request that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) extend the comment period for the proposed rule entitled “Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act; Regulations on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products.”

We, Vapirie, are a small electronic cigarette retailer, employing fewer than 350 people. We are a small retail vapor shop in small town America. We hope to supply our customers with products that they wish to use at their choice, such as vapor devices, and eLiquids  As explained further below, the initial 75-day comment period does not provide enough time for companies like COMPANY to adequately analyze the entire proposal and provide substantive comments on the many questions posed by the agency. We need more time to address this 240-page document whose contents will deal a devastating economic blow to our business.

The preamble to the proposed rule identifies approximately 70 topics and issues the agency has requested comments on. Many of these issues are complex and difficult and relate to an extremely diverse array of products.  Clearly, the lengthy time period that the Agency required to propose these regulations is evidence that the issues addressed in the proposal are multi-faceted and challenging.  FDA cannot expect any interested party, and in particular, any manufacturer, to conduct a meaningful review and analysis of these issues and provide detailed and thoughtful comment in a 75-day period.

Therefore, Vaprie again respectfully requests that FDA extend the comment period by 105 days and agree to accept comments filed to the docket on or before October 22, 2014.  This will help ensure that the final rule is based on an adequate and meaningful administrative record.  Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely, Scott Campbell


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 141 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43645-43647]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17952]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2568; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-026-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously
Eurocopter France) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-07-
52 for certain Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France) Model
AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1,
AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters. AD
2014-07-52 currently requires repetitively inspecting certain
reinforcement angles of the rear structure to tailboom junction frame
(reinforcement angles) for a crack at 10 hour time-in-service (TIS)
intervals, repairing any cracked reinforcement angle, and allows an
optional repetitive inspection with a 165 hour TIS inspection interval
as a terminating action for the 10 hour TIS inspections. This proposed
AD would retain the inspection requirements of AD 2014-07-52 and
require the inspection of the area around each reinforcement angle
screw hole as terminating action to the 10 hour TIS inspections. These
proposed actions are intended to detect a crack in the reinforcement
angle, which if not corrected, could result in loss of the tailboom and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 21,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments 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 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments
received and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On May 21, 2014, we issued AD 2014-07-52, Amendment 39-17858, 79 FR
33054, June 10, 2014) for Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA,
AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F,
AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters with Modification
(MOD) 07 3215 installed or with a reinforcement angle, part-number (P/
N) 350A08.2493.21 or 350A08.2493.23, installed. AD 2014-07-52 requires,
for helicopters with 640 or more hours TIS, within 10 hours TIS and
thereafter at

intervals not exceeding 10 hours TIS, repetitively inspecting each
reinforcement angle for a crack. If there is a crack, AD 2014-07-52
requires, before further flight, repairing the reinforcement angle. As
an optional terminating action for the repetitive 10 hour TIS
inspections, AD 2014-07-52 allows a repetitive 165 hour TIS inspection
of the reinforcement angle under each attaching screw for a crack.
    AD 2014-07-52 was prompted by Emergency AD No. 2014-0076-E, dated
March 25, 2014, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the
Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for
Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2,
AS350B3, AS350D, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP
helicopters with MOD 07 3215 or with at least one reinforcement angle,
P/N 350A08.2493.21 or P/N 350A08.2493.23, installed. EASA advises that
during the inspection of several AS355 helicopters, cracks found in the
reinforcement angles had initiated on the non-visible surface of the
angle, and that this condition, if not corrected, could lead to further
crack propagation and subsequent loss of the tailboom, resulting in
loss of control of the helicopter. The EASA AD requires repetitive
inspections of the reinforcement angles, and states that a terminating
action is under investigation.

