[Federal Register: June 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 32784-32785]
[DOCID:fr10jn08-101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-2008-0110]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2004-2005 Ferrari 575 Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
2004-2005 Ferrari 575 passenger cars are eligible for importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2004-2005 Ferrari 575 passenger cars that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety
standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States
because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were
originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were
certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards
(the U.S.-certified version of the 2004-2005 Ferrari 575 passenger
car), and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to
the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the
comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
    (1) Go to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web page
http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) On that page, click on ``Advanced Docket Search.''
    (3) On the next page select ``NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION'' from the drop-down menu in the Agency field

and enter the Docket ID number shown at the heading of this document.
    (4) After entering that information, click on ``submit.''
    (5) The next page contains docket summary information for the
docket you selected. Click on the comments you wish to see. You may
download the comments. Please note that even after the comment closing
date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it
becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search the Docket for
new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as
the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    J.K. Technologies, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland (JK) (Registered
Importer 90-006) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming
2004-2005 Ferrari 575 passenger cars are eligible for importation into
the United States. The vehicles which JK believes are substantially
similar are 2004-2005 Ferrari 575 passenger cars that were manufactured
for sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturer as
conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 2004-2005
Ferrari 575 passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and
found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to
compliance with most FMVSS.
    JK submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate
that non-U.S. certified 2004-2005 Ferrari 575 passenger cars, as
originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as
their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily
altered to conform to those standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2004-
2005 Ferrari 575 passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified
counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission
Braking Effect, 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104
Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New
Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids,
118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof Panel Systems, 124
Accelerator Control Systems, 135 Passenger Car Brake Systems, 201
Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints, 204
Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door
Locks and Door Retention Components, 207 Seating Systems, 210 Seat Belt
Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact
Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion,
and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: Installation of a U.S.-
model instrument cluster that has been reprogrammed to reflect the
correct mileage on the vehicle.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: (a) Installation of U.S.-model front and rear sidemarker
lamps; and (b) installation of U.S.-model taillamp assemblies.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims: Installation on the
vehicle of a tire information placard.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: Installation of a U.S.-model
passenger side rearview mirror, or inscription of the required warning
statement on the face of that mirror.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: Installation of U.S.-version
software to meet the requirements of this standard.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: Installation of U.S.-
version software to ensure that the seat belt warning system meets the
requirements of this standard.
    The petitioner states that the crash protection system used in
these vehicles consists of dual front airbags and knee bolsters, and
combination lap and shoulder belts at the front outboard seating
positions. These manual systems are automatic, self-tensioning, and are
released by means of a single red push-button.
    Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies: Installation of U.S.-model
seat belt assemblies.
    Standard No. 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems: Inspection of
all vehicles and installation of U.S.-model components on vehicles that
are not already so equipped.
    Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: Installation of U.S.-model
fuel system vent lines, canister, filler neck, tank leak check pump and
associated mounting hardware.
    Standard No. 401 Interior Trunk Release: Installation of U.S.-model
secondary trunk release system components including; hood release,
under hood handle and associated cable, wiring harness and associated
mounting hardware.
    In addition, the petitioner claims that the bumpers must be
modified by the installation of U.S.-model components to meet the
requirements of the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR Part 581.
    The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification
plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: June 4, 2008.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-12955 Filed 6-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36906-36908]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13151]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95103; File No. SR-Phlx-2022-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend its
Schedule of Credits, at Equity 7, Section 3

June 14, 2022.
    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 June 1, 2022, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's schedule of credits,
at Equity 7, Section 3, as described further below. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its pricing schedule, at Equity 7,
Section 3, to: (1) adopt a new $0.0025 per share executed credit for
member organizations that provide non-displayed liquidity with midpoint
pegging of at least one million shares average daily value during the
month; and (2) modify the per share executed credit for member
organizations that provide non-displayed liquidity with midpoint
pegging for all other orders from $0.0023 to $0.0018.
    Pursuant to Equity 7, Section 3, the Exchange currently provides a
credit of $0.0023 per share executed to member organizations for all
non-displayed orders with midpoint pegging that provide liquidity. The
Exchange proposes to establish credit tiers for member organizations
providing liquidity for non-displayed orders with midpoint pegging to
provide an incentive for member organizations to engage in a
significant amount of liquidity adding activity on the Exchange.
    The Exchange proposes establishing a new credit that will reward a
member organization with a credit of $0.0025 per share executed to the
extent that it provides a daily average volume of at least one million
shares of non-displayed liquidity with midpoint pegging during the
month. The proposed new credit for non-displayed orders with midpoint
pegging will provide an additional incentive to member organizations to
add liquidity to the Exchange. Insofar as the proposed new credit will
require a qualifying member organization to provide at least one
million shares average daily value during the month in order to qualify
for the $0.0025 per share credit, the Exchange believes it is
reasonable for

