Contract No. GS-10-F-0125P

Phone Log

Harmonization of Hazard Communication: Labeling Costs

Submitted to:

Office of Regulatory Analysis

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

 Department of Labor

200 Constitution Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20210

Submitted by:

Eastern Research Group, Inc.

110 Hartwell Avenue

Lexington, MA 02421

  HYPERLINK "http://www.erg.com"  www.erg.com

ERG Task No. 0<IP_ADDRESS>

ERG Task No. 0<IP_ADDRESS>

Date: April 28, 2010

Table of Contents

  TOC \h \z \t "Heading 1,1"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049801"  Company A	  PAGEREF _Toc260049801 \h  1

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049802"  Company B	  PAGEREF _Toc260049802 \h  2

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049803"  Company C	  PAGEREF _Toc260049803 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049804"  Company D	  PAGEREF _Toc260049804 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049805"  Company E	  PAGEREF _Toc260049805 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049806"  Company F	  PAGEREF _Toc260049806 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049807"  Company G	  PAGEREF _Toc260049807 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049808"  Company H	  PAGEREF _Toc260049808 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049809"  Company I	  PAGEREF _Toc260049809 \h  10

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049810"  Company J	  PAGEREF _Toc260049810 \h  11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049811"  Company K	  PAGEREF _Toc260049811 \h  12

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049812"  Company L	  PAGEREF _Toc260049812 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049813"  Company M	  PAGEREF _Toc260049813 \h  14

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049814"  Consultant A	  PAGEREF _Toc260049814 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049815"  Consultant B	  PAGEREF _Toc260049815 \h  16

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049816"  Distributor A	  PAGEREF _Toc260049816 \h  17

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049817"  Printer A	  PAGEREF _Toc260049817 \h  18

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049818"  Vendor A	  PAGEREF _Toc260049818 \h  19

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049819"  Vendor B	  PAGEREF _Toc260049819 \h  21

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049820"  Vendor C	  PAGEREF _Toc260049820 \h  25

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049821"  Vendor D	  PAGEREF _Toc260049821 \h  27

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049822"  Vendor E	  PAGEREF _Toc260049822 \h  28

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049823"  Vendor F	  PAGEREF _Toc260049823 \h  30

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049824"  Vendor/Printer A	  PAGEREF _Toc260049824 \h  32

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049825"  Vendor/Printer A	  PAGEREF _Toc260049825 \h  32

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc260049826"  Vendor/Printer B	  PAGEREF _Toc260049826 \h  34

Company A

Phone Call with ERG, 3/25/10

Working to comply with GHS implementation in Europe end of 2010, Brazil, China

Use SAP to store classification (CAS #s) in separate places for different regions

End up with different classifications for different countries even though all GHS—so going from region-specific to country-specific (i.e., getting more complicated)

7-8,000 chemicals/CAS #s have to be reclassified

Starting to buy color printers-now they print OSHA and transport labels together, and buy pre-printed stock that they print on in B&W. They are switching to separate labels

They do have some facilities that ship only domestically

If have things in a pallet/box, have transport label on outside

Some divisions print in color

Design labels in Word template that pulls data from SAP

Some divisions (consumer) buy pre-printed

Meet for OSHA and Consumer Products Safety standards for labeling

U.S. proposed rule is “purple book-ish” and relatively straightforward (as is Brazil, and probably rest of the Americas); Europe more complicated

The color printers have smaller format than current B&W

Current labels on 55 gal. drum are 9” x 16”

Email from Company A to ERG, 3/25/10

From: [Company A]

 To: [ERG]

Date: 3/25/2010 4:04 PM

Subject: Re: Request for brief conversation regarding costs of GHS labels

I spoke with [redacted] (the EH&S label owner), and she told me that we print 250,000 labels per month. The old black and white printers are approx. $5,000 each and the new color printers are $1500 - 1700. She does not know what the stock runs. I have copied her on this email; if you'd like to chat with her, perhaps you can set something up.

Regards,

[Company A]

Company B

Call with ERG 4/1/10

There is no option to print in B&W under EU’s CLP, that Company B is aware of

CLP is a regulation so all member countries have to do the same thing, but interpretation can be different

In the EU, already had an orange box system. For that, they use pre-printed stock and print in B&W

They use a thermal transfer printer now

They are planning on doing the same for GHS, assuming that having empty diamonds is okay (since to hard to have varieties of stock with different numbers of diamonds)—they don’t know if it will be allowed, but are going to do it and wait for the first court case

Australia doesn’t accept empty diamonds

Some countries (e.g., Poland) get revenue from fines, so they might not be very flexible

Other alternative is to buy color printers, which are expensive

They do international shipping so have to use British Standard 5609 (?) for seawater submersion and abrasion, so limited to choice of printers

Ink and label stock are the problem

The only printer Company B knows that is compliant is the OKI printer, which is ₤3,000 and limited to A3 sheets (as opposed to the roll they use now)

Label stock is 20-35% more expensive than they use now (which costs ~ ₤0.22 ea)

Color thermal transfer printers run ₤25-30k

Ribbon >₤100 each, and ribbons are constantly moving (so getting used up even if not actually printing)

₤12-15k for digital printer, ~ ₤100 for ink cartridges (which are small so you have to buy a lot)

₤100 for ink cartridges, which are small so you have to buy a lot

They have 14 sites globally and a total of 28-30 printers

2x2 diamond stickers are not practical for them—right now their (combined CLP and transport) labels are all automated, to reduce operator error, and having someone have to choose which stickers to affix would introduce operator error

OKI is only one Company B knows of making a compliant printer, and Epson is working on it

It’s not just the issue of buying a color printer, it’s finding one that is compliant

They do primarily drum labels

They print 100,000 labels per month, maybe more (varies from month to month)

12 label designs for different markets, with different sizes

Lumped into regulatory budget, so no line item Company B can separate out

Roll of 1,000 labels is ₤150 to 200 for blank pre-printed stock

Resin ribbons are ₤40 ea for ~500 labels

Labeling is a small part of total costs

Fairly easy to line up the pictogram inside a pre-printed diamond if you have a good printer, they have experience doing it with EU orange diamonds (cheap printers are not so good)

They use top range Zebra printers, which they installed in the last 4-5 years so they are practically brand new

Running cost includes ribbons and label stock (plus some labor, but those guys do other things also)

Use EU labels in rest of world except US, Mexico and WHMIS for Canada

Use easy peel label in UK and Germany for shipping within company/to warehouses, then they add on other label at warehouse—if not going over water can do that.