Actions Since AD 2014-07-52 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2014-07-52 (79 FR 33054, June 10, 2014), we have
determined that the optional terminating action in AD 2014-07-52 should
be a required terminating action. This NPRM would retain the actions in
AD 2014-07-52 but would require the 165-hour TIS visual inspection as
terminating action for the 10-hour TIS inspections. In addition,
because MOD 07 3215 installed reinforcement angle P/Ns 350A08.2493.21
and 350A08.2493.23, AD 2014-07-52 was written to apply to helicopters
with either the reinforcement angle P/Ns or with MOD 07 3215, so that
operators could more easily determine whether AD 2014-07-52 applied to
their aircraft. Airbus Helicopters then developed MOD 07 3232, which
removes reinforcement angle P/N 350A08.2493.21 and P/N 350A08.2493.23.
Because a helicopter with both MOD 07 3215 and MOD 07 3232 in its
aircraft records would not have reinforcement angle P/N 350A08.2493.21
or P/N 350A08.2493.23 installed, this NPRM would revise the
applicability to no longer include helicopters with MOD 07 3215 and to
include a note clarifying that the AD would not apply if MOD 07 3232 is
installed.

Comments

    After AD 2014-07-52 (79 FR 33054, June 10, 2014), was published, we
received comments from three commenters.

Request

    Two commenters requested that the AD not be applicable to aircraft
with MOD 07 3232 installed, as this modification improved the
attachment at the junction frame to prevent cracking.
    We partially agree. Although AD 2014-07-52 does not apply to
helicopters with MOD 07 3232 installed, we have revised the language in
the proposed AD so that this exclusion is more clear.
    Two commenters requested that we increase the time between
inspections or allow the repetitive inspections to end if no cracks are
found after a few inspections. The commenters stated that the
inspection frequency of the repetitive 165-hour TIS inspection is
excessive and that if correctly installed, the doublers do not crack.
One commenter stated that in practice the 165-hour inspection is being
completed at every 100-hour inspection to avoid repeated grounding of
the aircraft. Another commenter stated that frequent removal of the
bolts and nuts could affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.
    We do not agree. Analysis has demonstrated that cracking has been
found in more than one location, which indicates there may be more than
one cause of the cracking. The uncertainty regarding the root cause of
the cracking supports requiring the 165-hour TIS inspections without
any changes.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Helicopters issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB)
No. 05.00.70 for Model AS350B, BA, BB, Bl, B2, B3, and D helicopters
and EASB No. 05.00.62 for Model AS355E, F, F1, F2, N, and NP
helicopters, both Revision 0 and dated March 24, 2014. EASB No.
05.00.70 and EASB No. 05.00.62 describe procedures for inspecting the
angle reinforcements for a crack. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain the 10 hour TIS repetitive inspection
of the junction frame required by AD 2014-07-52 (79 FR 33054, June 10,
2014), and would also require the repetitive 165 hour TIS inspection of
the junction frame bores as a terminating action for the 10 hour TIS
inspection. This proposed AD would also revise the applicability
paragraph by no longer including helicopters with MOD 07 3215.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    This proposed AD is not applicable to the AS350BB as that model is
not type certificated in the U.S. This proposed AD applies to Airbus
Helicopters Model AS350C and AS350D1 helicopters because these
helicopters have a similar design. Finally, the EASA AD requires
operators to contact Airbus Helicopters if there is a crack, and this
proposed AD does not, however it does require repairing the crack
before further flight.

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD to be an interim action. If final
action is later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 822 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this proposed AD. At an average labor rate of
$85 per hour, inspecting the reinforcement angles for a crack without
removing the screws would require 1.0 work-hour, for a cost per
helicopter of $85 and a total cost of $69,870 for the U.S. fleet per
inspection cycle. Removing the screws and inspecting the reinforcement
angle would require 2 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of $170 and
a total cost of $139,740 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. If
required, repairing a cracked reinforcement angle would require about
10 work-hours, and

required parts would cost about $300, for a total cost per helicopter
of $1,150.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-07052, Amendment 39-17858 (79 FR 33054, June 10, 2014), and adding
the following new AD:

Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France): Docket No. FAA-
2015-2568; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-026-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA,
AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F,
AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters, with a
reinforcement angle part number (P/N) 350A08.2493.21 or P/N
350A08.2493.23 installed, certificated in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (a) of this AD:  Helicopters with
Modification (MOD) 073232 do not have P/N 350A08.2493.21 or P/N
350A08.2493.23 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a rear
structure to tailboom junction frame reinforcement angle
(reinforcement angle), which if not detected could result in loss of
the tail boom and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-07-52, Amendment 39-17858 (79 FR
33054, June 10, 2014).