the amount of the proposed credit to be larger than the credit for
other non-displayed orders with midpoint pegging, which the Exchange
proposes to modify to $0.0018. To the extent that the proposed new
credit structure succeeds in increasing liquidity on the Exchange, the
quality of the Exchange's market will improve, to the benefit of all
participants.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes lowering the credit to member
organizations for all other non-displayed orders with midpoint pegging
that provide liquidity during the month from $0.0023 to $0.0018 per
share executed. The Exchange has limited resources available to it to
offer its member organizations market-improving incentives, and it
allocates those limited resources to those segments of the market where
it perceives the need to be greatest and/or where it determines that
the incentive is likely to achieve its intended objective, such as the
proposed new credit and away from those that are less effective, such
as this existing credit for midpoint pegged orders that add liquidity
to the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange is reducing the amount of
this credit from $0.0023 to $0.0018 per share executed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among member organizations and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of credits are
reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is
subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity
securities transaction services that constrain its pricing
determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive
has long been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (DC Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, 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.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market.
For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for
equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of
several equity venues to which market participants may direct their
order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing
structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and
fees that apply based upon member organizations achieving certain
volume thresholds.
    Within this environment, market participants can freely and often
do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in
response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the
proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase
its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
    The Exchange believes that its proposals are reasonable, equitable,
and not unfairly discriminatory to: (1) establish a new $0.0025 per
share executed credit for non-displayed orders with midpoint pegging
that provide liquidity of at least one million shares average daily
value during the month; and (2) reduce from $0.0023 to $0.0018 per
share executed its existing credit for all other non-displayed orders
with midpoint pegging that provide liquidity to the Exchange. The
Exchange assesses a particular need to increase liquidity on the
Exchange as a means of improving market quality. The proposal is
reasonable in serving that purpose by providing a new incentive for
member organizations to add a substantial amount of liquidity to the
Exchange, while reducing an existing incentive for member organizations
that add a lesser amount of liquidity to the Exchange. As noted above,
the Exchange has limited resources available to it to offer its member
organizations market-improving incentives, and it allocates those
limited resources to those segments of the market where it perceives
the need to be greatest and/or where it determines that the incentive
is likely to achieve its intended objective. It is reasonable and
equitable to address the need for increased liquidity on the Exchange
by allocating its limited resources to establish a new credit that
rewards member organizations that provide a substantial volume of
liquidity to the Exchange and reduce an existing credit that rewards
member organizations for providing a lesser volume of liquidity to the
Exchange.
    The Exchange also believes that these proposals are an equitable
allocation and not unfairly discriminatory because all market
participants stand to benefit to the extent that the proposal is
successful in increasing liquidity on the Exchange and improving market
quality. Insofar as the $0.0025 credit will require a member
organization to provide a daily average volume of at least one million
shares of liquidity on the Exchange during the month, the Exchange
believes it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory
for the amount of the proposed credit to be larger than the credit for
all other non-displayed orders with midpoint pegging.
    Any member organization that is dissatisfied with the proposed
credits is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that
provide more favorable rates or less stringent qualifying criteria.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intramarket Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any
category of Exchange participants at a competitive disadvantage. As
noted above, all member organizations of the Exchange will benefit from
an increase in activity on the Exchange. Moreover, member organizations
are free to trade on other venues to the extent they believe that the
credits provided are not attractive or

the qualifying criteria for such credits is too stringent. As one can
observe by looking at any market share chart, price competition between
exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely
between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes.
Intermarket Competition
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its schedule of
credits for non-displayed orders with midpoint pegging will not impose
a burden on competition because the Exchange's execution services are
completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from the
other live exchanges and from off-exchange venues, which include
alternative trading systems that trade national market system stock.
The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate
opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such
an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its credits to
remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading
systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory
standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to
modify their own credits and fees in response, and because market
participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the
Exchange believes that the degree to which credit changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    The proposed changes to the Exchange's credits for non-displayed
orders with midpoint pegging are reflective of this competition
because, as a threshold issue, the Exchange is a relatively small
market so its ability to burden intermarket competition is limited. In
this regard, even the largest U.S. equities exchange by volume only has
17-18% market share, which in most markets could hardly be categorized
as having enough market power to burden competition. Moreover, as noted
above, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity
and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and
credit changes. This is in addition to free flow of order flow to and
among off-exchange venues which comprises more than 40% of industry
volume in recent months.
    In sum, the Exchange intends for the proposed changes to credits
for non-displayed orders with midpoint pegging to incent member
organizations to add liquidity to the Exchange and to thereby
contribute to market quality, which is reflective of fierce competition
for order flow noted above; however, if the change proposed herein is
unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange
will either fail to increase its market share or even lose market share
as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed change will impair the ability of member organizations or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2022-24 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-Phlx-2022-24. 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-Phlx-2022-24 and should be submitted on
or before July 12, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13151 Filed 6-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM TO: 304( m) Record ( EPA Docket Number OW 2203 0074)

FROM: Cortney Itle, ERG DATE: December 12, 2003 SUBJECT: Sodium Nitrite Report Outline Sodium nitrite ( NaNO 2) has the third highest toxic weighted pound equivalents ( TWPE) reported released in TRIReleases2000 ( Dioxin and dioxin like compounds have the highest TWPE and Polycyclic aromatic compounds have the second highest TWPE). For this reason, EPA anticipates exploring issues related to industrial use and discharge of sodium nitrite, as presented in the attached outline. Sodium Nitrite Memo Outline I. Summary and Conclusions II. Introduction a. What is sodium nitrite? Chemical formula Physical properties Solubility b. Is sodium nitrite a wastewater problem?

III. How much sodium nitrite is released to the environment? a. Briefly discuss TRI and TWFs I. Define TRI and its purpose II. Describe ERG analysis of TRI data b. Discuss sodium nitrite in TRI III. Added in 1995 due to health effects ( methemoglobinemia) IV. Facility must report if it is manufacturing or processing sodium nitrite in quantities greater than 25,000 pounds per year or if it is otherwise using sodium nitrite in quantities greater than 10,000 pounds per year c. Present data table of sodium nitrite in 2000 TRI by point source category for all industries and all releases ( to air, surface water, POTWs, etc.)

IV. How much sodium nitrite is produced or imported in the U. S. each year? a. What companies produce it from what raw materials? b. Do manufacturers release it to the environment?

V. What are the industrial uses of sodium nitrite? a. Describe use of sodium nitrite in industries I. Corrosion Inhibitor in closed water systems II. Metal Products I. Oxidizing agent and depolarizer in detinning II. Accelerator in phosphatizing ( phosphate coating) III. Gold plating baths IV. Descaling Steel and cast iron V. Used in heat treatment of metals and alloys III. Chemical Industry I. Production of azo dyes, diazo compounds, nitroso and isonitroso compounds II. Industrial cleaners and lubricants III. Production of emulsion paints IV. Rubber Industry I. Polymer inhibitor for synthetic rubber II. Nitrous acid source for accelerators, retarders, and antioxidants/ antiozonanats III. Foam rubber blowing agent IV. Navy I. Corrosion inhibitor in steam boilers I. Lay up of ships II. Leak detection VI. What are the harmful effects of sodium nitrite? a. Health Effects I. Oral LD50: 120 mg/ kg in rats II. NOEL: 6.7. mg/ kg bw/ day expressed as nitrite ion III. Nitrites cause methemoglobinemia IV. Nitrites oxidize to nitrate, which causes eutrophication V. Nitrites can form N nitroso compounds when ingested by humans VI. b. Discuss CA Proposition 65 debate I. Proposition 65 states that compounds that cause developmental or reproductive toxicity should be included in TRI II. The state of CA did an extensive study on toxicity data of sodium nitrite and found that sodium nitrite does not cause developmental or reproductive toxicity c. Discuss EAD's TWF used in TRI analysis I. TWF is 0.37, based on freshwater chronic aquatic toxicity of 15ug/ L, based on 96 hr LC50 of 150 ug/ L ( acute) for the rainbow trout d. RSEI toxicity information I. Based on human toxicity VII. Is sodium nitrite regulated? a. There are no water quality or drinking water standards for sodium nitrite, but it dissociates to nitrite which is regulated. I. Water Quality Standards I. Nitrite MCL is 1 mg/ L II. Nitrate MCL is 10 mg/ L III. Sum of nitrate and nitrite is 10 mg/ L I. Drinking Water Standards VIII. Treatment a. Discuss treatment technology for NaNO2 developed by the U. S. Navy. b. Anion exchange and reverse osmosis are treatments identified by EPA for the removal of nitrate and nitrite.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72005]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

