[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 677-679]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31517]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 71200; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-157]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Modify the Existing Fees in NASDAQ Rule 7034

December 30, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on December 16, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ. 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

    NASDAQ is proposing changes to modify the existing fees that
clients co-located in NASDAQ's Carteret data center pay for cabinet
space, connectivity, and additional services as set forth in NASDAQ
Rule 7034. NASDAQ intends to make these fees effective on January 2,
2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at the
Commission's Web site at http://sec.gov.

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. 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
    NASDAQ is proposing five modifications to the current fee

schedule for colocation offerings set forth in NASDAQ Rule 7034.
    1. NASDAQ is proposing to modify Rule 7034(a) to reduce cabinet
fees for all cabinet users. Specifically, NASDAQ is proposing to reduce
from $7,000 to $4,500 the fee for installing a new Super High Density
Cabinet. Additionally, NASDAQ is proposing to reduce the ongoing
monthly fees for all cabinets: Super High Density from $13,000 to
$8,000; High Density from $7,000 to $4,500; Medium High Density from
$6,000 to $3,500; Medium Density from $5,000 to $2,500; Low Density
from $4,000 to $2,000; and Half Cabinets from $3,000 to $2,000. These
changes largely cement a temporary fee reduction that NASDAQ offered at
various times in 2013. The language describing the temporary fee
reduction is being deleted from the Exchange rulebook.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., Exchange Act Release No. 69887 (June 29, 2013),
78 FR 40527 (July 5, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. NASDAQ is modifying Rule 7034(a) to clarify that the Multi-Firm
Cabinets Fee is assessed for each firm that occupies space in a cabinet
other than the firm that contracts with NASDAQ Technology Services for
that cabinet. This language is intended to better reflect the original
intent of the Multi-Firm Cabinets fee and represents no change in
NASDAQ's billing practice.
    3. NASDAQ is increasing by $50 four connectivity fees set forth in
Rule 7034(b): The Category 6 Cable Patch, the DS-3 Connection, and the
Fiber fee (each from $300 to $350), and also the POTS Line fee (from $0
to $50). These are previously filed offerings that users request to
connect to various telecommunications providers or other colocation
cabinets.
    4. NASDAQ is increasing the Ongoing Monthly Fee for four forms of
connectivity to NASDAQ currently set forth in Rule 7034(b).
Specifically, NASDAQ is increasing from $15,000 to $20,000 the monthly
fee for the 40Gb Fiber connection to NASDAQ; from $5,000 to $10,000 the
monthly fee for the 10Gb Fiber connection to NASDAQ; from $1,000 to
$2,500 the monthly fee for the 1Gb Fiber connection to NASDAQ; and from
$1,000 to $2,500 the monthly fee for the 1Gb Copper connection to
NASDAQ.
    5. Finally, NASDAQ is reducing from $7,000 to $4,500 the
installation fee for the Super High Density Cabinet Kit set forth in
Rule 7034(d). A user installing a new Super High Density Cabinet pays
this ``Kit'' fee for various necessary cabinet accessories, in addition
to the $4,500 installation fee set forth in Rule 7034(a) which covers
the labor and materials costs for the actual cabinet installation
service.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \4\ in general, and with Sections 6(b)(4), (b)(5) and
(b)(8) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which the Exchange operates or controls, and is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5) and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees changes are consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act for multiple reasons. The Exchange
operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-
location services as a means to facilitate the trading activities of
those members who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of
their trading. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are
constrained by the active competition for the order flow of such
members. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-
location services, affected members will opt to terminate their co-
location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of
alternative strategies, including co-locating with a different
exchange, placing their servers in a physically proximate location
outside the exchange's data center, or pursuing trading strategies not
dependent upon co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging
excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but
also revenues associated with the execution of orders routed to it by
affected members.
    The fees are fair and equitable whether considered in total or
individually. First, NASDAQ is proposing a major fee reduction for all
colocation users by reducing ongoing monthly fees for all cabinets and
the fees for installing new Super High Density Cabinets (both the
standard installation fee set forth in subsection (a) and the ``Kit''
fee set forth in subsection (d)). These fee reduction [sic] range from
35 to 50 percent, and they will benefit each cabinet user for each
month in the future. These fee reductions are offset in part by minor
increases of $50 per month for four connectivity fees set forth in Rule
7034(b) (the Category 6 Cable Patch, the DS-3 Connection, and the Fiber
fee (from $300 to $350), and also the POTS Line fee from $0 to $50) and
also to the Ongoing Monthly Fee for three forms on connectivity set
forth in Rule 7034(b) (the 40Gb Fiber connection, the 10Gb Fiber
connection, the 1Gb Fiber connection; and the 1Gb Copper connection to
NASDAQ).
    Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed fees [sic] changes are
reasonable because they are based on the Exchange's costs to cover
hardware, installation, testing and connection, as well expenses
involved in maintaining and managing the colocation facilities. The
proposed fees allow the Exchange to recoup these costs and make a
profit, while providing customers the ability to reduce latency in a
well-maintained and operated environment. The Exchange believes that
the proposed fees are reasonable in that they reflect the costs and the
benefit of the lower latency to clients.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees are consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that the fees are equitably
allocated and non-discriminatory. All Exchange members that voluntarily
select various service options will be charged the same amount for the
same services. As is true of all co-location services, all co-located
clients have the option to select any cabinet or connectivity option,
and there is no differentiation among customers with regard to the fees
charged for the service. Further, the benefits of selecting such
services are the same for all co-located clients, irrespective of the
locations of their cabinets within the data center.
    The Exchange's proposal is also consistent with the requirement of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act that Exchange rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. The proposal is consistent with these requirements insomuch as
it makes available to market participants, at a reasonable fee and on a
non-