Someone has to physically stick the label on the drum or “easy pack”

All ribbons turn together so could use up color even if not printing in that color

Print on polypropylene

Company C

Call with ERG, 4/6/10

Company C is planning on being fully GHS compliant by the end of the calendar  year

The company uses a customized system to print the labels. They use Order Management System. The operating system used is AS 4000, a software that formats labels in desired ways. The software pulls information from the database and then prints them.

Labels:

The company prints approximately 300,000 to 400,000 labels/year

While going from B&W to red frame the cost might go up by about 4 cents per label.

This  might increase the total printing cost by approx $20,000 per year for the company

Printers:

They currently have 6 printers. They have facilities in 3 locations and each has 2 printers.

They use HP laser jet (he wasn’t sure of the model number) ( They only print B&W as of now

They are looking to move to thermal label printers which will print in color and are also faster

HP laser jet use sheets of label (one sheet has many labels on them) but the new thermal label printer will use roll of labels.

They plan to get at least 6 of these thermal printers

Toners:

Approximately $40/cartridge for B&W

Use couple of hundred of them annually (He was not absolutely positive)

Pre-printing:

They do pre-printing to get the blue color border (company logo) on the label

They do not print color in-house. Only print the product information on the label in B&W

Cost Comparisons (approximation):

Label Size	% of Labels Printed per year by Size	Cost to print GHS Label w/ Black frame	Cost to print GHS Label w/ Red frame

Small (Regular): 1"x3"	50%	5 cents	10-11 cents

Medium: 2"x3"	35%	8 cents	15 cents

Large: 6"x8"	15%	15 cents	25-30 cents

Company D

Call with ERG, 4/8/10

Labels:

They print around 100 labels/week.

The cost ranges from 25 cents to 75 cents per piece. The expensive one are made of weather proof polyester material while the cheaper ones are not.

The label size they produce are 8.5"x11".

They are currently printing only B&W.

She mentioned that the company is not switching to color printing any time soon but she estimated that the cost my almost double per label.

Printer:

They use only 1 laser printer at the company at the moment (Model No: HP 2015). They do not preprint labels.

Company E

Call with ERG, 4/9/10

North American affiliate of Company M

GHS Compliance:

Only their exports are GHS compliant domestic labels still in B&W

They have not officially started but are in the testing phase and hence conducting long-term stability study

Printers:

Cost $10,000 to $25,000 each

$100 per cartridge (not sure which one)

They have 10-12 printers in US across all sites. They include both thermal and laser jet.

Labels:

B&W label costs about 9 cents while color labels cost approximately 15 cents.

Company F

Call with ERG, 4/9/10

Labels:

Most labels supplied by customers

Print approximately 200-250 labels per month

Labels are printed on vinyl; Size: 8.5 in by 11 in. size

90 percent of the labels printed are B&W

Printing B&W label is no more than 10 cents per labels. Colored labels will be a couple of cents more

10 percent( color printing on labels for company logos etc.

Printers:

They use 3 laser printers

They already have color printers in place so no additional cost from switching to color printing

Cartridges:

B&W cartridge cost approximately $45-$50

Color cartridge cost a couple dollars more but not significant increase in cost

Cost from switching to GHS:

Worst case scenario: $300 increase in overall cost

Encouraged by the idea to GHS Labeling

Other companies complaining about high costs is “hard to swallow”

Company G

Call with ERG, 4/12/10

A laser printer printing generic labels could cost only a few hundred dollars.

A Thermal transfer printer could cost upwards of $1000- $5000, but you get far greater flexibility in printing a wide variety of product labels, are extremely durable, and basically last forever. They have printers at the site that have been printing several hundred labels daily for 12 years + , and are still going strong

Company H

Call with ERG, 4/2/10

Company H has multiple business units

Currently do not comply with GHS

Labels:

Only print B&W labels

Adding another color to the label will increase the cost by 10-20% at least

This particular plant in MA sends 50 bulk shipments annually and per shipment uses upto 10 labels; The containers used hold about a kilo of pharmaceutical chemicals

No idea of how much they spend on labeling

   Printers:

They have both B&W printers and color laser printers but they try not to use the color printers that much

If producing MSDS they use the color laser if colors are required

They try to send most of their MSDSs electronically so that they don’t have to print as many

But they will have to use color laser printers if they are required to and follow GHS in the future

No idea how much the B&W and color printers cost

B&W cartridge cost around $70 each

Color cartridge cost around $70 x 5 (expensive)

Company I

Phone call and Email to ERG, 4/14/10

This company manufactures industrial and agricultural cleaners, high concentrate bleach, and such, mostly for private label customers.

They have 80 employees.

For industrial products, they go by HMIS codes and DOT descriptions and OSHA requirements.

Product labels and hazard labels are separate.

He uses stickers for the hazard labels.

Some product labels they get preprinted from their customers (like the one below), so no cost to them.

When they print product labels, they use computer generated labels printed on a black office LaserJet machine.

Durability is not an issue. He prefers that the labels biodegrade within a year.

They don't print their own hazard labels.

 For the hazard warning, they mostly use black and white 4 1/4 in.-square DOT-type stickers with the word "corrosive" and the standard pictogram. (Some products use "flammable" sticker.)

As he indicated, he buys the labels from vendors.

He estimates they use 40,000 such labels a year.

Size of containers varies from 5 gal. to 55 gal, with a few 1 gal. and a few 275 gallon.

Asked what the hazard stickers cost, he said "Peanuts--maybe 4 cents each."

Asked about the impact of GHS red diamond requirement, he said "I dunno,  maybe a couple of cents more per label."

Sample of label provided by customer to Company I to be applied to container.

Company I produces chemical, bottles chemical, applies this label, and also applies HMIS hazard pictogram sticker, which they supply.

Company J

Call with ERG, 4/20/10

Spoke with Contact in Regulatory Affairs.

In US, Company J has three facilities with 120 employees total.

Switching to red diamonds will “definitely have an impact.”

They have 10,000 different labels (products).

They use a Zebra thermal transfer printer to print black onto labels preprinted with company logo (color) and color HMIS boxes.

Have had “good success” printing in register, printing numbers inside boxes.

Label sizes:

In 2009, ordered 1 million 3.67” by 7.5” preprinted labels [referred to them as “shell” labels] and c. 700,000 2.5” by 5” labels.

Cost about 5 cents each.

Container sizes:

500 ml to 20 l are most common, more than 95 percent of containers.

4 oz or smaller are less than 5%.

They use Avery labels for very small containers (50 ml).

Other:

Commented that they don’t use hazard symbols now except to ship to Canada, and then they use black printing only.

Preference would be to have all black labels (i.e., black borders around pictograms).

Company K

Call with ERG, 4/19/10

Sizes of containers: 50 ml, 100 ml, 250 ml, 500 ml, up to 55 gal.

