[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55505-55506]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21937]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0025]

Underwriters Laboratories Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for Underwriters Laboratories Inc., as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA
announces its final decision to incorporate two new test standards into
the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards.

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
September 16, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. David Johnson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202) 693-2110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's Web page
includes information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), as an NRTL. UL's
expansion covers the addition of 21 test standards to its scope of
recognition.
    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require
testing and certification of the products.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page
for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages are
available from the Agency's Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    UL submitted an application, dated March 26, 2013 (OSHA-2009-0025-
0008), to expand its recognition to include multiple additional test
standards. OSHA staff performed a comparability analysis and reviewed
other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews
in relation to this application.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing UL's expansion
application in the Federal Register on April 14, 2014 (79 FR 20920).
The Agency requested comments by April 29, 2014, and received one
comment (OSHA-2009-0025-0010) in response to this notice addressing
UL's scope of recognition expansion request. OSHA received no comments
on its proposal to add UL 66 and UL 8750 to the NRTL Program's list of
appropriate test standards.
    To obtain or review copies of the publicly available information in
UL's application, including pertinent documents (e.g., exhibits) and
all submitted comments, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210. These materials also are
available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-
2009-0025.
    The sole commenter (OSHA-2009-0025-0010) asserts that UL charges
different prices for the testing of identical products based solely on
an applicant's location and, consequently, is not in compliance with
ISO/IEC Guide 65, Clause 4.4 addressing non-discrimination.\1\ The
comment, however, does not provide any detail that demonstrates that
the referenced products were ``exactly the same,'' nor was there any
information regarding other factors that may have contributed to the
difference in price. While OSHA believes that competition among the
NRTLs helps to control costs for testing and certification services,
there are many factors that affect the price for NRTL certification,
including the volume of products submitted for certification by a
particular applicant (volume discounts), the location and cost of
factory surveillance, and the use of certified components in the
product, to name a few. Any of these, or other, factors could provide
legitimate justification for differences in price for similar or
``exactly the same'' products submitted for certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While the commenter references ISO/IEC Guide 65, Clause
4.4.1, OSHA believes that the correct reference is ISO/IEC Guide 65,
Clause 4.1.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment further asserts that UL is ``using its monopoly status
on components certification'' to charge manufacturers higher fees. OSHA
regulations require certain types of products used in the workplace to
be ``acceptable'' to OSHA. For most products, the NRTL must test and
certify the product to the appropriate test standard. The NRTL
Program's product-approval requirements apply only to end products. The
NRTL Program requirements do not include the certification of
components. While some NRTLs, including UL, developed a component-
certification program to simplify the process of testing and certifying
an end product, component certifications are not part of the NRTL
Program. With 15 organizations recognized as NRTLs, manufacturers are

free to choose an NRTL with an appropriate scope of recognition that
best suits their business needs.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff conducted a careful review and analysis of assertions
made in the comment received regarding UL's request to expand its scope
of recognition. OSHA determined that the assertions in the comment are
unsupported and without merit. OSHA staff also examined UL's expansion
application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test
standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this
evidence, OSHA finds that UL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7
for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and
conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final
notice to grant expansion of UL's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the
expansion of UL's recognition to testing and certification of products
for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table
1 below.

 Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in UL's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI/UL 2208.........................  Solvent Distillation Units.
IEEE C37.20.7........................  IEEE Guide for Testing
                                        Metal[hyphen]Enclosed Switchgear
                                        Rated Up to 38 kV for Internal
                                        Arcing Faults.
ANSI/UL 8750.........................  Light Emitting Diode (LED)
                                        Equipment for Use in Lighting
                                        Products.
ANSI/UL 448B.........................  Residential Fire Pumps Intended
                                        for One[hyphen] and
                                        Two[hyphen]Family Dwellings and
                                        Manufactured Homes.
ANSI/UL 448C.........................  Stationary, Rotary[hyphen]Type,
                                        Positive[hyphen]Displacement
                                        Pumps for Fire Protection
                                        Service.
ANSI/UL 62368-1......................  Audio/Video, Information and
                                        Communication Technology
                                        Equipment--Part 1: Safety
                                        Requirements.
ANSI/UL 50E..........................  Enclosures for Electrical
                                        Equipment, Environmental
                                        Considerations.
ANSI/UL 61800-5-1....................  Adjustable Speed Electrical Power
                                        Drive Systems--Part 5-1: Safety
                                        Requirements--Electrical,
                                        Thermal and Energy.
ANSI/UL 66...........................  Fixture Wire.
ANSI/UL 2239.........................  Hardware for the Support of
                                        Conduit, Tubing, and Cable.
ANSI/UL 62275........................  Cable Management Systems--Cable
                                        Ties for Electrical
                                        Installations.
ANSI/UL 60335-2-40...................  Household and Similar Electrical
                                        Appliances, Part 2: Particular
                                        Requirements for Electrical Heat
                                        Pumps, Air[hyphen]Conditioners
                                        and Dehumidifiers.
ANSI/UL 2560.........................  Emergency Call Systems for
                                        Assisted Living and Independent
                                        Living Facilities.
ANSI/UL 2572.........................  Mass Notification Systems.
ANSI/UL 2577.........................  Suspended Ceiling Grid Low
                                        Voltage Systems and Equipment.
ANSI/UL 8752.........................  Organic Light Emitting Diode
                                        (OLED) Panels.
ANSI/UL 60745-2-13...................  Hand[hyphen]Held
                                        Motor[hyphen]Operated Electric
                                        Tools--Safety--Part 2-13:
                                        Particular Requirements For
                                        Chain Saws.
ANSI/UL 60745-2-15...................  Hand[hyphen]Held
                                        Motor[hyphen]Operated Electric
                                        Tools--Safety--Part 2-15:
                                        Particular Requirements for
                                        Hedge Trimmers.
ANSI/UL 2586.........................  Hose Nozzle Valves.
ANSI/UL 2238.........................  Cable Assemblies and Fittings for
                                        Industrial Control and Signal
                                        Distribution.
UL 6142..............................  Small Wind Turbine Systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the
test standards listed above as American National Standards. However,
for convenience, OSHA may use the designation of the standards-
developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI
designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL
1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular
test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test
standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to
determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
UL must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. UL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. UL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. UL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on UL's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of UL, subject to the limitation and conditions
specified above. OSHA also is making a final determination that the UL
66 and UL 8750 test standards are appropriate test standards, and,
therefore, is adding these test standards to the NRTL Program's list of
appropriate test standards.

III. Authority and Signature

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

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 10, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-21937 Filed 9-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


 [Federal Register: August 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 166)] [ Proposed Rules]                [Page 50258-50259] [DOCID:fr26au08-19]

=======================================================================

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

  Proposed Modification of the Dallas/Fort Worth, TX Class B

Airspace Area; Public Meetings

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces four fact-finding informal airspace

meetings to solicit information from airspace users and others

concerning a proposal to revise the Class B airspace area at Dallas/

Fort Worth, TX. The purpose of these meetings is to provide interested

parties an opportunity to present views, recommendations, and comments

on the proposal. All comments received during these meetings will be

considered prior to any revision or issuance of a notice of proposed

rulemaking.

DATES: The informal airspace meetings will be held on Monday, November

3, 2008, at 5 p.m., Thursday, November 6, 2008, at 5 p.m., Thursday,

November 13, 2008, at 5 p.m., and Tuesday, November 18, 2008, at 5 p.m.

Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2008.

ADDRESSES: (1) The meeting on Monday, November 3, 2008, will be held at

Lancaster Recreation Center, 1700 Veterans Memorial Parkway, Lancaster,

TX 75134. (2) The meeting on Thursday, November 6, 2008, will be held

at Cavanaugh Flight Museum, 4572 Claire Chennault Drive, Addison, TX

75001. (3) The meeting on Thursday, November 13, 2008, will be held at

5000 Airport Road, Denton, TX 76205-0207. (4) The meeting on Tuesday,

November 18, 2008, will be held at Mesquite Airport Terminal Building,

1340 Airport Boulevard, Mesquite, TX 75181.

    Comments: Send comments on the proposal to: Don Smith, Manager,

Operations Support Group, Air Traffic Organization Central Service

Area, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort

Worth, TX 76137, or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Beck, DFW ATCT/TRACON, Dallas/