discriminatory basis, access to low latency means of trading.
    Finally, for the reasons stated below in Section 4 of Form 19b-4,
the proposed fees [sic] changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of
the Act in that they do not impose a burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. To the contrary, as
discussed above, the Exchange believes that fees for co-location
services are constrained by the robust competition for order flow among
exchanges and non-exchange markets, because co-location exists to
advance that competition. Further, excessive fees for co-location
services would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for
order flow rather than burdening competition. In fact, NASDAQ believes
that the proposal reflects the positive effects of robust competition
but for which NASDAQ would no incentive to reduce fees for any
colocation offerings.

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) of the Act \6\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\7\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-157 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-NASDAQ-2013-157. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-NASDAQ-2013-157 and should
be submitted on or before January 27, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-31517 Filed 1-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57203-57205]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22511]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70371; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-90]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule

September 11, 2013.
    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 August 29, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and
III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule with
respect to certain pricing in Section II entitled ``Multiply Listed
Options Fees''.\3\ While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to
this proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated
that they become operative on September 3, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The pricing in Section II includes options overlying
equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com, 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Pricing Schedule with respect to certain pricing in Section II entitled
``Multiply Listed Options Fees'' by eliminating a certain fee and
rebate for certain floor transactions.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to eliminate certain pricing,
established on May 1, 2013,\4\ for Specialists \5\ and Market Makers
\6\ that are contra to a Customer order in Penny Pilot Options on
Exchange Traded-Fund (``ETFs'') \7\ on the Exchange's floor by
eliminating the $0.25 per contract fee that is in addition to the Floor
Options Transaction Charges in Section II of the Pricing

Schedule.\8\ Additionally, the contra Customer order to the Specialist
and Market Maker transaction, established on May 1, 2013,\9\ no longer
will be entitled to a rebate of $0.25 per contract. The Exchange
believes that the existing pricing structure did not provide any
material benefit to Specialists, Market Makers, Customers or to the
Exchange and that this new pricing will not impact trading in Penny
Pilot Options on ETFs on the Exchange's trading floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69548 (May 9, 2013)
78 FR 28681 (May 15, 2013) (SR-PHLX-2013-49).
    \5\ A Specialist is an Exchange member who is registered as an
options specialist pursuant to Rule 1020(a).
    \6\ A Market Maker includes Registered Options Traders (Rule
1014(b)(i) and (ii)), which includes Streaming Quote Traders (see
Rule 1014(b)(ii)(A)) and Remote Streaming Quote Traders (see Rule
1014(b)(ii)(B)). Directed Participants are also market makers.
    \7\ An ETF is an open-ended registered investment company under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 that has received certain
exemptive relief from the Commission to allow secondary market
trading in the ETF shares. ETFs are generally index-based products,
in that each ETF holds a portfolio of securities that is intended to
provide investment results that, before fees and expenses, generally
correspond to the price and yield performance of the underlying
benchmark index.
    \8\ Specialists and Market Makers are assessed a Floor Options
Transaction Charge of $0.25 per contract. See Section II of the
Pricing Schedule.
    \9\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \11\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to eliminate certain pricing
for Specialists and Market Makers that are contra to a Customer Penny
Pilot Options on ETFs transacted on the Exchange's floor by eliminating
the $0.25 per contract fee that is in addition to the Options
Transaction Charges \12\ in Section II of the Pricing Schedule is
reasonable because the Exchange has determined that the fee did not
encourage more orders in Penny Pilot Options on ETFs to be delivered
and executed on the Exchange's trading floor and did not provide any
material additional opportunity for floor participants to interact with
that order. The Exchange also proposes to eliminate this since the
Exchange also seeks to eliminate the rebate to the Customer on the
contra-side of a Specialist and Market Maker floor transaction in a
Penny Pilot Option on an ETF. The Exchange determined that paying a
rebate of $0.25 per contract to Customers on the contra-side of a
Specialist and Market Maker Penny Pilot Options on an ETF order did not
encourage market participants to send Customer Penny Pilot Options on
ETFs to the Exchange's floor for execution to qualify for the rebate
when they are contra to a Specialist or Market Maker order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Specialists and Market Makers are assessed an Options
Transaction Charge of $0.25 per contract for transacting floor
trading ETFs in Penny Pilot Options. See Section II of the Pricing
Schedule. The Exchange does not assess Payment for Order Flow fees
for floor transactions. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate certain pricing for
Specialists and Market Makers that are contra to a Customer Penny Pilot
Options on ETFs transacted on the Exchange's trading floor by
eliminating the $0.25 per contract in addition to the Options
Transaction Charges\13\ in Section II of the Pricing Schedule is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all
Specialists and Market Makers equally and uniformly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Specialists and Market Makers are assessed an Options
Transaction Charge of $0.25 per contract for transacting Floor ETFs
in Penny Pilot Options. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule. The
Exchange does not assess Payment for Order Flow fees for floor
transactions. See Section II of the Pricing Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the $0.25 per contract rebate
to a Customer that is contra to a Specialist or Market Maker order in a
Penny Pilot Options on an ETF transacted on the Exchange's trading
floor is reasonable because although Customer order flow is unique and
such order flow may attract liquidity to the market to the benefit of
all market participants, the rebate at hand did not attract additional
liquidity and thus no additional benefit to market participants. The
Exchange will uniformly eliminate for all Customers the $0.25 per
contract rebate for orders that are contra to a Specialist or Market
Maker order in Penny Pilot Options on ETFs transacted on the Exchange's
trading floor so it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it applies to all Customers.