40,000 to 50,000 labels per year

10% of containers are < 100 ml

20% of containers are < 500 ml

Problem with smaller containers: how attach new labels? (apparently not now a problem). Said they would cost “3 times as much”.

Other labels: They use preprinted and print all black onto color labels. Intend to use same strategy for GHS labels when rule changes, so no printing cost increase.

(Said big increase would come from paying a designer to redesign all the labels, estimated full time for a year.)

Biggest people in their business: Mallinkrodt, EMD, Fisher Scientific, VWR, and Ricca.

# of employees: 30

Containers:

They use bottles as small as 100 ml

Below are some of the containers Company K  uses:

Hed-Pak

Company L

Call with ERG, 4/23/10

Cost from GHS Labeling Compliance:

“Trivial”, “not an issue”

They print small number of labels hence it is not a problem for them

Labels:

They print color labels

They print 20 labels per day, i.e. 20x365 = 7,300 labels per year

Label sizes range from 2 in. wide all the way to a drum labels that are a foot wide

They print “as you need”

They do not use border stickers

Label Cost:

No idea of cost per label

More labels you print the less per label cost will be

Printer:

They use a standard color laser printer

2 printers especially dedicated to label printing but have many other printers too

Major issue with GHS Compliance:

They print a lot of small labels for chemicals that are sold in small amounts

Very hard to get all the information required by GHS on to the small labels

Many companies print label size 2 in. by ½ in. (3/4 in.) labels for containers as high as 1 ½ in. with 1 g of material which might require as many as 3 pictograms. Very difficult to fit all the information considering the tiny label sizes

Company M

Call with ERG, 4/23/10

GHS Compliance:

They are switching to GHS Labeling

For substances: By end of November, 2010

For mixtures: By middle of 2015

Labels:

They print color labels

Difficult to give label costs

Costs increase by several million dollars to switch to GHS (includes training costs, labeling costs, redesigning MSDSs, etc.)

They used to preprint labels before but after 2008 printed color labels in-houses

Can’t give how many labels they print

Label sizes:

They print the following label sizes.

Label Sizes Used for Different Chemical Categories by Weight

Weight of Packed Products	Hazardous Chemical	Non-Hazardous Chemical

Above 500 kg/l	200x143 mm	205x85 mm

5 kg to 500 kg	285x100 mm	205x85 mm

500 g to 5 kg	230x85 mm	205x85 mm

500 g	170x70 mm	170x70 mm

250 g to 500 g	150x52 mm	150x52 mm

125 g to 250 g	120x30 mm	120x30 mm

50 g to 125 g	90x30 mm	90x30 mm

10 g to 50 g	65x23 mm	65x23 mm

Less than 10 g	55x23 mm	55x23mm

Consultant A

Call with ERG 3/30/10

Consultant A primarily works on MSDS authoring

Most of Consultant A’s clients are large multinational biotech and pharma companies

Consultant A’s clients are already doing it for the EU and already pretty far along in MSDSs and labeling

Most already printing in color

They don’t care if black or red—the expense is trivial

Biotech and pharma have well-funded EHS and big margins, so not as much of an issue for them as some other industries

If in final package size to end user doesn’t need GHS labeling; they do OSHA labeling when shipping something like a drum between facilities

They do whatever standard is the most stringent, so they will probably do EU GHS labeling and that will exceed current OSHA standards

Consultant A does have one client that only ships domestically; Consultant A doubts they would want to do black diamonds

Software will come out and price of color printers and bulk labels is reasonable

As demand goes up in reaction to rule, printers will react and find ways to meet demand competitively

Most of the companies Consultant A works with probably contract out labeling

Pharma companies that deal in large quantities contract out the whole packaging part and ship out tablets in 55 gal. drum to someone who does all of the packaging

Lots of companies (small and medium sized) don’t have a clue it’s happening or are dragging their feet—they’ll ship it to the EU and it’ll get hung up in customs and then they’ll realize it.  Big companies have floors full of people working on it

Consultant A’s company does wording and selection of pictogram, but the company has an existing relationship with a printer

In the EU, challenge Consultant A sees is that research samples aren’t exempt from GHS labeling, and that is small packages that can’t fit GHS label

Consultant B

Call with ERG 3/30/10

Some do own printing, some contract out

One client Consultant B just talked to is the only one Consultant B knows of doing B&W. They’re a large plastic company, most products going to other companies so no consumer, don’t care if logo is B&W

That company orders corrugated boxes pre-printed in B&W (but they do print individual labels with lot number, etc.)

Companies Consultant B works with range from very small to large (e.g., Prestone)

The vast majority are already printing in color (logos)

Larger companies doing EU/CLP labeling already

Some do 1 panel EU/CLP, 1 panel WHMIS, and 1 US

Once you’ve done the labeling sheet (SDS?) label is done

Cost probably < $50-100 for labeling (whole labeling process?)

Incremental cost would either be buying the equipment or sending to the printers

People contract out because want level of durability they can’t do themselves; chemical companies might have chemicals that will smudge or disintegrate the label, so get top coating

If do same product all the time can do off site, but some companies want flexibility and quick turnover

Off site costs probably similar to printing in-house—cost  is not the deciding issue

A lot of people do SAP/just in time printing to minimize stockpiles, able to add lot #

Will have some additional costs if doing B&W, but gets blown out of proportion

Some of Consultant B’s clients do DOT and OSHA label together

HMIS and NFPA labeling is voluntary and designed for emergency responders; some companies like to use it for in plant labeling so like it to come that way. However the numerical scheme for the degree of hazard is opposite of GHS, so they might abandon it. Probably 30% do either NFPA or HMIS, and those are in color

People often buy those pre-printed

Could also buy the pre-printed 2x2 pictograms, but if they have tons of products they don’t want to spend the manpower to affix them

Distributor A

Call with ERG, 4/1/10

They are basically importers and distributors of chemical products and the products that they get already come labeled that with OSHA/GHS compliant labels. No idea or estimate of how much the increase in cost would be.

They print DOT labels, which requires the label to be printed in different colors

They have a software/program to print the DOT labels but they would need to get a new module installed in their program to make it GHS compliant

No idea of how much the new module would cost

Mentioned they have minimal involvement in printing labels so they did not have any information

Printer A

Call with ERG, 3/23/10

2 in. by 2 in. on matte vinyl, adhesive back

100 labels per roll @ $18.00 per roll.

Orders of 250 rolls or more get small discount.

Larger and smaller versions are custom jobs.

She said she’s never sold them without the red borders.

Call with ERG, 2/25/10

They haven’t done larger labels with company names and other information.

(Seems like they really just distribute these rolls of 2 by 2 labels).

Call with ERG, 4/22/10

Contact has seen an increase in GHS stickers and labels ordered, but people are not ordering for everything they’re doing.