Docket No. FAA-2013-0989; Airspace Docket No. 13-AEA-17
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-374, Northeastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action makes an editorial change to the legal description
of VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airway V-374 to reverse the
order points listed in the route description. This action is simply to
comply with the standard format for describing routes and does not
alter the alignment of the airway.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, February 6, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and ATC
Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Airway and route legal descriptions are published in FAA Order
7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. Current format
guidelines for these legal descriptions require that the order of
points in a description be listed from ``west-to-east'' or from
``south-to-north,'' as applicable. The description for V-374 lists the
points from ``east-to-west.'' This rule simply reverses the order of
the points listed in Order 7400.9X to a ``west-to-east'' format for
standardization.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by reversing the order of points listed in the legal
description of Domestic VOR Federal Airway V-374 to comply with the
standard route description format. The change does not alter the
current alignment of V-374 and the airway track is correct on
aeronautical charts.
    Since this action merely involves an editorial change in the legal
description of VOR Federal airway V-374 to standardize the format, and
does not involve a change in the dimensions or operating requirements
of the affected route, I find that notice and public procedure under 5
U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it is merely an editorial change of the legal description of V-374
to comply with existing administrative format procedures.
    Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of
FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR
Federal Airway listed in this document will be published subsequently
in the Order.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 311a. This airspace action consists of editorial changes only
and is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental
impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant
preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways

* * * * *

V-374 [Amended]

    From Binghamton, NY; INT Binghamton 119[deg] and Deer Park, NY,
308[deg] radials; INT Deer Park 308[deg] and Carmel, NY, 254[deg]
radials; Carmel; INT Carmel 099[deg] and Calverton, NY, 044[deg]
radials; INT Calverton 044[deg] and Groton, CT, 276[deg] radials;
Groton; to Martha's Vineyard, MA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 25, 2013.
Donna Warren,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2013-28753 Filed 11-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56513-56514]
[DOCID:fr27se06-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL06-105-000]

NorthWestern Corporation; Notice of Filing

September 21, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 12, 2006, NorthWestern Corporation
filed a petition for declaratory order, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure, requesting the Commission to approve
the use of an electric transmission rate design to allocate cost
responsibility for new transmission facilities constructed to satisfy
transmission service requests from participants in an on-going Open
Season.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of

the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211,
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 comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not
necessary to 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 October 20, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15809 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


n
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION
4 ALBERT EMBANKMENT
LONDON SE1 7SR

Telephone:	020 7735 7611
Fax:	020 7587 3210
Telex:	23588 IMOLDN G

                                      IMO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E

Ref. T2/4.2	MSC/Circ.1014
	12 June 2001

Guidelines on Fatigue
Module 2

               SHIPBOARD FATIGUE AND THE OWNER/ OPERATOR/MANAGER

1. IS FATIGUE AN IMPORTANT ISSUE IN SHIPBOARD OPERATIONS?

   Fatigue has been recognized as an important Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) issue for seafarers. Fatigue has the potential to greatly increase the risk of incidents and injuries in the work place. It disrupts body rhythms and results in poor sleep quality, digestive problems, delusions, confusion, lethargy, respiratory problems, depression, irritability, neurosis and temporary psychosis. Fatigue adversely affects crew performance. It diminishes attentiveness and concentration, slows physical and mental reflexes and impairs rational decision making capability.

   An assessment of accidents occurring in the last six months of 1995 indicated that 16% of critical ship casualties, and 33% of injuries, were partly due to human fatigue[1]. Clearly, addressing the issue of fatigue should have a positive effect on personnel safety and has the potential to cut cost for the shipowner, operator or manager by reducing injury and physical damage to high value assets and the environment.

   Fatigue occurs primarily because an individual cannot get sufficient rest to recover from the effects of having been awake or heavily stressed for a prolonged period. The level of fatigue experienced will be influenced by additional factors apart from the wake period. The type of work undertaken, the environment in which the individual works and lives, and the time of day in which the work is done could all contribute to the level of fatigue experienced. One of the best ways to mitigate the effects of fatigue is through the accumulation of adequate recovery sleep. However, obtaining adequate recovery sleep can be difficult depending on factors like work schedule, circadian rhythm and the physical environment.

   The normal sleep-wake cycle of human beings is controlled by a temperature rhythm, referred to as the circadian rhythm. This rhythm actively promotes sleep at night and wakefulness during the day. As a result, work at night is likely to be more fatiguing and an individual is less likely to be able to accumulate restful sleep during the daytime period when they are off watch. These persons will generally get less sleep during the day, than if they were sleeping for an equivalent period at night[2]. Furthermore, day sleepers sleep lightly and are thus easily disturbed by noise, temperature, etc. It is clear the management process must take this factor into account to effectively cope with crew fatigue.

2. HOW DOES FATIGUE AFFECT CREW PERFORMANCE?

   In order to understand the physiological effects of fatigue, it is useful to describe these effects in relation to a known detriment to performance. In recent studies, the effect of fatigue was found to be comparable to those of alcohol, in terms of negatively impacting performance. One study found that a period of sustained wakefulness of 18 hours was comparable to a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of 0.05%[3]. As sleep deprivation continued for 24 hours, the effects of fatigue equated to a BAC of 0.10%. What is even more alarming is that the subjects of this study were well-rested students (they had not accumulated a sleep debt prior to the study) who were not required to undertake any hard physical activity during the period. Similar effects can be expected from other populations, and in fact, it might be possible that the effects of sleep deprivation for older individuals would be greater. Both quality of sleep and recovery from fatigue are known to worsen with age.

   Factors, such as the following, will have an effect on the level of fatigue experienced in a given period: (a) the time of day when work was started and completed, (b) the amount and timing of rest over the previous seven days, (c) the activities undertaken during the period of work, and (d) the environment in which work was carried out. If this level of performance degradation was due to alcohol intoxication at sea, this would be considered unacceptable. In view of the similarity between the effects of alcohol and fatigue, it is perhaps appropriate that both be considered in a similar fashion.