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

    The does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes these pricing amendments
do not impose a burden on competition but rather that the proposed rule
change will continue to promote competition on the Exchange and
position the Exchange as an attractive alternative when compared to
other options exchanges.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
eleven [sic] exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\14\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-90 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-Phlx-2013-90. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's

Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; 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-Phlx-2013-90 and should be
submitted on or before October 8, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22511 Filed 9-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44011-44013]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0260]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Bullhead City Regatta; Bullhead City, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Colorado River in Bullhead City, Arizona for
the Bullhead City Regatta on August 10, 2013. This temporary safety
zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew,
spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the
waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0260]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to 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 rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant John Bannon, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this
event on June 7, 2013 (78 FR 34300). We received no comments or
requests for a public meeting.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delay would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard did not receive the
necessary information for this event with sufficient time to publish
both an NPRM and undertake a 30 day delayed effective date. Seeking
public input, the Coast Guard issued an NPRM to give notice and seek
public comment. Immediate action is required to ensure the safety zone
is in place to protect participants, crew, spectators, participating
vessels, and other vessels and users of the waterway during the event.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish safety zones
(33 U.S.C. sections 1221 et seq.).
    The City of Bullhead is sponsoring the Bullhead City Regatta, which
is held on the navigable waters of the Colorado River in Bullhead City,
AZ. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety
of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and other
vessels and users of the waterway. This event involves participants
floating down the river on inflatable rafts, inner tubes and floating
platforms as part of the Bullhead City organized event. The size of
vessels used will vary in length. Approximately 30,000 people are
expected to participate in this event. The sponsor will provide for
more than 35 patrol and rescue boats to help facilitate the event and
ensure public safety. As the participants conclude each section of the
river, the associated safety zone will collapse behind the last group
of boaters to ensure the full use of the waterway to the maximum extent
without compromising the safety of the participants and safety support
teams for this large waterway user marine event.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard received no comments on the NPRM. However, several
concerned citizens have contacted Coast Guard Sector San Diego this
year and past years inquiring more about the exclusion of the waterway
for non-paying waterway users, the rights of the public to have free
access to travel the river, and excessive trash resulting from the
event. The safety zone is being established this year as in past years
to help provide a safe area for this widely attended event, and the
sponsor has indicated other additional safety measures have been taken
and fees associated with the event are used for trash clean up,
volunteers and designated safety lifeguard patrols. Overall, concerns
are best addressed by the event sponsor. Each of these issues has been
addressed with the sponsor during the planning stages of this event,
including the collapsing of the exclusionary safety zone behind the
last event participants as they depart the starting point at Davis Camp
towards Rotary Park down river, thus allowing for reopening full use of
the waterways as soon as possible. Because changing the size or
duration of the safety zone would not support overall event safety
measures or fully address the concerns submitted, no changes were made
to the regulatory text.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This determination is
based on the size and location of the safety zone. The safety zone will
encompass all navigable waters in the vicinity of Davis Camp to Rotary
Park in Bullhead City, AZ. Vessels may transit through the safety zone
during the specified times if they request and receive permission from
the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule and the impact of a temporary one day
closure of the portion of the Colorado River for this annual event. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit or anchor in a portion of the waters of the Colorado River
between Davis Camp to Rotary Park in Bullhead City, Arizona from 6 a.m.
to 6 p.m. on August 10, 2013.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the river,
traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission
of the Coast Guard patrol commander and the safety zone will collapse
as the last event participants depart the starting point. Before the
effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to
Mariners (LNM).

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's

responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-570 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-570  Safety zone; Bullhead City Regatta; Bullhead City,
AZ.