About 30% of their customers use them

2700 customers total, but not all ship hazmat.

Vendor A

Phone Call with ERG, 3/30/10, First Contact Person

They do not offer color printers

They offer color ribbons

6 rolls in 1 case

Color( for a 2.5” (width), $6.5/roll on average; for a 4.33” (width), $11.27/roll

Regular (Black) ( for a 2.5” (width), $2.36/roll on average; for a 4.33” (width) $4.87/roll

When asked about an estimate of these rolls that companies of different sizes order/buy on an annual basis she mentioned the information was confidential

Phone Call with ERG, 3/30/10, Second Contact Person

How many of these rolls do companies buy on annual basis?

Depends on whether they are buying for themselves or buying to send it to other companies who then send labels to end user customers.

Depends on the type of printer model that the companies are using

Ribbons

Table top printer ribbon costs approximately $36/box to $67/box

A B&W ribbon costs $13.96/roll (2.5” width); $24.04/roll (4.3” width)

A color ribbon costs approx. $20 extra i.e. $13.96+$20 = $33.96/roll; $67.64/roll (4.3” width)

Price of ribbons depends on what types of printers are being used in companies eg. Table top printers (regular), industrial printers (used in factories), mobile printers (use in retail environment)

Label Materials

They offer various type of label materials e.g. paper label, acrylic, UV, chemical and weather resistant

Companies get discount on buying bulk

Hence pricing depends on how much the companies are buying

Labels for tabletop printers, there are approx 5570 labels/roll (  in 1 carton there are 4 rolls

Prices are different and goes up to $61 per carton

The company usually sends the products to mass distributors who then ship them to different companies

NOTE 1: They said that their distributors (who will most likely have information about how much ribbons they are selling to different companies) will not be able to give information if we are not purchasing from them.

NOTE 2: Although the information received from the two contact persons indicated a higher cost associated with color ribbons vs black ribbons, the estimates given were drastically different.

Vendor B

Call with ERG, 4/1/10

In order to comply with the GHS Labeling, companies have 2 possible options:

Preprint all labels (for color)

20% more than blank labels

Then use one of the following two printers to print the information in B&W

Thermal printer or B&W laser printer ( costs around $700 each

Thermal printers are very fast but cannot print color

Chemical companies cannot use inkjet printer because its ink fades away in weather. They have to use weather resistant labels.

Use Color Laser printer

Costs around $1200 (twice as expensive as B&W printer)

Regular Industrial B&W Ink cartridge costs $370 each ( prints around 10,000 to 20,000 pages

Color cartridge for Color Laser printer costs $378 each, but need to use 4 cartridges so it costs $378*4 = $1512 ( prints around 6,000 pages

Labels:

Chemical companies have to use vinyl labels (no choice on label material)

Average price about 500 of regular (8.5 x 11) label is $150-$200; 200/500 = 0.4 cent per label

4x6 roll of label ( has about 250 labels ( costs $3.50

Preprinting the same label costs around $50 per 1000 labels or $12.50 per 250 labels (she mentioned $17 per 250 labels = almost 4 times the cost of blank label)

Per roll has label numbers ranging from 250 to >1000

Printers:

Thermal printer

Very fast, cannot print color

2 types of thermal printer

Direct thermal ( heats up the paper

Thermal transfer( heats up the ribbon and then pasted on to the label material

Ribbon for color 4 or 5 times more expensive than the B&W ribbon

Color Laser printer

Slow, can print color

It needs 3 laser printers to do the job of 1 thermal printer

Color Laser printer prints about 22 pages/min( when the same printer print B&W it prints around 30 pages/min

Thermal printer prints 3 times faster than laser printer

Ribbon in a B&W (thermal) printer prints twice as many as the toner in the color laser printer

Black toner in a color laser printer prints about the same as the color toner in the color laser printer

Laser printer uses “toner”; Thermal printer uses “ribbon”; Inkjet printer uses “ink” (chemical companies cannot use this as it is not weather resistant).

What companies are doing:

Moving from preprinting labels to “shell labeling”

That’s where their software comes in ( Costs $25,300 to $1 mill.

Software( pulls data from the company database and then prints them on the label. Hence unlike in case of preprinting where it if there is any change in label then there is no way to change the label leading to huge waste of labels and loss of money, these software allows data to be changed and corrected thereby only printing the correct labels.

Preprinting label is good when it is known exactly what needs to be on the label and that is not going to change. Eg. She mentioned when exporting to Europe they use preprinting as they have “premade phrasing”

With the new GHS Labeling, it is not sure where exactly the pictogram goes so its not the best to preprint labels. Depending on the chemicals/mixtures the placement of the red frame is going to change.

From the new GHS Labeling requirement, cost will at least increase at least 20 – 30%.

Small Companies:

Spend from $10,000/year to $100,000/year on labeling (not including printer costs)

With the new GHS Labeling requirement, cost will increase at least 20 – 30%

They are either preprinting or printing in color

Large Companies:

Spend at least $100,000/year on labeling (not including printer costs)( large companies don’t share all their labeling costs with the vendor

With the new GHS Labeling requirement, cost will increase at least 20 – 30%

Cost also depends on

How many products they are producing/shipping

How much is shipped internationally

Other Issues:

Some companies do not have the capacity to send color printing signals with their database software to the printers. In such case they will have to update their database system so that the system can do this for them (i.e. take information from their database and import it onto a software that can send the color printing signals).

Other points:

She mentioned one of the big companies that they were working with currently had 8 thermal printers and printed 30,000 labels/monthly

The labels need to go on every container that is being shipped

Customers include chemical companies such as:

GE

Ashland and Hercules

Shell Canada (only company not based in U.S.)

Oxy Chemical

Independent Chemical

Air Products and Chemicals

Lonza

Follow-up Call, 4/1/10

Label Costs

Vinyl labels size 8.5 x 11 ( costs around 20-23 cents per label (for the material cost)

Label costs vary by sizes as labels such as 8.5 x 14 or 8.5 x 17 would cost more. Also if special dyes are used the cost will increase still

Number of Labels

Hard to tell how many labels companies would produce. Depends on their size and operation

Small companies can print from 10,000 to 30,000/month while big companies could print 10 times as many

Printer

Buying a color printer alone will increase costs by 20 – 30%

Color printers start from $1200/$1300 and will increase depending on its capacity/capabilities

Toner

Set of 4 runs approx $1200 and gives around 6,000 pages (labels)

B&W laser toner costs around $200 each and gives around 20,000 labels

Color laser toner costs around $300 each and gives around 6,000 labels

Set of 4 color toners hence costs $1,200 ($300 x 4)

Issues with color printers

The tray in color printers (that cost around $1200/$1300) can hold 250-300 regular paper which means that they can only hold around 100-200 of the vinyl stock as they are thicker and heavier

So even companies that produce labels as few as 500 would have to have labor designated to continuously put paper in the printer. Hence, additional labor costs are involved in such cases.