   Other research has shown that periods of sustained operations for 24 hours result in a drop in performance of about 25%[4]. Specifically, fatigue will have a detrimental effect on higher level mental functions prior to the more obvious effects such as falling asleep on watch or mood change becoming apparent. Loss of higher mental functions will degrade the ability to solve complex problems or rapidly analyze information. A further danger is the likelihood that higher mental skills will be affected before any noticeable reduction in routine or simple activities.

   One way to explain how the loss of sleep or rest can affect seafarers is to consider  watchkeeping, operational safety, or security. While on watch, sleep loss has been reported to have effects including, but not limited to, the following:

*       Slowed reaction
*       Delayed or false response
*       Failure to respond at the correct time
*       Slowed thinking and diminished memory
*       Poor decision making
*          Increased risk of personal injury (slips, trips, falls, etc.)
   These and other outcomes pose a risk to any position aboard, but especially those that have critical safety and security responsibilities. Should an individual fail to carry out an allotted task due to fatigue, the crew runs the risk of a safety or security incident. Any risk management strategy must focus on mitigating the potential for such hazards to arise by addressing the causes of fatigue. Systems and work procedures should be critically examined to engineer out design deficiencies that could contribute to fatigue. Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers should provide an adequate level of support for managing the risks of fatigue at both the organisational and operational levels.

3. WHAT ELEMENTS OF FATIGUE CAN THE SHIPOWNER, /OPERATOR, OR /MANAGER INFLUENCE?

   While it is not possible for Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers to regulate and oversee the sleeping habits of every seafarer on every ship, it is within their capability to establish a fatigue management system. Hours of rest are presently controlled by a prescriptive formula set out in Chapter VIII of the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) 1978/1995 as amended. Managers should be aware (when applying these hours of rest) that considering the effects of circadian rhythm and sleep debt are important for ensuring that rest periods are of high quality. It also cannot be too highly stressed that rest means rest, not substituting a different form of work. This should be supported by appropriate systems and processes, so that fatigue risks can be managed in a way that supports safe, compliant and productive operations. Importantly, fatigue risk control measures forming part of Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers  support should ensure:

*       Identify and assess fatigue risks;
*       Development and implementation of FRM documentation;
*       "Company" wide fatigue training and awareness;
*       Availability of adequate resources to conduct all ship operations safely; and
*          A healthy shipboard environment.

   STCW and MLC require the maintenance of records of rest and work or rest respectively. In addition, t

*
*

   aking the effects of circadian rhythm into account can strengthen this approach. Planning tools such as fatigue modeling or rosters (watchkeeping systems) and work arrangements, which take these effects into account, enable management to do the following:

*       Analyze planned work routines by management to ascertain the risk of fatigue
*       Monitor work hours on board the ship to determine whether or not the risk of fatigue is increasing as a result of the work arrangements or from any variations that may have occurred
*       Analyze and comparing information related to hours of work that will determine the effectiveness of employed routines, compared to other alternatives

   Such modeling systems are readily available and systems that are applicable to the maritime environment are on the market. It is important to choose a system that has been validated by a number of studies and has been utilized in transport application[6]. Overall, it is important that management adopt a fatigue management system that is tailored to the individual enterprise.

4. HOW CAN OWNERS/OPERATORS/MANAGERS ENSURE THAT FATIGUE PREVENTION IS PRACTISED ONBOARD?

   Management should consider the following in developing fatigue management policies and systems:

*       ISM Code requirements for clear, concise guidance on operational procedures on board
*       Assure adequate crewing level
*       The need for joining crews to be adequately rested before assuming duties
*       Scheduling time for proper hand over on crew change
*       Voyage length, time in port, length of service and leave ratios
*       Multicultural issues; language barriers, social, cultural and religious isolation
*       Interpersonal relationships, stress, loneliness, boredom, social deprivation and increased workload as a result of small crew numbers
*       Provision for shore leave and onboard recreation, family communication
*       Watchkeeping arrangements
*       Job rotation
*       Improved sleeping berths and accommodation
*       Adequate quality and quantity of food for proper nutrition
*       Read other Modules for additional potential managerial mitigation tools
*       Modification of present ship design or future designs
*

   Fatigue training and awareness are essential components. The Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers should ensure all personnel have appropriate training. This includes shore-based personnel whose decisions may impact on the management of fatigue (such as those involved in resource planning and duty scheduling decisions) and fatigue-related processes. This is important, as their decisions potentially affect fatigue levels of seafarers and consequently shipboard safety.

   Initial fatigue-related training should establish a common level of understanding among seafarers and shore based personnel about the dynamics of sleep loss and recovery, the effects of the body clock on circadian rhythms, the influence of workload, and the ways in which these factors interact with operational demands to produce fatigue (covered in Module 1). In addition, it is useful for all seafarers to have information on how to manage their personal fatigue and sleep issues (covered in Module 4 of these guidelines).

   From an organisational perspective, it is important to share a common understanding of fatigue issues and its management. Training content should be reviewed based on lessons learned.

   This process, as with any other training, should be ongoing in nature. Hence, training should be conducted on an initial (e.g. prior to commencing any operational duty) and recurrent basis. The interval between training should be determined by the Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers , given their operational characteristics and training needs analysis.

   Adequate Resources (incl. crew)

   Adequate resources is one of the primary determinants of seafarers duty hours, workload, duty scheduling, average time off-duty, and other key factors that can have an influence or elevate fatigue. The Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers should ensure that adequate resources are available with a need to proportionally balance varying work and task demands and deal with unexpected surge to reduce the risk of fatigue across shipboard operations.

   Although the master is responsible for managing the ship and its crew, the Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers should ensure that the master is adequately supported and resourced to conduct shipboard duties and operations safely and effectively. This includes having available adequate resources to do so across all shipboard operations.

   Effective operational planning is critical to ensuring adequate resources are available at all times so that operational and other demands placed on the ship and its crew can be managed safely and effectively.  Planning should account for:

*       Varying work and task demands within and across days (e.g. amount of time the vessel is travelling through confined and congested waters and less confined open waters);
*       Trading patterns (i.e. number of port calls  -  the more port calls the higher the workload);
*       Planning for disturbances, such as weather, ship movement in port; port entry and exit delays and port surveys and inspections;
*       Ensuring adequate resources are available to cover planned and unplanned aspects such as  training, illnesses, injuries and sickness;
*       Ensuring the Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers contractual obligations that affect the commercial and financial revenue do not impinge or effect safety in any way.