    (a) Location. This temporary safety zone includes the waters of the
Colorado River between Davis Camp and Rotary Park in Bullhead City, AZ.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 6 a.m.
to 6 p.m. on August 10, 2013. Before the effective period, the Coast
Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners. If the event concludes
prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will
cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) Mariners can request permission to transit through the safety
zone from the Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander can be contacted
on VHF-FM channels 16 and 23.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: June 9, 2013.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2013-17604 Filed 7-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47914-47916]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15669]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2023-0013]

Element Materials Technology Portland--Evergreen Inc.:
Application for Recognition

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Element
Materials Technology Portland--Evergreen, Inc. (EMT), for recognition
as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the
agency's preliminary finding to grant this recognition.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before August 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted as follows:
    Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2023-0013). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting information they do not want made available to the public,
or submitting materials that contain personal information (either about
themselves or others), such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket
(including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through the
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before August 24, 2023 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

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

II. Notice of the Application for Recognition

    OSHA is providing notice that Element Materials Technology
Portland--Evergreen Inc., (EMT) is applying for recognition as a NRTL.
According to public information (see https://www.element.com/about-element/) EMT states that it is an internationally accredited testing
laboratory. In its application, EMT lists the current address of its
headquarters as: Element Materials Technology Portland--Evergreen Inc.,
41 Tesla, Irvine, California 92618. OSHA has determined preliminarily
that EMT has the capability to perform as a NRTL as outlined in 29 CFR
1910.7.
    Each NRTL's scope of recognition has two elements: (1) the type(s)
of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that have the
technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for the applicable test standards within the
NRTL's scope of recognition. EMT applied on June 26, 2020, for three
recognized sites and thirteen recognized test standards (OSHA-2023-
0013-0001). This application was amended on June 28, 2022, to remove
two of the three sites and seven of the thirteen standards requested in
the original application (OSHA-2023-0013-0002). The following sections
set forth the requested scope of recognition included in EMT's
application that OSHA has considered.

A. Standards Requested for Recognition

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

  Table 1--Proposed List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in
                     EMT's NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI/AAMI ES60601-1.........  Medical Electrical Equipment--Part 1:
                               General Requirements for Basic Safety and
                               Essential Performance.
UL 61010-1..................  Electrical Equipment for Measurement,
                               Control and Laboratory Use; Part 1:
                               General Requirements.
UL 61010-2-010..............  Electrical Equipment for Measurement,
                               Control and Laboratory Use--Part 2-010:
                               Particular Requirements for Laboratory
                               Equipment for the Heating of Materials.
UL 61010-2-081..............  Standard for Safety Requirements for
                               Electrical Equipment for Measurement,
                               Control, and Laboratory Use--Part 2-081:
                               Particular Requirements for Automatic and
                               Semi-Automatic Laboratory Equipment for
                               Analysis and Other Purposes.
UL 61010-2-101..............  Safety Requirements for Electrical
                               Equipment for Measurement, Control and
                               Laboratory Use--Part 2-101: Particular
                               Requirements for In Vitro Diagnostic
                               (IVD) Medical Equipment.
UL 62368-1..................  Audio/Video, Information and Communication
                               Technology Equipment--Part 1: Safety
                               Requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Site Requested for Recognition

    The current address of the EMT site included in its application for
recognition as a NRTL is:
    Element Materials Technology Portland--Evergreen, Inc., 41 Tesla,
Irvine, California 92618.
    The NRTL Program requires that to be a recognized site, the site
listed above must have the capability to conduct product testing in
accordance with the appropriate test standard for the equipment or
material being testing and certified.

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

    OSHA's NRTL Program recognition process involves a thorough
analysis of a NRTL applicant's policies and procedures, and a
comprehensive on-site review of the applicant's testing and
certification activities to ensure that the applicant meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis
of EMT's application packet and reviewed other pertinent information.
OSHA staff also performed a comprehensive on-site assessment of EMT's
testing facility, at EMT Irvine, California on January 18-19, 2023. An
overview of OSHA's assessment of the four requirements for recognition
(i.e., capability, control procedures, independence, and credible
reports and complaint handling) is provided below.

A. Capability

    Section 1910.7(b)(1) states that, for each specified item of
equipment or material to be listed, labeled, or accepted, the NRTL must
have the capability (including proper testing equipment and facilities,
trained staff, written testing procedures, and calibration and quality-
control programs) to perform appropriate testing. OSHA staff performed
a detailed analysis of EMT's application packet and reviewed other
pertinent information to assess its capabilities to perform testing and
certification activities. OSHA preliminarily determined that EMT has
demonstrated these capabilities through the following:
     EMT's facility has adequate test areas, energy sources,
and procedures for controlling incompatible activities.
     EMT provided a detailed list of its testing equipment.
Review of the application shows that the equipment listed is available
and adequate for the standards for which it seeks recognition.
     EMT has detailed procedures for conducting testing,
review, and evaluation, and for capturing the test and other data
required by the test standards for which it seeks recognition.
     EMT has detailed procedures addressing the maintenance and
calibration of equipment, and the types of records maintained for, or
supporting laboratory activities.
     EMT has sufficient qualified personnel to perform the
proposed scope of testing based on their education, training, technical
knowledge, and experience.
     EMT has an adequate quality-control system in place to
conduct internal audits, as well as track and resolve nonconformances.
    OSHA's on-site assessment of EMT's facility confirmed the
capabilities described in its application packet. The assessors found
some nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. EMT
addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL
requirements.