(d) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 21, 2015.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) For helicopters with 640 or more hours time-in-service (TIS)
since installation of MOD 07 3215 or since installation of an
applicable reinforcement angle, within 10 hours TIS, and thereafter
at intervals not exceeding 10 hours TIS, inspect each reinforcement
angle for a crack as depicted in Figure 1 of Airbus Helicopters
Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.00.70 for Model AS350B,
AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, and AS350D1
helicopters and Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin
No. 05.00.62 for AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and
AS355NP helicopters, both Revision 0 and dated March 24, 2014.
    (2) If there is a crack, before further flight, repair the
reinforcement angle in a manner approved by the manager listed in
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
    (3) Within 165 hours TIS after the first inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not
exceeding 165 hours TIS, remove screw No. 5 from the reinforcement
angle, thoroughly clean the area around the hole and inspect the
reinforcement angle for a crack. If there is not a crack, reinstall
the screw. Sequentially repeat the steps required by this paragraph
for screws No. 6 through No. 12. If there is a crack, comply with
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment of the inspection
required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(g) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Robert Grant, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2014-07-52,
Amendment 39-17858 (79 FR 33054, June 10, 2014) are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this
AD.

(i) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD 2014-0076-E, dated March 25, 2014. You may view the
EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No.
FAA-2015-2568.

(j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5302: Rotorcraft
Tailboom.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 15, 2015.
Bruce E. Cain,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-17952 Filed 7-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Site visit: Inno Flex Corporation 7101 31st Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55427 Participants: Frank Scharber Facility and Maintenance Manager Melanie Tyler Environmental Specialist United States Compliance Consultant Teena Wooten EPA OSW Jim O'Leary EPA OSW Nancy Ellefson MN Pollution Control Agency Date: May 11, 2006 Jim O'Leary and Teena Wooten with the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Nancy Ellefson with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency visited the Inno Flex facility in Minneapolis, MN on May 11, 2006. Inno Flex manufactures membrane switches for the appliance industry. The company began operating three shifts about seven months ago.

The manufacturing process has not changed drastically over the last several years. The company eliminated some ink lines and changed to more friendly press clean up materials. The solvents and print towels are used for cleaning the printing machines. The operators use the towels to clean the equipment using chemical plunger cans to saturate the towel before beginning the cleaning process. On a weekly basis the print towels are centrifuged by an outside contractor, picked up by a contracted laundry service, washed and returned. The towels are collected in 14 gallon safety cans at the workstation. At the end of the shift or when the can is full the used towels are transferred to 55 gallon drums located in the storage area. The 55 gallon drums have a drip screen approximately 12 inches from the bottom of drum to collect the used solvent that has drained from the towels. A weekly average of approximately 30 gallons of spent solvent is recovered from centrifuging. The recovered solvent is sent for fuel blending. A total of 12,320 lbs. of spent solvent was shipped last year for fuel blending.

Solvent and used/ cut up restroom roll towels are used for adhesive clean up in the Lamination department and disposed of through fuel blending off site. A total of 1320 lbs. of adhesive/ solvent rags was shipped off site for fuel blending last year. InnoFlex is a small quantity generator.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37373-37376]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15032]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92360; File No. SR-EMERALD-2021-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Fees for Purge Ports

July 9, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 1, 2021, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or ``Exchange''),
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
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 is filing a proposal to amend the Exchange's Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to amend the fees for Purge Ports.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Fee Schedule, Section 5(d)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald, at MIAX's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 currently provides Market Makers \4\ the option to
purchase Purge Ports to assist in their quoting activity. Purge Ports
provide Market Makers with the ability to send quote purge messages to
the Exchange System.\5\ Purge Ports are not capable of sending or
receiving any other type of messages or information. The use of Purge
Ports is completely optional and no rule or regulation requires that a
Market Maker utilize them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to Lead Market Makers
(``LMMs''), Primary Lead Market Makers (``PLMMs''), and Registered
Market Makers (``RMMs'') collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \5\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the monthly fee for Purge Ports
under Section 5(d)(ii) of the Fee Schedule. Unlike other options
exchanges that provide purge port functionality and charge fees on a
per port basis,\6\ the