Issues for small companies

If they only use thermal printers (cannot print in color) at the moment, additional costs will involve :

Buying new equipment (printers)

Redesigning label to go into laser printer: In thermal printers there is no margin on the labels printed but certain margin has to be maintained in case of labels printed in laser printer so they have to design the labels so that they fit in the label used in the laser printer

Notes:

What % of small or large firms were GHS compliant at the moment ( even 1% would be surprising

None of the companies they are working with (companies listed above: mentioned in the first conversation) have the capacity to print in color

Vendor C

Call with ERG, 3/26/10

Some of their customers are chemical producers (big oil and gas companies)

Only sells printing equipments but don’t use labeling services

Small printer (+software) ( $900

Larger printer (+software) ( $3000

Materials Sent Subsequently:

Printers already compliant with GHS requirements. They include a full set of GHS complaint symbols and can print labels and signs formatted to meet GHS requirements.

This includes:

DLP PRO / DLP PRO 300 ( ½” to 4” tape widths

DLP PRO

Printer price: $1,499

DLP PRO 300

Printer price: $1,745

DLP 7000 ( 4” to 7” tape widths

Following information are from the website

Printer price: $3,495

Supplies:

4”x140’ Red 3.0 Mil Vinyl Tape ( $219.95 but so did the other colors including black for the tape of similar dimensions

6”x70’ Red 3.0 Mil ( $182.95 and so did the other colors including black and white of similar dimensions

7”x70’ Red Vinyl 3.0 Mil( $215.95 and so did the other colors of similar dimensions

DLP 7”x492’ Red Resin Ribbon ( $299.95; on the other hand DLP 7”x492’ Black Resin Ribbon( $249.95 and white cost $269.95 for similar dimensions

Kits:

DLP 7000 Hazmat Kit( $6,849.45

DLP 7000 OSHA Kit( $5,495

DLP 9000 printers( 4” to 9” tape widths

Following information are from the website

Printer price: $3,995

Supplies:

DLP 8.66”x492’ Premium Red Ribbon( $349.95 whereas DLP 8.66”x492’ Black Resin Ribbon( $275.95

Kits:

DLP 9000 & DLP pro OSHA Duo Kit( $8,991

DLP 9000 Hazmat Kit( $11,840

DLP 9000 OSHA Kit( $5,995

DLP features (Software Package included)

prints up to 3 inches per second

chemical resistant vinyl and ribbon for harsh environments

Vinyl size ½” to 4”

DLP (thermal transfer printer)( OSHA compliant signs and labels

DLP supplies include

Adhesive-backed vinyl( chemical resistant, lasts for years (indoors and out); continuous rolls range from ½” wide to 4” wide and come in wide variety of colors

Ribbon( chemical resistant to withstand harsh environments; These thermal transfer ribbons are 4”and are available in eight colors

Vendor D

Call with ERG, 3/25/10

Company makes Black and White-only label printers.

2 in. by 2 in. is not a standard size. Closest is 25/16  in. by 4 in.

Label printers start at $109.00.

Thermographic process, no ink costs, no cartridge costs.

2 5/16 in.  by 4 in. paper labels, adhesive back: Roll of 300 blank white labels @ .0733 ea. = $22.00 per 300. (per thousand = $73.33)

2 5/16 in.  by 4 in. paper labels, adhesive back: Roll of 300 blank white labels with red border @ .0867 ea. = $26.00 per 300. (per thousand = $86.67)

Vendor E

Email to ERG, 4/12/10

Ok, after hours of pushing numbers around and examining adhesive labeled printing offers on the net, they want some serious $$ bucks per each sticker 6"x10". The internet printers claim that there is no difference with 2 colors or 20 colors because of the process, but at the prices they quote upwards of $3.75 to as high as $5:35 depending in quantity it seems its best to use your office printer unless the media stock is out of touch It appears that the cost difference of b&w and color only differs bigger on office machines that are color laser since the price is so much less in lower cost machines and not the expensive printing presses. Old process color on old machines are not desirable.

As I mentioned outside of the stock being used, the larger, faster, and more pricey the machine , the less it is to print and the closer the gap of b&w against color.

Red uses Magenta,Yellow in addition to Black so the cost on printing this sticker on a printer 12 years of age like your old Hp is still far less than the Printing Press.

Color usually averages to no more than 25 cents per sticker with more red than you have based on 5% coverage. Every model is different.

 Not including paper stock cost of operation:

The cost of printing the label in ALL BLACK ink on a medium-priced black and white printer: no more than 6- 15  cents each depending on make/model/process where as HP cheaper would be closer to 12- 15 cents using cartridges

The cost of printing the label in ALL BLACK ink on a medium priced new or late model color printer. No more than 2 -8cents each 50 PAGE PER MINUTE HIGH SPEED would be closer to 2 cents and slower smaller models up to 8 cents for more expensive cartridges. The higher the yield cartridge, the less per click cost.

The cost of printing the label with RED BORDERS around the hazard symbols on the same new or late model color printer as #2. No more than 9-12  cents each. (Process black machines will have usually one drum so the paper passes 4 xs to make one copy where each color is applied via one laser to charge drum.

The cost of printing the label in ALL BLACK on an older color printer that uses the "process black" technology: no more than 25-30 cents each (process black wastes all 3 inks to combine black that looks like a dried up black sharpie marker.

The cost of printing the label with RED BORDERS around the hazard symbols on the same older color printer as #4. No more than 30 cents each (not much more because your utilizing the many colors for process black anyway and the colors are slightly more.

Note: those are only estimates but accurate as keeping in mind the smaller the machine the more costly. The lower the size of cartridge means the less clicks or more cost per print both b&w and color. Process color does not differ too much in cost difference but its the most expensive and the least attractive.

 Hope I've been some help!!

Email to ERG 4/22/2010

The only technology that's new is a cheaper inkjet made by [redacted]. It uses a master plate that's good for the same image over and over and it can produce speed up to 150/minute I believe. The quality is not as crisp as laser, but it costs pennies per image in color (UNDER 3 CENTS) if you utilize thousands on the master drum provided by [redacted].

[Redacted] and [redacted] are identical brands. You can look them up on the web. Churches use them for their weekly church bulletins and the color is acceptable now with a newer improvement to the engine. The machines are pricey supporting the theory "the more expensive the machine the cheaper it is to run it".