B. Control Procedures

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

C. Independence

    Section 1910.7(b)(3) requires that the NRTL be completely
independent of employers that are subject to the testing requirements,
and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials tested
under the NRTL Program. The revised NRTL Program Policies, Procedures
and Guidelines Directive, CPL-01-00-004, allows NRTLs to comply with
the requirement in the NRTL Program regulation that NRTLs be
``completely independent of employers subject to the tested equipment
requirements, and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or
materials being tested for these purposes'' (29 CFR 1910.7(b)(3)) by
meeting the minimum performance standards of Annex B of the NRTL
Program Directive, CPL-01-00-004, with respect to impartiality. The
revised policy focuses on the NRTL's ability to effectively identify,
eliminate and control any risk to its impartiality.
    This policy provides for the NRTL to identify risks to impartiality
on an ongoing basis and when risks to impartiality are identified, and
for the

NRTL to demonstrate how it eliminates or minimizes such risks. OSHA
staff performed a detailed analysis of EMT's application packet and
reviewed other pertinent information to assess its independence. OSHA
preliminarily determined that EMT has demonstrated independence through
the following:
     EMT is a privately-owned organization, and OSHA found no
information regarding ownership that would qualify as a conflict under
OSHA's independence policy.
     EMT showed that it has none of the relationships described
in OSHA's independence policy or any other relationship that could
subject it to undue influence when testing for product safety.
     EMT has policies and procedures in place to identify risks
to impartiality and when risks to impartiality are found, EMT has
policies and procedures to eliminate or minimize such risks.

D. Credible Reports and Complaint Handling

    Section 1910.7(b)(4) specifies that a NRTL must maintain effective
procedures for producing credible findings and reports that are
objective and free of bias. The NRTL must also have procedures for
handling complaints and disputes under a fair and reasonable system.
OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of EMT's application packet
and reviewed other pertinent information to assess its ability to
produce credible results and handle complaints. OSHA preliminarily
determined that EMT has demonstrated these capabilities through the
following:
     EMT has detailed procedures describing the content of test
reports, and other detailed procedures describing the preparation and
approval of these reports.
     EMT has procedures for recording, analyzing, and
processing complaints from users, manufacturers, and other parties in a
fair manner.
    OSHA's on-site assessments of EMT's facilities confirmed the
capabilities described in its application packet. The assessors found
some nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. EMT
addressed these issues sufficiently to meet the applicable NRTL
requirements.
    OSHA's review of the application file and pertinent documentation,
as well as the results of the on-site assessments, indicate that EMT
can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition
as a NRTL for its site located in Irvine, California.
    OSHA's preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or
temporary approval of EMT's application.

IV. Public Participation

    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether EMT meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition as a NRTL. Comments
should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
    Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in
writing, stating the reasons for the request, for an extension by the
due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless
the requester justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request
for an extension if it is not adequately justified.
    To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well
as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, U.S.
Department of Labor. These materials also are generally available
online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2023-0013
(for further information, see the ``Docket'' heading in the section of
this notice titles ADDRESSES).
    OSHA staff will review all comments submitted to the docket in a
timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these
comments, will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health regarding EMT's application for
recognition as a NRTL. The Assistant Secretary will make the final
decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the
Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in
Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
Federal Register.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393,
September 18, 2020) and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 19, 2023.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-15669 Filed 7-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 59775]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24908]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9023-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 09/14/2015 Through 09/18/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20150275, Final, USA, VA, Fort Belvoir Short-Term Projects and
Real Property Master Plan Update, Review Period Ends: 11/02/2015,
Contact: Felix M. Mariani<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20150276, Final Supplement, NRCS, MS, Long Beach Watershed,
Review Period Ends: 11/09/2015, Contact: Kurt Readus<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20150277, Draft, USFS, WA, LeClerc Creek Grazing Allotment
Management Planning, Comment Period Ends: 11/16/2015, Contact: Gayne
Sears<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20150278, Second Draft, USACE, GA, Update of the Water Control
Manual for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin in Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia and Water Supply Storage Assessment, Comment
Period Ends: 11/16/2015, Contact: Lewis C. Sumner<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20150279, Draft, FTA, CA, Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit
Project, Comment Period Ends: 11/16/2015, Contact: Alex Smith 415-744-
2599
EIS No. 20150280, Final, FTA, WA, Link Light Rail Operations and
Maintenance Facility, Review Period Ends: 11/02/2015, Contact: James
Saxton<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20150281, Final, USN, WA, Northwest Training and Testing,
Review Period Ends: 11/02/2015, Contact: John Mosher<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20150282, Final, USACE, CA, Los Angeles River Ecosystem
Restoration, Review Period Ends: 11/02/2015, Contact: Eileen Takata
213-300-5712