Exchange offers Purge Ports as a package and provides Market Makers
with the option to receive up to two (2) Purge Ports per matching
engine \7\ to which it connects via a Full Service MEI Port.\8\ The
Exchange currently has twelve (12) matching engines which means Market
Makers may receive up to twenty-four (24) Purge Ports for a single
monthly fee. The Exchange currently assesses Market Makers a fee of
$1,500 per month, regardless of the number of Purge Ports allocated to
the Market Maker. Assuming a Market Maker connects to all twelve (12)
matching engines during a month, with two Purge Ports per matching
engine, this results in a cost of $62.50 per Purge Port ($1,500 divided
by 24) for the month. The Exchange now proposes to increase the fee to
$7,500 per month. Market Makers will continue to receive two (2) Purge
Ports to each matching engine to which they are connected for the
single flat monthly fee. Assuming a Market Maker connects to all twelve
(12) matching engines during the month, with two Purge Ports per
matching engine, this would result in a cost of $312.50 per Purge Port
($7,500 divided by 24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Cboe BXZ Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Options Fee Schedule,
Options Logical Port Fees, Purge Ports ($750 per purge port per
month); Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') Options Fee Schedule,
Options Logical Port Fees, Purge Ports ($750 per purge port per
month); Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') Fee Schedule ($850 per purge
port per month). In Cboe's Purge Ports Frequently Asked Questions,
Cboe recommends that at least two purge ports be obtained per
exchange for redundancy purposes. See https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/features/Cboe_USO_PurgePortsFAQs.pdf. See also Nasdaq
GEMX, Options 7, Pricing Schedule, Section 6.C.(3). Nasdaq GEMX, LLC
(``Nasdaq GEMX'') assesses its members $1,250 per SQF Purge Port per
month, subject to a monthly cap of $17,500 for SQF Purge Ports and
SQF Ports, applicable to market makers.
    \7\ ``Matching Engine'' means a part of the MIAX Emerald
electronic system that processes options orders and trades on a
symbol-by-symbol basis. Some Matching Engines will process option
classes with multiple root symbols, and other Matching Engines may
be dedicated to one single option root symbol. A particular root
symbol may only be assigned to a single designated Matching Engine.
A particular root symbol may not be assigned to multiple Matching
Engines. See Fee Schedule, Definitions.
    \8\ Full Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the
ability to send Market Maker simple and complex quotes, eQuotes, and
quote purge messages to the MIAX Emerald System. Full Service MEI
Ports are also capable of receiving administrative information.
Market Makers are limited to two Full Service MEI Ports per Matching
Engine. See Fee Schedule, Definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has historically undercharged for Purge Port as
compared to other options exchanges \9\ because the Exchange provides
Purge Ports as a package for a single monthly fee. As described above,
this package includes two Purge Ports for each of the Exchange's twelve
(12) matching engines. The Exchange understands other options exchanges
charge fees on a per port basis. The proposed monthly fee increase for
Purge Ports would bring the Exchange's fees more in line with that of
other options exchanges, while maintaining a competitive fee structure
for Purge Port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The proposed fee changes will become effective on July 1, 2021.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \11\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange Members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange also believes the proposal
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because, for the
flat fee, the Exchange provides each Market Maker two Purge Ports for
each matching engine to which that Market Maker is connected. The
Exchange currently has twelve (12) matching engines. Accordingly, each
Market Maker that is connected to all twelve (12) matching engines
receives a total of twenty-four (24) Purge Ports for the existing flat
fee of $1,500 per month. On a per Purge Port basis, that equals $62.50
per Purge Port ($1,500 divided by 24). The Exchange believes that
increasing the flat monthly fee for Purge Port (regardless of the
number of matching engines to which it connects and consequently
regardless of the number of Purge Ports allocated to the Market Maker)
is equitable, reasonable, and competitive with the fees charged by
other exchanges that offer comparable purge port services. The Exchange
believes that most such exchanges charge per port for each match
engine. For example, BXZ charges a monthly fee of $750 per purge port
per month, EDGX charges a monthly fee of $750 per purge port, Cboe
charges a monthly fee of $850 per purge port,\13\ and Nasdaq GEMX
assesses its members $1,250 per SQF Purge Port per month.\14\ When
calculated on a per purge port basis, each of the above exchanges
charge monthly per purge port fees that are higher than the proposed
$7,500 per month ($312.50 per Purge Port).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 6. Cboe further recommends that at least two
purge ports be obtained per exchange for redundancy purposes. See
https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/features/Cboe_USO_PurgePortsFAQs.pdf.
This guidance applies to Cboe's affiliate exchanges, BZX and EDGX.
    \14\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed,
there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options.
Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has
more than 15% of the market share and currently the Exchange represents
only approximately 3.27% of the market share.\15\ The Commission has
repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory
intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the
securities markets. Particularly, in Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \16\ The Exchange is not aware of any evidence
that a market share of approximately 6-7% provides the Exchange with
anti-competitive pricing power. If the Exchange were to attempt to
establish unreasonable pricing, then no market participant would
purchase Purge Ports, and existing market participants would cease
paying for Purge Ports, which are optional services offered by the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\17\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among Members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls because Purge Ports are optional
functionality offered to Market Makers. The Exchange further believes
the proposed fees are reasonable as the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are lower on a per port basis than