   The Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers should consider strategies to deal with periods of high workload and to manage this accordingly. Appropriate strategies may include:

*       The allocation of crew numbers to peak times and demands is a fundamental factor in minimising the exposure to risks associated with extended duty hours. Numbers and types of seafarers should be scheduled on the basis of predictable operational demands to account for daily, weekly, and monthly operational trends;
*       Ensure the master is well resourced and supported to carry out all shipboard tasks safely and to allow for unexpected surge and over-riding operational conditions;
*       Ensure there are adequate resources available to complete shipboard tasks safely without placing excessive demands on seafarers;
*       Augment with shore based support or additional rest when ship is in port such as during loading and unloading, port inspections, etc. to ensure shipboard crew obtain adequate time off for rest and sleep and are fit for duty when the vessel leaves port;
*       Provide shipboard administrative support or a resource for relieving the burden associated with paperwork and related administrative tasks;
*       Where practicable, provide remote support to shipboard crew, in areas such as paperwork, loading/unloading calculations etc.
*       Utilise other crewing concepts, such as the use of port captains and/or shore based crew;
*       Plan arrival and departures (tides in ports, delays due to weather, pilotage boarding, etc.) to take into account adequate sleep and rest.

   An important aspect that needs to be mentioned is that of Overriding Operational Conditions. In accordance with STCW Section B-VIII/1 `Overriding Operational Conditions' should be construed to mean only essential shipboard work which cannot be delayed for safety, security or environmental reasons or which could not reasonably have been anticipated at the commencement of the voyage. This means that they should not be occurring on a regular basis. Planning, using risk assessment tools and operational experience can foresee these potential disruptions or delays (e.g. weather, port inspections, traffic congestion during departure/arrivals, and sickness of crew members).

   Healthy Shipboard Environment

   Unique to shipping is the fact that seafarers are required to not only work but live on board a ship. Hence, ensuring a healthy shipboard environment is crucial to minimising the risks of fatigue. The most important aspects should include:

*       Healthy Eating: Healthy nutritious food is available and served on board;
*       Healthy Sleep: The shipboard sleeping environment is commensurate with providing comfortable and good quality sleep (bedding, pillows, mattresses, etc.)
*       Exercise: Adequate exercise facilities are provided (such as well-designed and equipped training facilities and outside spaces), to ensure crew can maintain a healthy lifestyle on-board.
*       Stress: Adequate shipboard measures are in place to recognise and ensure adequate support to seafarers suffering from stress.

   Furthermore, initial ship design plays a part in ensuring a healthy operational environment (dealt with in Module 6).

   Adequate Sleep Opportunity

   Effective fatigue management is predominantly about ensuring that seafarers are provided with adequate sleep opportunity.

   It is not correct to assume that a given rest period from duty will provide a given level of sleep and hence recovery. The length of the rest period is only one key factor. The relationship between the recovery value of off duty periods and the actual amount of sleep obtained in a shipboard environment is increasingly complex. As highlighted in Module 1, sleep quantity and quality (and its restorative value) depends on going through unbroken night time sleep. The more sleep is fragmented by waking-up, the less restorative value sleep has in terms of how seafarers feel and function when they are on duty.

   Shipboard related factors that affect sleep include the design of duty schedules (i.e. length and timing of duty periods, length and timing of breaks within and between a duty period), the type of work being performed (i.e. workload), and the work environment (e.g., heat, humidity, noise, vibration, lighting levels, ship routines, diet, etc.). These can all exert additional downward pressure on the amount of time seafarers are allocated for sleep in a twenty-four-hour day period.

   Room location is important for ensuring adequate opportunity for sleep and should be considered.

   Duty Scheduling and Planning

   Duty scheduling and planning is a key factor in managing fatigue [4]. Hence, the Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers should be responsible for ensuring duty schedules provide adequate opportunity for sleep.

   Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers at the very least MUST be in compliance with Regulation VIII/1 of the STCW Convention.

   From a practical perspective, it is important to determine whether a given duty schedule, on average, enables adequate sleep opportunity. There are 5/8? primary duty schedule considerations that should be considered when scheduling. They are:

1.       Maximum work hours per 7 days: As total hours worked increase, sleep opportunity decreases. Research has demonstrated that apart from a reduction in performance, extended hours of work are also associated with reduced individual wellbeing, reduced organisational commitment and poor health outcomes. These factors in turn have been linked to declining levels of productivity and safety. Current regulations (MLC) allow for a maximum of 72 hours of work (or minimum of 77 hours of rest) in a 7 day period.

2.       Maximum work hours per 24 hour period: As indicated in Module 1, as the length of a given period of work increases, the subsequent sleep opportunity decreases. Current regulations (MLC) allow a maximum of 14 hours of work (or minimum 10 hours of rest) in a 24 hour period. Administrative work, shipboard drills, training, ship loading and unloading tasks are all considered to be work hours.

3.       Rest hours (rest periods) between work periods: This is the length of time off between work periods. As the number of rest hours between subsequent work periods decreases, so does the sleep opportunity. Hence, the likelihood of fatigue increases as the number of rest hours decrease in duration. This reflects the fact that seafarers do not simply fall asleep as soon as they are off-duty and wake just before they go back on-duty. Furthermore, seafarers, like all other shore-based workers, have many activities and responsibilities to manage between work periods such as eating, showering, socializing with other crew, relaxing, studying, and writing to and communicating with family members and friends back home. Rest hours should provide for adequate sleep opportunity, be adaptable to the individual circadian rhythm, time to complete those other tasks noted above and account for the effects of sleep inertia after waking. Hence, the interval between two successive work periods should allow sufficient time to obtain adequate sleep before the start of the next work period. Current regulations (STCW) address minimum rest periods.

4.       Night shift work: As indicated in Module 1, seafarers working during night-time, specifically during the circadian low can experience severe performance degradation initially.   If the seafarer maintains a regular schedule they will adapt over time. However, it is important to provide those seafarers working during night-time a good sleeping opportunity and environment during the day.

5.       Short rest breaks within work periods: Short rest breaks benefit performance and help maintain alertness. As indicated in Module 1, one of the most important determinants of fatigue is `time on task'. Frequent short breaks are associated with performance benefits and when the timing of rest is at the discretion of the individual it results in better fatigue management [17-20]. It is recognised that in a shipboard environment this may not always be feasible. It should be noted that the `time on task' effect can also be reduced during the work period by task rotations/substitutions.