Vendor F

Vendor F manufactures and sells inkjet and LaserJet label printing machines. The inkjet machines employ a new technology permitting higher print speeds and greater resolution suitable for small to medium businesses. Phone contact with sales was followed by e-mail exchange:

Email to Vendor F, 4/23/2010

Dear [Vendor F];

What we would like to know is how much more it would cost to print a label like the one below:

with red borders instead of black around the pictograms:

The usual size of this label is 6" by 10", but for this estimate let's assume we are using your high gloss 8" by 6" stock (#074813) For our purpose we can assume that both labels will be printed the same size on the same stock.

We just want to know if it would cost more, and if so approximately how much more, to print the black-and-red label than the black-only label, all else being equal, on the LX900. I don't know how your inkjets print black (do they use the color cartridges to print black?), so it's hard for us to figure out how much faster the label with the red would use up cartridges compared to the black only.

Also, for this simple label in red, would the rate of output be faster than 4.5" per second? A yes or no is fine on that.

Thanks very much, hope to hear from you soon! Best regards, [ERG]

Email to ERG 4/23/10

Hi [ERG],

Thank you for send these over to me. Do you by chance have them as an attachment form in a jpeg, bitmap, or pdf? The images that came across were small and extremely blurry, so I know the print quality on them would not be very good, so I don’t think we would be able to give you a good estimate on cost per printed label.

Yes, they would print faster than the 5 seconds. I can have the technician who prints them up on the LX900 also let you know how long it took to print them.

For the question you had about printing with the black cartridge, it all depends on what you have set in the printer driver settings. You can have it print using the black cartridge only, color + black, or the color cartridges only. If you have it set to color + black, it will use all the colors and the black cartridge to put down the black ink, as well as the red cartridge for your red stripe. They will probably print it up both ways since you have an all black label as well as the black and red label.

Email to ERG 4/26/10

Here are the answers to your questions:

From what you've told me so far, is it fair to say that the cost to print all-black labels is about the same as printing the same label with the red boxes? Based on your image below, I would think that it would not cost much more to add the red in. Since most of the image is black it would not require much coloring at all.

You mentioned a red cartridge. Is a red ink cartridge available for printing spot color? Is it fair to say that it would last a long time if it were used just to print the red boxes? I believe that printing spot color is more for like a digital press. Our LX series printers are just standard inkjet printers, so they will print whatever color you have on your image. It is a CMYK printer, so it will not work with choosing pantone colors. Yes, I would think that the red cartridge would last a long time based on your label below, as there is little red in it.

I hope this all helps. I will get your labels printed up as soon as possible and get you your answers.

Email to ERG, 4/28/10

Label with black diamonds

Print Quality 3 in photo mode:  $.165 per label

Print Quality 2 in photo mode:  $.161 per label

Label with red diamonds

Print Quality 3 in photo mode:  $.145 per label

Print Quality 2 in photo mode:  $.144 per label

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Thank you,

[Vendor F]

Vendor/Printer A

Call with ERG, 3/24/10

In-house printing:

They have several machines

High speed machine costs c. $18k

Entry level full color about $3k. That one prints about 200 labels per day.

Most customers want to print the whole label, not just the little GHS pictograms.

In-house use is going to be more expensive anyway and is used for flexibility.

Most labels are color now. Maybe drum labels are single color.

Costs:

Minimum order is $100.

Short-run digital printing:

For red border and black pictogram on white background, 2 in. by 2 in. on gloss paper, adhesive back, 1,000 labels per roll: 2,000 labels @ .06 ea. = $120

2 in. by 2 in. on vinyl, adhesive back, 1,000 labels per roll: 2,000 labels @ .0865 ea. = $173.08.

For black border, black pictogram on white background: 2 in. by 2 in. on gloss paper, adhesive back, 1,000 labels per roll: 2,000 labels @ .05 ea. = $100

2 in. by 2 in. on vinyl, adhesive back, 1,000 labels per roll: 2,000 labels @ .068 ea. = $136.19.

Traditional printing for large quantities: For red border and black pictogram on white background:

Minimum run = 100,000

2,000 labels @ .0115 ea. = $23.12  ($11.56 per thousand)

Call with ERG, 03/26/10

She gave prices on blank labels for use in their printers:

6" by 10" blank labels :

gloss paper @ .215 ea. = $215.12 per 1,000

matte paper @.0868 ea. = $86.84 per 1,000

2” by 2” blank labels:

Gloss, @ .01723 ea. = $17.23 per thousand

Matte, @ .00696 ea. = $6.96 per thousand

Referred me to two other contacts.

Call with ERG, 3/26/10:

First Referred Contact:

Said Zeo inkjet printer would produce c. 100 6 in. by 10 in. GHS labels per cartridge.

Said color cartridges are needed even to print black only labels.

Said cost per label would be about half that or less on bigger machine (Vivo).

Call with ERG, 3/26/10:

Second Referred Contact:

Red thermal ribbon is $64.80 for a roll 6 in. wide by 300 m. long. She did not want to quote prices.

Vendor/Prin整⁲ൂ慃汬眠瑩剅ⱇ㌠㈯⼳〱倍楲散⁳湯圠 扥瀠条൥灓歯楷桴删来汵瑡牯⁹灳捥慩楬瑳മ潃瑳㩳 ′湩祢㈠椠⹮漠慰数Ⱳ愠桤獥癩慢正ㄍ〰氠扡 汥⁳数⁲潲汬†⁀ㄤ⸸〰瀠牥爠汯⹬伍摲牥⁳景ㄠ‰潲 汬⁳牯洠牯‽ㄤ⸲〰瀠牥爠汯⹬

K

—

ã

b

-

-

)

*

+

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

i

j

k

l

u

v

w

‘

‘

’

“

”

•

–

—

˜

™

µ

¶

·

¸

Á

Â

Ã

Ý

Þ

ß

à

á

â

ã

ä

å

3

4

5

6

?

@

A

[

[

\

]

_

`

a

b

c

d

€

‚

ƒ

Œ

Ž

¨

©

ª

¬

®

¯

°

±

Í

Î

jì

jo

b

¯

ü

Î

Ï

Ð

Ù

Ú

Û

õ

ö

÷

ù

ú

û

ü

ý

þ

jc

jà

✀ô

'ô

'ô

✀ô

愀Ĥ摧䫎

愀Ĥ摧䫎

摧ᝳ²Ѐ+摧ᝳ²ᨀ

⼋਀̦䘋

搒ð摧㓞⼋਀Ȧ䘋

搒ð摧㓞⼋਀Ħ䘋

搒ð摧㓞⼋਀&䘋

⼋਀&䘋

摧㓞⼋਀Ħ䘋

摧㓞⼋਀Ȧ䘋

摧㓞⼋਀̦䘋

hÎJ

hÎJ

hÎJ

hÎJ

摧䫎

摧䫎

̥荪Οᔀ鹨휱ᘀ䌀ൊ伀ъ儀ъ唀Ĉ䩡

ᘀ彨鄡䌀ൊ伀ъ儀ъ唀Ĉ䩡

“There’s going to be a lot more categories.”