    Dated: September 28, 2015.
Karin Leff,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-24908 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58294-58298]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0108; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-049-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 767 airplanes. The NPRM
proposed to supersede AD 2003-13-01, which currently requires an
inspection to detect cracks and fractures of the outboard hinge fitting
assemblies on the trailing edge of the inboard main flap, and follow-on
and corrective actions if necessary. For certain airplanes, AD 2003-13-
01 also requires inspecting to determine if a tool runout option has
been performed in the area. The NPRM proposed to reduce a certain
compliance time and adds airplanes to the applicability. The NPRM also
provided optional terminating action for certain inspections. The NPRM
was prompted by reports of hinge assembly fractures found before
certain required compliance times in AD 2003-13-01. This action revises
the NPRM by reducing repetitive inspection intervals for certain
airplanes and limiting the inspection area. We are proposing this
supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to prevent the inboard aft flap from
separating from the wing and potentially striking the airplane, which
could result in damage to the surrounding structure and potential
personal injury. Since these actions impose an additional burden over
that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow
the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this SNPRM by November 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-
0108; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Berhane Alazar, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0108;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-049-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on February 9, 2012 (77 FR 6685). The NPRM proposed to
supersede AD 2003-13-01, Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR 37402, June 24,
2003). The NPRM proposed to continue to require an inspection to detect
cracks and fractures of the outboard hinge fitting assemblies on the
trailing edge of the inboard main flap, and follow-on and corrective
actions if necessary; and, for certain airplanes, a one-time inspection
to determine if a tool runout option has been performed in the area.
The NPRM also reduced compliance times on certain airplanes (Model 767-
400ER series airplanes), revised the applicability, and added an
optional terminating action.

Actions Since Previous NPRM (77 FR 6685, February 9, 2012) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (77 FR 6685, February 9, 2012), we have
received reports of hinge assembly fractures found before the current
inspection interval on Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM (77 FR
6685, February 9, 2012). The following presents the comments received
on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM (77 FR 6685, February 9, 2012)

    An anonymous commenter supported the NPRM (77 FR 6685, February 9,
2012).

Request To Revise Applicability

    American Airlines requested that we revise the applicability of the
NPRM (77 FR 6685, February 9, 2012) to identify specific flap serial
numbers instead of airplane line numbers. The commenter stated that a
flap removed from the hinge assembly could then be installed on a
different airplane.
    We partially agree. We agree that the subject flaps are rotable
parts that may be removed and reinstalled on different

airplanes after compliance with the AD. We have therefore added new
paragraph (q) in this SNPRM (and redesignated subsequent paragraphs) to
prohibit installation of an inboard main flap unless it has been
inspected and repaired in accordance with the requirements of this
SNPRM. But we do not agree to change the applicability as requested
because this AD action applies to the airplane, not a component.
    Since the flight cycles on the flaps may not be tracked by some
operators, we mandated a compliance time tied to the total flight
cycles of the airplane. Operators may request approval of an
alternative compliance time, however, if the actual accumulated flight
cycles on reinstalled flaps are known.

Request To Specify Additional Airplanes Subject to Repetitive
Inspection Requirement

    Boeing noted that paragraph (n) of the NPRM (77 FR 6685, February
9, 2012) specifies repetitive detailed and/or eddy current inspections
for Model 767-400ER series airplanes. Boeing requested that we revise
paragraph (n) of the NPRM to add the following revised service
information: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 3,
dated April 4, 2012 (for Models 767-200, -300, and -300F airplanes);
and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 2, dated March
23, 2012 (for Model 767-400ER series airplanes). Boeing noted that this
revised service information improves crack detection by clarifying the
HFEC inspection area, based on a recent finding of a crack located
along the edge of the inspection area on a Model 767-300 series
airplane. We infer that Boeing wants us to revise paragraph (n) of the
NPRM to add Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes.
    In addition, paragraph (o) of the NPRM (77 FR 6685, February 9,
2012) specifies a new optional terminating action. Boeing requested
that we revise that paragraph to include terminating action for Model
767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes (in addition to Model 767-
400ER series airplanes), and to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletins
767-57A0076, Revision 3, dated April 4, 2012; and 767-57A0079, Revision
2, dated March 23, 2012.
    Further, Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (p) of the NPRM
(77 FR 6685, February 9, 2012) to provide credit for previous actions
done using Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 2, dated
November 22, 2006; and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 1,
dated May 6, 2010.
    We agree with the requests, for the reasons provided by the
commenter. We have revised paragraphs (n) and (o) in this SNPRM to add
the referenced airplanes and service information. For information on
the procedures and compliance times, see Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767-57A0076, Revision 3, dated April 4, 2012; and 767-57A0079, Revision
2, dated March 23, 2012; at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-0108.
    We also have revised paragraph (p) of this SNPRM to provide credit
for Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 2, dated November 22,
2006; and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 1, dated May 6,
2010. We have determined that accomplishment of the actions specified
in this revised service information before the effective date of the AD
would provide an adequate level of safety.

Request for Approval of AMOCs

    Boeing, American Airlines, and UPS requested that AMOCs previously
approved for paragraph (i) of AD 2003-13-01, Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR
37402, June 24, 2003), be considered acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of the NPRM (77 FR 6685,
February 9, 2012).
    We agree. We have determined that the referenced AMOCs would
provide an adequate level of safety. We have included this provision in
new paragraph (r)(4) of this SNPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this SNPRM because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM (77 FR
6685, February 9, 2012). As a result, we have determined that it is
necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional
opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.