the fees assessed by other exchanges that provide similar
functionality.\18\ Indeed, if the Exchange's proposed fees that are
excessively higher than established fees for similar services on other
exchanges, then the proposed fees would simply serve to reduce demand
for the Exchange's services, which as noted, is entirely optional. The
Exchange notes that Market Makers are not required by rule or
regulation to purchase Purge Ports. It is entirely a business decision
of each Market Maker that determines to purchase Purge Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See the Exchange's ``The Market at a Glance'', available at
https://www.miaxoptions.com/ (last visited June 30, 2021).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \18\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Market Makers are not precluded from using the purge
messages provided by either the MEI protocol or the cancel messages
provided by the FIX protocol. Under the MEI protocol, Market Makers may
request that all quotations for all underlyings, or for a specific
underlying, be removed, and that new inbound quotations for all
underlyings, or specific underlyings, be blocked. Under the FIX
protocol, Electronic Exchange Members (``EEMs'') may also request that
all, or a subset, of orders for an MPID, or all Day or GTC orders for
an MPID, on the requesting session, be canceled. As such, a dedicated
Purge Port is not required or necessary. Rather, Purge Ports were
specially developed as an optional service to further assist firms in
effectively managing risk.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer various types of access services as a means to
facilitate the trading activities of Members and other participants. As
Purge Ports provide voluntary risk management functionality, excessive
fees would simply serve to reduce demand for this optional product. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed Purge Port fees are not
unfairly discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Market
Makers that choose to use dedicated Purge Ports. Purge Ports are
completely voluntary and, as they relate solely to optional risk
management functionality, no Market Maker is required or under any
regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Market Makers that
voluntarily select the Purge Port service will be charged the same
amount for the same respective services.
    As Purge Ports are only available for purging and not for
activities such as order or quote entry, the Purge Ports are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination but rather are designed to
enable Market Makers to manage their quoting risk and meet their
heightened quoting obligations that other market participants are not
subject to, which, in turn, benefits all market participants. The
Exchange believes the proposed fee increase will continue to encourage
better use of dedicated Purge Ports. This may, concurrent with the
ports that carry quotes and other information necessary for market
making activities, enable more efficient, as well as fair and
reasonable, use of Market Makers' resources. The Exchange also believes
that the proposed fee increase is non-discriminatory because the
proposed Purge Port fees will apply uniformly to all Market Makers.
Purge Ports are completely voluntary and no Market Maker is required or
under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Market Makers that
voluntarily request this service will be charged the same amount for
the same service. Separately, the Exchange is not aware of any reason
why market participants could not simply drop their Purge Ports if the
Exchange were to establish unreasonable prices for its Purge Ports
that, in the determination of such market participant, did not make
business or economic sense for such market participant. No options
market participant is required by rule, regulation, or competitive
forces to utilize Purge Ports. As evidence of the fact that market
participants can and do drop their access to exchanges based on non-
transaction fee pricing, R2G Services LLC (``R2G'') filed a comment
letter after BOX's proposed rule changes to increase its connectivity
fees (SR-BOX-2018-24, SR-BOX-2018-37, and SR-BOX-2019-04). The R2G
Letter stated, ``[w]hen BOX instituted a $10,000/month price increase
for connectivity; we had no choice but to terminate connectivity into
them as well as terminate our market data relationship. The cost
benefit analysis just didn't make any sense for us at those new
levels.'' Similarly, the Exchange noted in a recent filing that once it
issued a notice that it was adopting Trading Permit fees, among other
non-transaction fees, one Member dropped its access to the Exchange as
a result of those fees.\19\ Accordingly, these examples show that if an
exchange sets too high of a fee for non-transaction fees for its
relevant marketplace, market participants can choose to no longer
access that particular exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91033 (February 1,
2021), 86 FR 8455 (February 5, 2021) (SR-EMERALD-2021-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden intra-market competition because the use of Purge Ports is an
optional service offered by the Exchange and no Market Maker is
required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. The
Exchange offers Purge Ports as a package and provides Market Makers
with the option to receive up to two (2) Purge Ports per matching
engine to which it connects via a Full Service MEI Port. The Exchange
currently has twelve (12) matching engines which means Market Makers
may receive up to twenty-four (48) Purge Ports for a single monthly
fee. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents
a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange
or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Market
Makers may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that
alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Market
Makers or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in
the financial markets.
    The Exchange believes that fees for the proposed Purge Ports and
connectivity, in general, are constrained by the robust competition for
order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive
fees for connectivity, including Purge Port fees, would serve to impair
an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening
competition. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule
change would impact intramarket competition as it would apply to all
Market Makers equally.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and as discussed
above, its ability to price access and ports is constrained by
competition among exchanges and third parties. There are 15 other U.S.
options exchanges, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing
discipline in order to compete for market participants. In this
competitive environment, market participants are free to choose which
competing exchange to use to satisfy their business needs. As a result,
the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair
competition among national securities exchanges.

Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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)(ii) of the Act,\20\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \21\ 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 shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EMERALD-2021-22 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-EMERALD-2021-22.
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-EMERALD-2021-22 and should
be submitted on or before August 5, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15032 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46188-46190]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042]

TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.: Application for Expansion
of Recognition and Proposed Modification to the NRTL Program's List of
Appropriate Test Standards

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of TUV
Rheinland of North America, Inc., for expansion of the scope of
recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and
presents the agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Additionally, OSHA proposes to add one test standard to the NRTL
Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

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 August 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted as follows:
    Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting information they do not want made available to the public,
or submitting materials that contain personal information (either about
themselves or others), such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket
(including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through the
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before August 3, 2023 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-3653, 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, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
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, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    OSHA is providing notice that TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.
(TUVRNA), is applying for an expansion of current recognition as a
NRTL. TUVRNA requests the addition of three test standards to the NRTL
scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides the final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including TUVRNA, which details that NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    TUVRNA currently has eight facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA
for product testing and certification, with the headquarters located
at: TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., 12 Commerce Road, Newtown,
Connecticut 06470. A complete list of TUVRNA sites recognized by OSHA
is available at https://www.osha.gov/nationally-recognized-testing-laboratory-program/tuv.

II. General Background on the Application

    TUVRNA submitted an application, dated October 17, 2022 (OSHA-2007-
0042-0066), to expand recognition as a NRTL to include three additional
test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the
application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did
not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
    Table 1 shows the test standards found in TUVRNA's application for
expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL
Program.

 Table 1--Proposed Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in TUVRNA's
                        NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 2272.....................  Standard for Electrical Systems for
                               Personal E-Mobility Devices.
UL 2849.....................  Standard for Electrical Systems for
                               eBikes.
* UL 60335-2-29.............  Household and Similar Electrical
                               Appliances: Particular Requirements for
                               Battery Chargers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In this notice, OSHA also proposes to add this test standard to the
  NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.