Ref. to purple book for different categories.

Call with ERG, 3/25/10

Spoke to Contact in sales. Asked about GHS “personalized” labels (see below)

6 in. by 10 in. labels, information printed to customer specs. 1 to 3 pictograms included (see example below).

Cost per:

250 = 1.81 ea. = $452

500 = 0.95 ea. = $475

750 = 0.68 ea. = $510

1,000 = 0.55 ea. = $550

She said to get it all black or just the red diamonds in black would cost the same.

 PAGE

 PAGE   i


[Federal Register: September 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 53270-53271]
[DOCID:fr18se07-76]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56382; File No. SR-Amex-2007-80]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Member Floor Fees

September 11, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act''), and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby
given that on August 29, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC
(``Amex'' 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
substantially by the Exchange. Amex has designated the proposed rule
change as establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
applicable only to members, pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the
Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\ thereunder, which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to revise the Amex Floor Fee Schedule (the
``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, at Amex'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, Amex included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposal is to adopt various floor fees for
services provided by the Exchange to members and member organizations
in connection with the installation and management of member technology
and computer networks. These services, among other things, include
floor facilities, network connectivity, power and telecommunications.
The Exchange submits that these changes will be implemented on
September 1, 2007.
    The Fee Schedule sets forth the various floor fees that the
Exchange proposes to adopt on either a one-time, annual or monthly
basis as appropriate. The proposal seeks to add three (3) new
categories to the Fee Schedule to include (i) Colocation Space, (ii)
Amex Port Charges and (iii) Power. In addition, the proposal adds
various fees in the Fee Schedule under sections entitled ``Market Data
Fees/Terminals,'' ``Equipment'' and ``Telecommunications.''
    The section entitled ``Colocation Space'' relates to the Exchange
facilities space that is made available to members and member firms for
the purpose of managing their own network and computing hardware at the
Amex. The proposed fees provide that the members and member firms
desiring full cabinet \5\ space be assessed a one-time fee of $2,125.00
with an ongoing annual fee of $14,400 ($1,200/month). Alternatively,
for a 1/8 cabinet increment, members will be charged a one-time fee of
$265.00 with an annual fee of $1,800.00 ($150 per month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Full cabinet'' is defined as one (1) 44 rack unit (RU)
powered telecommunications cabinet or rack with 33 RU usable space.
Standard power is one (1) 20 amperes (amps) 120 volts primary power
circuit and one (1) 20 amps 120 volts redundant power circuit per
cabinet or rack with 16 amps available per circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The section entitled ``Amex Port Charges'' are proposed charges for
network connectivity. These proposed one-time fees range from $100 to
$780 with ongoing annual fees ranging from $792 ($66/month) to $7,020
($585/month). The proposed connectivity charge will depend on the type
of network connectivity.
    The section entitled ``Power'' are proposed charges for electrical
power that members and member firms may use to supplement the power
included in the standard Colocation Space. Proposed charges range from
$1,200 a year ($100/month) to $21,912.00 a year

($1,826/month). Differences in the proposed fees depend on whether the
electrical power is primary or redundant and the specific voltage and
amp requirements.
    The proposal also adds various charges for market data in the
current section entitled ``Market Data Fees/Terminals.'' These proposed
fees range from $113.76 a year ($9.48/month) to $3,120 a year ($260/
month). The proposed charges are for fees in connection with various
market data services such as Dow Jones and Bloomberg.
    With respect to the proposed fee additions to the section entitled
``Equipment,'' members and member firms would be assessed for the use
of ``Podia'' \6\ and ``MCTV'' \7\ in the amount of $1,044 per year
($87/month) and $479.88 per year ($39.99/month), respectively. As
provided for in the proposed Floor Fee Schedule, these charges would
defray the Exchange's cost of providing this equipment to members.
Similarly, the proposed ``Internet Service Fee'' of $840.00 per year
($70/month) in the section entitled ``Telecommunications'' will defray
the cost of providing this service to those members and member firms
that choose to access the internet through the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Podia'' refers to an increment of space used by
specialists at a trading post.
    \7\ ``MCTV'' is cable television.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the current ``Floor Wire Privilege Fee'' would be
eliminated under the proposal because the proposed charges in
connection with ``Amex Port Charges'' apply to network connectivity so
that the ``Floor Wire Privilege Fee'' is not necessary.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed fee change is consistent with section 6(b)(4) of the
Act \8\ regarding the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among exchange members and other persons using exchange
facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposal is an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees/charges among floor members because the
fees/charges relating to floor facilities, network connectivity, power
and telecommunications are assessed only against those floor members
who choose to employ the Exchange's offering of such products/services.
In addition, the Exchange submits that the proposed fees/charges are
reasonable in connection with the Exchange's offered products/services,
and are largely expected to cover the cost to the Exchange of providing
such products/services. Accordingly, the Exchange seeks, through this
proposal, to better manage its costs for supplying member technology
and computer networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not 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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \10\
thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange, applicable only to members. At any time
within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Amex-2007-80 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-80. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F. Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2007-80 and should be
submitted on or before October 9, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-18269 Filed 9-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79672-79673]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI12-1-000]

Chitina Electric Inc.; Notice of Declaration of Intention and
Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI12-1-000.
    c. Date Filed: November 22, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Chitina Electric Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project will
be located on Fivemile Creek, near the town of Chitina, Alaska, at T. 3
S., R. 5 E., secs. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, Copper River Meridian.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Kurt Meehleis, CRW Engineering Group, LLC,
3940 Arctic Blvd., Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(907) 561-2273; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions: January
23, 2012.