Proposed Requirements of This SNPRM

    This SNPRM would require accomplishing the actions specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 3, dated April 4,
2012; and 767-57A0079, Revision 2, dated March 23, 2012.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 440 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Parts                               Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost         cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained detailed inspections.....  10 work-hours x $85         $0  $850 per inspection    $374,000 per
                                     per hour = $850 per             cycle.                 inspection cycle.
                                     inspection cycle.
Retained detailed and eddy current  13 work-hours x $85         $0  $1,105 per inspection  $486,200 per
 inspections.                        per hour = $1,105               cycle.                 inspection cycle.
                                     per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..................................  32 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $45,400          $48,120
                                                $2,720.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2012-0108; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-049-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 13, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2003-13-01, Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR 37402,
June 24, 2003).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in
any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes, as
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 3, dated
April 4, 2012.
    (2) Model 767-400ER series airplanes, as specified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 2, dated March 23,
2012.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of hinge assembly fractures
found before certain required compliance times on certain airplanes
subject to AD 2003-13-01, Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR 37402, June 24,
2003). We are issuing this AD to prevent the inboard aft flap from
separating from the wing and potentially striking the airplane,
which could result in damage to the surrounding structure and
potential personal injury.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Retained Inspection

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD
2003-13-01, Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR 37402, June 24, 2003), with
revised service information. Perform either a detailed inspection,
or a detailed inspection plus an eddy current inspection, of the
outboard hinge fitting assemblies on the trailing edge of the
inboard main flap to detect cracks and fractures and evidence of a
tool runout option, as applicable. For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is defined as an intensive visual examination of
a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to
detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is
normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at
intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such
as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning
and elaborate access procedures may be required.
    (1) For Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 1, dated
March 29, 2001: Inspect before the airplane accumulates 2,700 total
flight cycles, or within 90 days after July 29, 2003 (the effective
date of AD 2003-13-01, Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR 37402, June 24,
2003)), whichever occurs later, in accordance with Boeing Service
Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 1, dated March 29, 2001; or Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 3, dated April 4, 2012. As of
the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
57A0076, Revision 3, dated April 4, 2012, may be used for the
inspection.
    (2) For Model 767-400ER series airplanes identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, dated June 20, 2002: Inspect
before the airplane accumulates 12,000 total flight cycles, except
as required by paragraph (m) of this AD, in accordance with Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, dated June 20, 2002; or Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 1, dated May 6, 2010;
or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 2, dated
March 23, 2012. As of the effective date of this AD, only Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 2, dated March 23,
2012, may be used for the inspection.

(h) Retained Follow-On/Corrective Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD
2003-13-01, Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR 37402, June 24, 2003), with
revised service information. Following the initial inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, perform applicable follow-on
and corrective actions at the times specified in Figure 1 of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 1, dated March 29, 2001 (for
Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes); or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, dated June 20, 2002 (for Model 767-
400ER series airplanes); until the initial inspection required by
paragraph (n) of this AD is accomplished and repeat thereafter at
the applicable times specified in paragraph (n) of this AD. Do the
follow-on and corrective actions (including repetitive inspections
and replacement of the fittings with new fittings) in accordance
with Part 1 or Part 2 of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0076,
Revision 1, dated March 29, 2001; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
57A0076, Revision 3, dated April 4, 2012 (for Model 767-200, -300,
and -300F series airplanes); or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
57A0079, dated June 20, 2002, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
57A0079, Revision 2, dated March 23, 2012 (for Model 767-400ER
series airplanes); except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this
AD. For Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes: If the
fitting has the tool runout, and no cracking or fracture is found
during the inspection, this AD requires no further action for that
hinge fitting. As of the effective date of this AD, for the actions
required by this paragraph, only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
57A0079, Revision 2, dated March 23, 2012, may be used for Model
767-400ER series airplanes; and only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767-57A0076,

Revision 3, dated April 4, 2012, may be used for Model 767-200, -
300, and -300F airplanes.

(i) Retained Exceptions to Service Bulletin Procedures

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (c) of AD
2003-13-01, Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR 37402, June 24, 2003). The
following exceptions specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of
this AD apply.
    (1) Where the terminating action in Part 3 of Boeing Service
Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 1, dated March 29, 2001; and Revision
3, dated April 4, 2012; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
57A0079, dated June 20, 2002; Revision 1, dated May 6, 2010; and
Revision 2, dated March 23, 2012; as applicable; is specified as
corrective action, this AD requires that the terminating action, if
required, be accomplished before further flight.
    (2) Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 1, dated March
29, 2001; and Revision 3, dated April 4, 2012; specify to contact
Boeing before the terminating action is done as corrective action
for any cracking or fracture found on a Model 767-200, -300, or -
300F series airplane with the tool runout. However, this AD requires
that any such crack or fracture on those airplanes be repaired in
accordance with Part 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0076,
Revision 1, dated March 29, 2001; or Revision 3, dated April 4,
2012. This AD does not require a report.