6.       Naps: are an effective countermeasure to fatigue, exhaustion from long work hours, and restricted sleep. Whether before an anticipated short night's sleep or after, brief naps improve performance and alertness, and delay fatigue-induced performance degradation. Overall research has shown that the benefits of controlled napping out-weigh the potential risks associated with sleep inertia.

7.       Recovery Sleep: The provision for sufficient recovery time following periods of sleep debt is important.  It should be noted that provision of minimum rest periods may not sufficiently acknowledge the critical role that the circadian timing plays in the rate at which fatigue accumulates and the rate at which people recover.  When a seafarer commences their work they need to be sufficiently rested so as to be able to sustain their work activities over the designated duration of the next work period. To work safely across a given duty and to then return to the next work period sufficiently recovered requires that the seafarer obtains sufficient quantity and quality of sleep between work periods. While one or two recovery sleeps of eight hours or more are generally enough following a period of acute sleep loss (one night), recovery following a period of sleep debt (two or more nights of sleep loss) may take in excess of three nights. Sleep opportunities during the circadian low are preferable because sleep that occurs during the circadian low 	provides the most recuperative value. It is recognised that in a shipboard environment this may not always be feasible.

8.       Reset Breaks: Given that risk of fatigue increases over a span of successive work days of sleep debt, it seems logical that some "recovery" must take place over spans of rest days otherwise the risk of fatigue would continue to rise. This is typically an issue at sea as seafarers are exposed to potentially arduous duty schedules over a long period of time (in excess of seven days, sometimes months on end) without the possibility of a reset 	break. It is recognised that in a shipboard environment this is likely not practical, however this may be a factor to consider when determining crew rotation.

   Fatigue management should consider napping and short break policies.

   Fatigue management should also acknowledge impairment through sleep inertia, specifically for seafarers who are woken up suddenly in the middle of their sleep period (for emergency or other purposes) or need to wake up during the circadian low to take over a duty period.

   Tools to Assess Fatigue in Scheduling: The planning of duty schedules based on fatigue science as well as operational requirements permits predictive identification of fatigue hazards. This assists in allocating adequate rest periods that provide sufficient sleep opportunity.

   These can be useful additional tools for the management of fatigue. However, it should be noted that they should not be used in isolation nor be the main driver for duty scheduling decisions as they are not sufficient to determine the full extent of fatigue-related risk. They should always be supported by other operational data. Their main purpose should be limited to identifying potentially fatigue inducing duty schedules or scheduling hot spots and allow for better decisions in the selection of duty schedules. This is because numerous unforeseen circumstances can cause changes to planned schedules, for example, weather conditions, unexpected technical problems, or crew illnesses. It is noted that many companies already account for fatigue informally during planning activities. Seafarer fatigue relates to what is actually worked, not what is planned. Thus another proactive approach for identifying fatigue hazards is to analyse actual duty schedules in operation.

*       Fatigue Risk Assessment Tool: The risk level of a specific duty schedule may be assessed via a fatigue risk score.

*       Fatigue Predictive Software Tools: Models and related software to predict fatigue levels for specific operations can be useful additional tools for the management of fatigue risks.

   Workload Management

   As discussed in Module 1, mental and physical demands of work can contribute to a seafarer becoming impaired by fatigue in a number of ways. Concentrating for extended periods of time, performing repetitious or monotonous work and performing work that requires continued physical effort can increase the risk of fatigue. Mental fatigue and physical fatigue are different and a seafarer can experience them at the same time. It is important to be aware of a seafarers' optimal level of workload and stress and to have realistic attitudes towards these. Understanding that different people react differently to stressful situations (such as emergencies, family problems at home, job related) is critical for effective interventions. Hence, the use of effective communication with seafarers and monitoring  and observing any behaviours that may indicate a change to a seafarer's fatigue as a result of workload is important (see fatigue signs and symptoms in Module 1) .

   Typical techniques for managing workload while on duty include: prioritisation of tasks, task delegation, task rotation and crew rotation, task shedding. A list of risk control strategies that should be used in managing workload may include:

*       Carefully consider task design according to the workload and resources available;
*       Reducing the amount of time seafarers need to spend performing sustained physically and mentally demanding work (tank cleaning, navigation through congested waters, etc.);
*       Where possible, planning for a minimum of two crewmembers  together on navigational watch, specifically during night time;
*       Managing workload and work-pace change caused by machinery breakdowns and planned and unplanned sicknesses and illnesses;
*       Where practicable, minimising routine and administrative tasks or redesigning them to ensure seafarers can focus on core duties in their working time;
*       Minimise repetitive or monotonous tasks by using task rotation, where practicable
*       Where practicable, defer non-urgent work to allow appropriate rest and recovery.

   Work and Living Environment

   The work and living environment is important for ensuring adequate opportunity for sleep and should be considered. Because good quality sleep is critical, Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers should develop procedures to minimize interruptions to seafarers' sleep. Opportunities for implementing countermeasures in this area vary from shipboard environmental, procedural to operational changes. For example most environmental aspects such as noise can be better addressed during ship design (Module 6). However, there are control measures that the Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers  can implement to assist in reducing noise levels in the sleeping environment [25].

   Environmental, procedural and operational measures may also range from low cost solutions, such as porthole blinds and door baffles, to high cost solutions, such as re-fitting the vessel exhaust or air conditioning systems.

   Operational and procedural changes may include developing napping policies or defining blocks of time (sleep opportunities) during which seafarers are not contacted except in emergencies. These protected sleep opportunities need to be known to all relevant personnel. Depending on the situation, changes should be made to those areas that will have the most impact, and following evaluation, consideration to other changes can then be made.

   Environmental control measures may include, but are not limited to:

*       Adequate facilities for rest, sleep and meal breaks and other essential requirements, such as bathroom facilities and personal storage;
*       Making sleeping areas darker, quieter, and more comfortable and increasing lighting in certain areas of the ship, such as:
      oo Providing a dark sleeping atmosphere using black out blinds for portholes or berths in sleeping spaces;
      oo Installing-insulation baffles over cabin door louvers;
      oo Improving air conditioning (ambient temperature) and air flow;
      oo Supplying good quality and comfortable bedding such as mattresses and pillows;
*       Making sleeping spaces a priority in retro-fitting and new ship construction;
*       Ensuring adequate personal storage space is available for seafarer's personal effects.