III. Proposal To Add a New Test Standard to the NRTL Program's List of
Appropriate Test Standards

    Periodically, OSHA will propose to add new test standards to the
NRTL list of appropriate test standards following an evaluation of the
test standard document. To qualify as an appropriate test standard, the
agency evaluates the document to: (1) verify it represents a product
category for which OSHA requires certification by a NRTL; (2) verify
the document represents a product and not a component; and (3) verify
the document defines safety test specifications (not installation or
operational performance specifications). OSHA becomes aware of new test
standards through various avenues. For example, OSHA may become aware
of new test standards by: (1) monitoring notifications issued by
certain Standards Development Organizations; (2) reviewing applications
by NRTLs or applicants seeking recognition to include new test
standards in their scopes of recognition; and (3) obtaining
notification from manufacturers, manufacturing organizations,
government agencies, or other parties. OSHA may determine to include a
new test standard in the list, for example, if the test standard is for
a particular type of product that another test standard also covers or
it covers a type of product that no standard previously covered.
    In this notice, OSHA proposes to add one new test standard to the
NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards. Table 2, below,
lists the test standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA
preliminarily determines that this test standard is an appropriate test
standard. OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.

Table 2--Standard OSHA Is Proposing To Add to the NRTL Program's List of
                       Appropriate Test Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 60335-2-29...............  Household and Similar Electrical
                               Appliances: Particular Requirements for
                               Battery Chargers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Preliminary Finding on the Application

    TUVRNA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the
scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file and
pertinent documentation preliminarily indicates that TUVRNA can meet
the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its
recognition to include the addition of these three test standards shown
in Table 1, above, for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary
finding does not constitute

an interim or temporary approval of TUVRNA's application.
    OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.

V. Public Participation

    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether TUVRNA meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a 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 by the due date for
comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester
justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an
extension if it is not adequately justified.
    To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well
as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor. These materials also are generally available online at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2007-0042 (for further
information, see the ``Docket'' heading in the section of this notice
titled ADDRESSES).
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments,
staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor
for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant TUVRNA's
application for expansion of the scope of recognition. 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 the final decision in the
Federal Register.

VI. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy 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. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020),
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 12, 2023.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-15218 Filed 7-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: November 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 217)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58210-58211]
[DOCID:fr12no09-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket Number USCG-2009-0960]

Drawbridge Operating Regulations; Victoria Barge Canal,
Bloomington, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Vertical Lift Span Bridge across the
Victoria Barge Canal, mile 29.4 at Bloomington, Victoria County, Texas.
The deviation is necessary to allow for one phase of an on-going
maintenance project to replace the lift span motors and brakes. This
deviation provides for the bridge to remain closed to navigation for 12
consecutive hours on November 23 and 24, 2009, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
each day.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on Monday, November 23,
2009 until 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0960 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0960 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Phil Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch, Eighth Coast
Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Victoria County Navigation District has
requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the UPRR
Vertical Lift Span Bridge across the Victoria Barge Canal, mile 29.4 at
Bloomington, Texas. The vertical lift bridge has a vertical clearance
of 22 feet above high water in the closed-to-navigation position and 50
feet above high water in the open-to-navigation position.
    Presently, the bridge opens on signal for the passage of vessels.
This deviation allows the draw span of the bridge to remain closed to
navigation for 12 consecutive hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. each day
on November 23 and 24, 2009. Navigation on the waterway consists mainly
of tugs with tows. Due to prior experience and coordination with
waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not