(j) Retained Optional Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (f) of AD
2003-13-01, Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR 37402, June 24, 2003), with
revised service information. Unless required to do so by paragraph
(h) of this AD, operators may choose to accomplish the terminating
action (including replacement of the fittings with new fittings, and
reinstallation of existing upper skin access panels and fairing
midsections on the trailing edge of the main flap) in accordance
with Part 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
57A0076, Revision 1, dated March 29, 2001; or Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-57A0079, dated June 20, 2002; as applicable; or do the
terminating actions specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. As of the
effective date of this AD, use only the terminating action specified
in paragraph (o) of this AD. Accomplishment of the terminating
action terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of
paragraph (h) of this AD.

(k) Parts Installation Limitations

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on
any airplane identified in paragraph (c) of this AD, a hinge fitting
assembly that has P/N 113T2271-13, 113T2271-14, 113T2271-23,
113T2271-24, 113T2271-29, 113T2271-30, 113T2271-33, 113T2271-34,
113T2271-401, or 113T2271-402, unless the applicable requirements of
this AD have been accomplished for that fitting.

(l) Retained Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph restates the provisions of paragraph (g) of AD
2003-13-01, Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR 37402, June 24, 2003), with
revised service information. Actions done before July 29, 2003 (the
effective date of AD 2003-13-01), in accordance with Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, dated October 26, 2000, are acceptable
for compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs
(g)(1), (h), and (j) of this AD. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
57A0076, dated October 26, 2000 is not incorporated by reference in
this AD.

(m) New Initial Inspection

    For Model 767-400ER airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 2, dated March 23, 2012, on which the
inspection required in paragraph (g) of this AD has not been done as
of the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 6,000
total flight cycles, or within 750 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, perform either a detailed
inspection or a detailed inspection plus an eddy current inspection
to detect cracks or fractures of the outboard hinge fitting
assemblies on the trailing edge of the inboard main flap, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 2, dated March 23, 2012
Accomplishment of this inspection terminates the inspection
requirement of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD. If any cracking or
fracture is found, before further flight, replace the fittings in
accordance with Part 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 2, dated March 23, 2012.

(n) New Repetitive Inspections

    Repeat either inspection specified in paragraph (h) or (m) of
this AD, as applicable, at intervals not to exceed the time
specified in paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD, as applicable,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 3, dated April 4, 2012 (for
Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes); or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 2, dated March 23, 2012 (for
Model 767-400ER series airplanes); until the actions specified in
paragraph (o) of this AD are done.
    (1) If the most recent inspection was a detailed inspection: Do
the next inspection within 300 flight cycles after doing the
detailed inspection, and continue to repeat the inspection(s)
thereafter at the time specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (2) If the most recent inspections were a detailed inspection
and an eddy current inspection: Do the next inspections at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (n)(2)(i) or (n)(2)(ii) of
this AD, and continue to repeat the inspection(s) thereafter at the
time specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (i) For Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes: Do the
next inspection at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(n)(2)(i)(A) or (n)(2)(i)(B) of this AD.
    (A) If the detailed inspection and eddy current inspection were
done before the effective date of this AD: Do the next inspection
within 1,500 flight cycles after doing the detailed and eddy current
inspections.
    (B) If the detailed inspection and eddy current inspection were
done on or after the effective date of this AD: Do the next
inspection within 750 flight cycles after doing the detailed and
eddy current inspection.
    (ii) For Model 767-400ER series airplanes: Do the next
inspection within 750 flight cycles after doing the detailed
inspection and eddy current inspection.

(o) New Optional Terminating Action

    Replacement of the fittings in accordance with Part 3 of the
Work Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0079,
Revision 2, dated March 23, 2012 (for Model 767-400ER series
airplanes); or Part 3 of the Work Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 3, dated April 4, 2012 (for
Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes); terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (h) and (n) of this
AD.

(p) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the service information identified in paragraph
(p)(1)(i) or (p)(1)(ii) of this AD are acceptable for compliance
with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (h), (n), and (o)
of this AD.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 1, dated
March 29, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in AD 2003-13-01,
Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR 37402, June 24, 2003); or Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 2, dated November 22, 2006,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, dated June 20,
2002, which is incorporated by reference in AD 2003-13-01, Amendment
39-13201 (68 FR 37402, June 24, 2003); and Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 1, dated May 6, 2010, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the service information identified in paragraph
(p)(2)(i) or (p)(2)(ii) of this AD are acceptable for compliance
with the corresponding requirements of paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0076, Revision 2, dated
November 22, 2006, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0079, Revision 1,
dated May 6, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.

(q) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
inboard main flap on any airplane, unless the flap has been
inspected and all applicable corrective actions have been performed
in accordance with the requirements of this AD.

(r) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (s)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2003-13-01,
Amendment 39-13201 (68 FR 37402, June 24, 2003), are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i) of this AD.

(s) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Berhane Alazar,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 19, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23138 Filed 9-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Wyeth’s response to Section 114 letter regarding CFC stocks owned.

Confidential Business Information located at EPA headquarters 1310 L St NW.