   Procedural and operational control measures may include, but are not limited to:

*       Increasing access to healthier food choices by ensuring nutritious food is served on-board;
*       Providing information and advice on healthy eating and physical fitness;
*       Making exercise equipment and facilities available to seafarers;
*       Providing and maintaining a quiet atmosphere for sleep. Develop a `do not disturb' policy for sleeping seafarers;
*       Where practicable, calls for drills should be conducted in a manner that minimizes the disturbance of  rest periods as they can be extremely disruptive;
*       Putting in place short breaks within duty periods, including napping policies;
*       Ensuring ship routines such as meal times are commensurate with seafarer working schedules. This includes providing personnel working at night with appropriate meal choices;
*       Providing access to counselling services to assist in any issues arising from the disruption to individual, family or social patterns and shipboard related aspects. Implement a consistent stress management program;
*       Have a policy in place to support seafarers experiencing elevated levels of workload;
*       If possible, avoid assigning seasick and ill seafarers shipboard work;
*       Provide shipboard phone use and Internet and e-mail access to all crew; and
*       Where possible, ensure that maintenance work does not disrupt personnel sleeping.

Adequate Sleep Obtained

   Given that sleep loss is a primary contributor to fatigue, Shipowners, Operators and/or Managers should determine whether adequate sleep is obtained.

   Situations may arise where a seafarer is provided with an adequate sleep opportunity, but they may not get adequate sleep. Hence, while an adequate sleep opportunity provides an indication of the quantity of sleep likely to be obtained, it is important to know whether adequate sleep has actually been obtained. Seafarers, should be provided the opportunity to report back situations when they have been unable to obtain adequate sleep or feel at risk of making fatigue-related errors,
   In general, seafarers are responsible to use adequate sleep opportunity appropriately, so they are alert and capable of performing assigned shipboard work safely. However, there are a number of reasons why seafarers may not obtain adequate sleep. Aspects mentioned below can all affect the amount and quality of sleep obtained:

*       a seafarer working during the night may have difficulty getting quality sleep;
*       seafarer upon joining the ship may experience difficulty adjusting to the sleep schedule;
*       seafarer travelling for an extended time to the ship should not be required to report to work immediately until adequate rest is obtained;
*       untreated sleep disorders as highlighted in Module 1;
*       emotional stress;
*       the sleeping environment (comfort, noise, darkness, ship motion, privacy) may not allow for adequate sleep;
*       the type of food consumed;
*       medication or use of prescribed/over the counter/natural remedies;
*       consumption of  stimulants such as caffeine and amphetamines;
*       use of personal electronic devices before sleep, which may delay the onset of sleep and not allow adequate sleep to be obtained.

   Regardless of the circumstances causing insufficient or poor quality sleep, these should preferably be identified through proactive measures and treated as a potential shipboard hazard.

5. WHAT RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE IN PLACE TO PREVENT AND DEAL WITH FATIGUE (INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT)?

   As discussed in the previous sections, Chapter VIII (Fitness for duty) of the STCW convention sets minimum rest requirements for watchkeeping personnel and those whose duties involve designated safety, security and prevention of pollution duties. However, it does not stipulate minimum requirements for other persons. The limits described in Regulation VIII/1 of the convention have been incorporated into national regulation in some countries. This action was taken in order to comply with the requirement of the STCW convention so that "each administration shall, for the purpose of preventing fatigue... establish and enforce rest periods for watchkeeping personnel and those whose duties involve designated safety, security and prevention of pollution duties."

   In addition to the STCW convention, the International Labour Organisation has developed MLC 2006. This convention requires governments to establish a work hour regime for crew members based on either minimum rest hours or maximum working hours, which can be undertaken in a single day or over a seven-day period.

   STCW 78/95 as amended and MLC 2006 are relevant to the implementation of the ISM code in so much as the code requires operators to "maintain their ship in conformity with the provisions of the relevant rules and regulations." Ensuring that those on board are fit to undertake their duty is relevant to the maintenance of the ship in this context as it has an effect upon the seaworthiness of the ship.

   Experience with the limits  --  set by STCW and MLC 2006  --  is needed to verify which conditions require supplemental information or modifications. However, these requirements must be examined with respect to other factors such as sleep propensity at given times of the day. A rest break taken between the hours of 0000 and 1200 may result in a sleep of 7 to 8 hours compared to a duration of only 5 to 6 hours for a rest break taken in the latter half of the day.

   For countries that have independent OH&S legislation for their maritime industry, this factor will become more significant with wider acceptance of fatigue modeling and fatigue risk management. Under such circumstances, compliance with the requirements and the use of risk management tools, where available, will become necessary.
   Appropriately manned in order to encompass all aspects of maintaining safe operations on board (in accordance with the Principles of minimum safe manning, adopted by the Organization by resolution A.1047(27)).

   ISM code reference in seafarers add here too.

                                  References

    McCallum M.C, Raby M and Rothblum A.M (1996)  -  Procedures for Investigating and Reporting Human Factors and Fatigue Contributions to Marine Casualties. Report No CG-D-09-97. National Technical Information Service  -  Virginia, United States.

   2 Folkard S and Barton J (1993)  -  Does the `Forbidden Zone' for sleep onset influence morning shift sleep duration?  -  Ergonomics. 36(1-3): 85-91 - Australia.

   3 Dawson D, Lamond N, Donkin K and Reid K (1997)  -  Quantitative Similarity between the Cognitive Psychomotor Performance Decrement Associated with Sustained Wakefulness and Alcohol Intoxication  -  From the minutes of the AAPMA 36[th] Biennial Conference 1998 - Australia.

   4 Belenky G, Balkin T.J, Redmond D.P, Sing H.P, Thomas M.L, Thorne D.R and Wesensten N.J (1998)  -  Sustaining Performance during Continuous Operations: The US army's Sleep Management System - taken from The 3[rd] International Conference on fatigue and Transportation 1998 - Australia.

   5 Dawson D, Fletcher A and Hussey F (1999)  -  Fatigue and Transport, Report to the Neville Committee  -  The Centre for sleep Research, University of South Australia - Australia.

   6 Reid T, Roberts T. and Dawson D. (1997)  -  Improving Shiftwork management II:  Shiftwork and Health  -  Occupation Health and Safety 1997, 13(5):  439-450  -  Australia/New Zealand.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 183 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57979-57980]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0070]

National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council;
Solicitation of Applications

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

ACTION: Solicitation of nominations for appointment to the National
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is soliciting applications for appointment/reappointment
to the DOT's NEMSAC. The purpose of NEMSAC is to serve as a nationally
recognized council of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) representatives
and consumers to provide advice and recommendations regarding EMS to
DOT. Through NHTSA, NEMSAC's advice is provided to the Federal
Interagency Committee on EMS (FICEMS).