have a significant effect on these vessels.
    The vertical lift bridge has a vertical clearance of 22 feet above
high water in the closed-to-navigation position and 50 feet above high
water in the open-to-navigation position. No alternate routes are
available. The closures are necessary for one phase of an on-going
maintenance project to replace the lift span motors and brakes on the
bridge. As this work is proposed during hurricane season, the work may
be postponed and rescheduled, should any tropical storms or hurricanes
enter or develop in the Gulf of Mexico. The Coast Guard has coordinated
the closures with the commercial users of the waterway.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 27, 2009.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-27134 Filed 11-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 24946-24947]
[DOCID:fr06my10-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9146-3]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a
proposed consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club and
WildEarth Guardians in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia: Sierra Club, et al. v. Jackson, No. 1:10-cv-133-
(PLF) (D. DC). On January 27, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint to compel EPA to take final action on the State
Implementation Plan (``SIP'') infrastructure submittals for Maine,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Alabama, Kentucky,
Mississippi, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,
Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, Montana, South Dakota,
Utah, and Wyoming with regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (``NAAQS'') as required by section 110(k)(2) of
the CAA. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA has agreed
to take final action no later than April 29, 2011.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by June 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2010-0419, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Geoffrey L. Wilcox, Air and Radiation
Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree establishes a deadline of April 29,
2011 for the Administrator to sign a notice or notices, pursuant to
section 110(k)(2) of the CAA, either approving, disapproving, or
approving in part and disapproving in part, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
Infrastructure SIPS for Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
Hampshire, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Wisconsin,
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri,
Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
    In addition, the proposed consent decree states that within fifteen
(15) business days following signature of such action, EPA shall
deliver notice of such action to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication. The proposed consent decree also states that after EPA's
demonstration that it has satisfied all of the obligations under the
decree, it may move to have this decree terminated.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to

the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may
withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the
comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such
consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with
the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice
determines, based on any comment submitted, that consent to this
consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be
affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2010-0419) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the http://www.regulations.gov
to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: April 30, 2010.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-10686 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Appendix B. Spreadsheets Supporting Economic Analysis This appendix presents the calculations, for each sector, that underlie the economic analysis presented in the main body of the nomination chapter. As noted in the nomination chapter, each sector is comprised of a number of applications from users of methyl bromide in the United States, primarily groups ( or consortia) of users. The tables below contain the analysis that was done for each individual application, prior to combining them into a sector analysis. Each application was assigned a unique number ( denoted as CUE #), and an analysis was done for each application for technically feasible alternatives. Some applications were further subdivided into analyses for specific sub regions or production systems. A baseline analysis was done to establish the outcome of treating with methyl bromide for each of these scenarios. Therefore, the rows of the tables correspond to the production scenarios, with each production scenario accounting for row and the alternative( s) accounting for additional rows.

The columns of the table correspond to the estimated impacts for each scenario. ( The columns of the table are spread over several pages because they do not fit onto one page.) The impacts for the methyl bromide baseline are given as zero percent, and the impacts for the alternatives are given relative to this baseline. Loss estimates include analyses of yield and revenue losses, along with estimates of increased production costs. Losses are expressed as total losses, as well as per unit treated and per kilogram of methyl bromide. Impacts on profits are also provided.

After the estimates of economic impacts, the tables contain basic information about the production systems using methyl bromide. These columns include data on output price, output volume, and total revenue. There are also columns that include data on methyl bromide prices and amount used, along with data on the cost of alternatives, and amounts used. Additional columns describe estimates of other production ( operating) costs, and fixed/ overhead costs.

The columns near the end of the tables combine individual costs into an estimate of total production costs, and compare total costs to revenue in order to estimate profits. Finally, the last several columns contain the components of the loss estimates. # Notes 1 All analyses based on the Net Present Value of an acre of orchard. Very limited data are available as to the impacts of alternatives on orchard establishment and no long term data are available as to yield impacts. This analysis was conducted to determine what economic impacts and minimal biological effects would have on orchard value.

2With the exception of walnuts, soil moisture requirements imply that a year of fallow is necessary before the orchard can be replanted.

31,3D is only feasible on light, sandy soils and is subject to regulation as a potential carcinogen.

4 According to available crop budgets, harvest costs of fruits and nuts, and plums in particular, are a large proportion of costs and are proportional to yields, therefore yield losses result in significant savings in harvest costs. In reality, some fixed costs of harvesting will reduce these cost savings and increase the economic losses.

5The MBTOC list was more limited for vineyard replanting than for fruits and nuts.

Y* Technically feasible on light soils only * kg ai that would be applied/ ha = application rate for the alternatives or requested application rate for MeBr.

* Other pest control costs are those other than methyl bromide or its alternatives.