    All documents should be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be filed with: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. Please include the docket number
(DI12-1-000) on any comments, protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed run-of-river Fivemile Creek
Hydroelectric Project will consist of: (1) An approximately 6-foot-high
diversion structure on Fivemile Creek diverting water into a 10,000-
foot-long, 12-inch-diameter steel penstock; (2) a proposed 20-foot
wide, 40-foot-long powerhouse, containing a 300-kW pelton wheel turbine
and electrical generating equipment; (3) a tailrace from the powerhouse
to Fivemile Creek; and (4) appurtenant facilities. Hydroelectric power
will be used to replace diesel generator power used in the town of
Chitina.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce would be affected by the proposed project. The Commission also
determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the Web at 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. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for inspection
and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an

agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: Issued December 16, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32768 Filed 12-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 27774]
[DOCID:fr18my10-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-22-000]

Eagle Rock Desoto Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Rate Election

May 11, 2010.
    Take notice that on May 3, 2010, Eagle Rock Desoto Pipeline, L.P.,
(Desoto) filed a Notice of Rate Election pursuant to section
284.123(b)(1)(ii) of the Commission's regulations. Desoto proposes to
utilize its presently effective Texas Railroad Commission city-gate
transportation rate for interruptible transportation service on its
Central and North System pursuant to section 311 of the Natural Gas
Act. The interruptible transportation rate for both systems is 20.5
cents/MMBtu plus 0.5 percent fuel reimbursement.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday, May 19, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11793 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44633-44635]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18797]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64928; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-065]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Increase the Position and Exercise Limits for Options on
the Standard & Poor's Depository Receipts

July 20, 2011.
    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 July 8, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its rules to increase the position and
exercise limits for options on the Standard and Poor's Depositary
Receipts Trust (``SPY'') from 300,000 contracts to 900,000 contracts.
The text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.cboe.org/legal), 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend CBOE Rule 4.11,
Interpretation and Policy .07 to increase the position and exercise
limits for SPY options from 300,000 contracts to 900,000 contracts.\5\
This filing is based on separate filings previously submitted by NASDAQ
OMX PHLX, Inc. (``PHLX''), which the Commission recently approved,\6\
and by International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ By virtue of CBOE Rule 4.12, Interpretation and Policy .02,
which is not being amended by this filing, the exercise limit for
SPY options would be similarly increased.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64695 (June 17,
2011) 76 FR 36942 (June 23, 2011) (SR-PHLX-2011-58) (approval order
to increase position and exercise limits for SPY options).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64760 (June 28,
2011) (SR-ISE-2011-34) (proposed rule change to increase position
and exercise limits for SPY options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange began trading SPY options on January 10, 2005 on the
CBOE Hybrid Trading System. That year, the position limit for these
options was increased from 75,000 contracts to the current limit of
300,000 contracts on the same side of the market.\8\ Currently, SPY
options have a position limit of 300,000 contracts on the same side on
the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51041 (January 14,
2005), 70 FR 3408 (January 24, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Exchange's proposal, the options reporting requirement
for SPY options would continue unabated. Thus, the Exchange would still
require that each Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') or TPH organization
that maintains a position in SPY options on the same side of the
market, for its own account or for the account of a customer, report
certain information to the Exchange. This information would include,
but would not be limited to, the option position, whether such position
is hedged and, if so, a description of the hedge, and the collateral
used to carry the position, if applicable. Exchange market-makers
(including Designated Primary Market-Makers) would continue to be
exempt from this reporting requirement, as market-maker information can
be accessed through the Exchange's market surveillance systems. In
addition, the general reporting requirement for customer accounts that
maintain an aggregate position of 200 or more option contracts would
remain at this level for SPY options.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For reporting requirements, see CBOE Rule 4.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the anniversary of listed options trading approaches its
fortieth year, the Exchange believes that the existing surveillance
procedures and reporting requirements at CBOE, other options exchanges,
and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying
unusual and/or illegal trading activity. In addition, routine oversight
inspections of the Exchange's regulatory programs by the Commission
have not uncovered any material inconsistencies or shortcomings in the
manner in which the Exchange's market surveillance is conducted. These
procedures utilize daily monitoring of market movements via automated
surveillance techniques to identify unusual activity in both options
and underlying stocks.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ These procedures have been effective for the surveillance
of SPY options trading and will continue to be employed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, large stock holdings must be disclosed to the
Commission by way of Schedules 13D or 13G.\11\ Options positions are
part of any reportable positions and, thus, cannot be legally hidden.
Moreover, the Exchange's requirement that TPHs file reports with the
Exchange for any customer who held aggregate large long or short
positions of any single class for the previous day will continue to
serve as

an important part of the Exchange's surveillance efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.13d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the current financial requirements
imposed by the Exchange and by the Commission adequately address
concerns that a TPH or its customer may try to maintain an inordinately
large un-hedged position in an option, particularly on SPY. Current
margin and risk-based haircut methodologies serve to limit the size of
positions maintained by any one account by increasing the margin and/or
capital that a TPH must maintain for a large position held by itself or
by its customer.\12\ In addition, the Commission's net capital rule,
Rule 15c3-1 \13\ under the Act,\14\ imposes a capital charge on TPHs to
the extent of any margin deficiency resulting from the higher margin
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See CBOE Rule 12.3 for a description of margin
requirements.
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed increase in position and
exercise limits on SPY options is required for competitive purposes as
well as for purposes of consistency and uniformity among the competing
options exchanges. This supports the Exchange's current proposal to
increase the position and exercise limits applicable to SPY options.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, including the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\15\ In particular, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \16\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, the proposed
rule change will benefit large market makers (which generally have the
greatest potential and actual ability to provide liquidity and depth in
the product), as well as retail traders, investors, and public
customers, by providing them with a more effective trading and hedging
vehicle. In addition, the Exchange believes that the structure of SPY
options and the considerable liquidity of the market for SPY options
diminish the opportunity to manipulate this product and disrupt the
underlying market that a lower position limit may protect against.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory
organization has given the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) (iii) thereunder.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \19\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\20\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has
requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
because it will enable the Exchange to immediately compete with other
exchanges that have already adopted the higher position and exercise
limit for options on the SPY. Therefore, the Commission designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Commission notes that the Exchange has satisfied
this requirement.
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \21\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2011-065 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2011-065. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than

those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2011-065 and should be
submitted on or before August 16, 2011.

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

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-18797 Filed 7-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 2, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20442]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08827]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0057]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
(NJICW), Atlantic City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the US40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge
across the NJICW (Inside Thorofare), mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ.
The deviation is necessary to accommodate the free movement of
pedestrians and vehicles during the 2017 Atlantic City IRONMAN
Triathlon. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-
navigation position.

DATES: The deviation is effective from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September
17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0057] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Martin Bridges, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-
6422, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The event director, DelMoSports, LLC, with
approval from the New Jersey Department of Transportation, who owns and
operates the US40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge across the NJICW (Inside
Thorofare), mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ, has requested a temporary
deviation from the current operating regulations. This temporary
deviation is necessary to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians
and vehicles during the 2017 Atlantic City IRONMAN Triathlon. The
bridge is a double bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance in the
closed position of 10 feet above mean high water.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.733(f).
Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the
closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 17,
2017. The NJICW (Inside Thorofare) is used by recreational vessels. The
Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway
users in publishing this temporary deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass
through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also
inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice
to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that
vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by
the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 26, 2017.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-08827 Filed 5-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P