DATES: Applications for membership must be received by NHTSA on or
before 5 p.m. EST, November 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to apply for membership, your application should
be submitted to:

 Email: [email protected]
 Mail: Use only overnight mail such as UPS or FedEx to: U.S.
Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Office of Emergency Medical Services, Attn: NEMSAC c/o
Clary Mole, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, NPD 400, W44-321, Washington, DC
20590

Additional information on NEMSAC, including the current roster,
charter, and previous meeting minutes can be found at: https://www.ems.gov/nemsac.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clary Mole, EMS Specialist, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Any committee
related questions should be sent to the person listed in this section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: NEMSAC is an advisory council established by DOT in
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) and DOT Order 1120.3C.
NEMSAC provides information, advice, and recommendations to the
Secretary via the Administrator of NHTSA, and through NHTSA to FICEMS
on matters relating to all aspects of development and implementation of
EMS.
    Description of Duties: NEMSAC is authorized to:
    a. Perform EMS needs assessments and gap analyses to discover
issues with national significance, consider findings to develop
statements regarding EMS issues, formulate positions on these issues,
and make recommendations on such issues for the Secretary of
Transportation and/or FICEMS through the NHTSA Office of EMS. NEMSAC
provides recommendations or advice relating to EMS on topics such as:
     Expanded use of the National EMS Information System
(NEMSIS)--the database used to store EMS data from the U.S. states and
territories.
     Use of NEMSIS for applied research and development of
standards, guidelines, and performance benchmarks that are evidence-
based.
     Development of federal programs that will both improve
coordination among federal agencies supporting local, regional, state,
tribal and territorial EMS and 911 systems and improve the delivery of
EMS throughout the nation.
     National EMS system quality improvement projects and
programs that will strengthen the resiliency of EMS systems into one
that is inherently more adaptable, innovative, equitable, integrated,
prepared, sustainable, and safe.
     Enhancements that promote the strengthen and increase
medical and operational education, professional development; safety,
diversity, recruitment, retention, use of technology, healthcare system
data linkages, etc.
    b. Respond to requests for consultation on EMS issues from the
Secretary of Transportation and/or from FICEMS through the NHTSA Office
of EMS.
    c. Prepare an annual report to be sent to the Secretary of
Transportation, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and
Secretary of Homeland Security, and to FICEMS, which summarizes
NEMSAC's actions and recommendations.
    Membership: In accordance with the NEMSAC charter, members should
represent a cross-section of the diverse agencies, organizations, and
individuals involved in EMS activities and programs in the United
States. NEMSAC consists of 25 members, each of whom shall be appointed
by the Secretary of Transportation, in coordination with the U.S.
Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services through
their respective representatives on FICEMS. The NEMSAC members shall
collectively be representative of all sectors of the EMS community. The
NEMSAC's broad-based membership will ensure that it has sufficient EMS
system expertise and geographic and demographic diversity to accurately
reflect the whole EMS community. Representatives will be selected on
the basis of materials submitted and in a manner that ensured equal
opportunity for all people and avoided

discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, gender
identity, sexual orientation, national origin, disability or age.
Moreover, selection will be undertaken in a manner that encourages
participation by members of underrepresented and underserved
communities in accordance with Presidential Executive Order 13985. To
the extent practical, the final NEMSAC membership shall ensure
representation from the following sectors of the EMS community:

 Volunteer EMS
 Fire-based (career) EMS
 Private (career non-fire) EMS
 Hospital-based EMS
 Tribal EMS
 Air Medical EMS
 Local EMS service directors/administrators
 EMS Medical Directors
 Emergency Physicians
 Trauma Surgeons
 Pediatric Emergency Physicians
 State EMS Directors
 State Highway Safety Directors
 EMS Educators
 Public Safety Call-taker/Dispatcher (911)
 EMS Data Managers
 EMS Quality Improvement
 EMS Researchers
 Emergency Nurses
 Hospital Administration
 Public Health
 Emergency Management
 EMS Practitioners
 Consumers (not directly affiliated with an EMS or healthcare
organization)
 State or local legislative bodies (e.g., city/county councils;
state legislatures)

    Members serve in a ``representative'' capacity on NEMSAC and not as
Special Government Employees. The Secretary of Transportation shall
appoint each member for up to a 2-year term and members may be
reappointed but may not serve more than two consecutive terms unless
the Secretary determines that additional terms are permitted to ensure
representation of all sectors of EMS. NEMSAC members will not receive
pay or other compensation from NHTSA for their NEMSAC service, but are
entitled to reimbursement of their travel expenses, including per diem.
The NEMSAC meets in plenary session approximately three to four times
per year.
    Qualifications: Members will be selected for their ability to
reflect a balanced representation of interests from across the EMS
community, but no member will represent a specific organization.
    Vacancies: NEMSAC is seeking to fill the following EMS sector
representative vacancies:

 Volunteer EMS
 Air Medical EMS
 EMS Medical Directors
 Emergency Physicians
 Pediatric Emergency Physicians
 State EMS Directors
 State Highway Safety Directors
 EMS Educators
 Public Safety Call-taker/Dispatcher (911)
 EMS Quality Improvement
 Emergency Nurses
 Emergency Management

    Materials to Submit: Qualified individuals interested in serving on
the NEMSAC are invited to apply for appointment by submitting the
following materials to one of the locations listed in the ADDRESSES
section by the deadline listed in the DATES section:
     Resume or Curriculum Vitae (CV) containing the applicants
full name, title, home address, phone number, email address.
     At least two (2) but no more than four (4) letters of
recommendation from a company, association, organization, or individual
on letterhead containing a brief description of why the applicant
should be considered for appointment.
     A letter of interest which identifies the EMS sector the
applicant seeks to represent and contains an attestation statement
indicating that the applicant is not a registered federal lobbyist and
an understanding that as a government representative the applicant may
not concurrently serve as registered federal lobbyists.
    Each applicant must submit the required materials to the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by the deadline.
Nominees for appointment will be selected on the basis of materials
submitted and in a manner that ensures equal opportunity for all people
and avoids discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, disability or
age; however, selection will be undertaken in a manner that encourages
participation by members of underrepresented and underserved
communities in accordance with Presidential Executive Order 13985.

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300d-4(b); 49 CFR 1.95(i)(4))

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Nanda Narayanan Srinivasan,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2022-20534 Filed 9-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P