Fort Worth International Airport, 2401 International Parkway, Dallas/

Fort Worth Airport, TX 75261; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (a) The meetings will be informal in nature

and will be conducted by one or more representatives of the FAA Central

Service Center. A representative from the FAA will present a formal

briefing on the planned modification to the Class B airspace at Dallas/

Fort Worth, TX. Each participant will be given an opportunity to

deliver comments or make a presentation. Only comments concerning the

plan to modify the Class B airspace area at Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, will

be accepted.

    (b) The meetings will be open to all persons on a space-available

basis. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend and

participate.

    (c) Any person wishing to make a presentation to the FAA panel will

be

asked to sign in and estimate the amount of time needed for such

presentation. This will permit the panel to allocate an appropriate

amount of time for each presenter. These meetings will not be adjourned

until everyone on the list has had an opportunity to address the panel.

    (d) Position papers or other handout material relating to the

substance of these meetings will be accepted. Participants wishing to

submit handout material should present an original and two copies (3

copies total) to the presiding officer. There should be additional

copies of each handout available for other attendees.

    (e) These meetings will not be formally recorded.

Agenda for the Meetings

--Sign-in.

--Presentation of Meeting Procedures.

--FAA explanation of the planned Class B modifications.

--Solicitation of Public Comments.

--Closing Comments.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24

FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2008.

Edith V. Parish,

Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.

[FR Doc. E8-19275 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49563-49566]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2017-0894]
RIN 1625-ZA37

Update to the 2016 National Preparedness for Response Exercise
Program (PREP) Guidelines

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability of the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the final 2016.1
National Preparedness for Response Exercise Program (PREP) Guidelines.
The Coast Guard publishes this notice on behalf of the Preparedness for
Response Exercise Program Compliance, Coordination, and Consistency
Committee (PREP 4C). The PREP 4C includes representatives from the
Coast Guard under the Department of Homeland Security, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration under the Department of Transportation, and the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement under the Department of
the Interior.

DATES: The 2016.1 PREP Guidelines are effective on October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, as well as documents
mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type ``USCG-2017-0894'' and click ``Search.''
Then click the ``Open Docket Folder.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the 2016.1 PREP
Guidelines, call Mr. Jonathan Smith, Office of Marine Environmental
Response Policy, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Mr. Troy
Swackhammer, Office of Emergency Management, Regulations Implementation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Mr.
John Caplis, Oil Spill Preparedness Division, Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; and Mr. Eddie
Murphy, Office of Pipeline Safety, Department of Transportation,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abbreviations

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
HSEEP Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program
IMT Incident Management Team
MSEL Master Scenario Event List
PREP Preparedness for Response Exercise Program
PREP 4C PREP Compliance, Coordination, and Consistency Committee
QI Qualified Individual
RAC Remote Assessment and Consultation
SMFF Salvage and Marine Firefighting
TTX Tabletop exercise

II. Background

    On December 22, 2017, the Coast Guard, on behalf of the
Preparedness for Response Exercise Program Compliance, Coordination,
and Consistency Committee (PREP 4C), published for public comment a
draft update to the 2016 PREP Guidelines in the Federal Register (82 FR
60693). We referred to the draft update as the ``2016.1 PREP
Guidelines.'' On February 26, 2018, the Coast Guard published for
public comment (83 FR 8290) an economic analysis of the potential
deregulatory savings that may result from the draft update. During the
2 public comment periods, we received 11 comments. One commenter
submitted an identical comment three times. Therefore, the docket
reflects 13 submissions. All comments are posted on http://www.regulations.gov under docket number USCG-2017-0894. Below are our
responses to the public comments and a discussion of the changes made
as a result of the public comments.

III. Summary of Comments and Changes

    Of the 11 comment submissions received over the 2 comment periods,
9 addressed the proposed reduction to the Remote Assessment and
Consultation (RAC) drill frequency. Four of these submissions were
generally

unsupportive of the proposed reduction to the RAC drill frequency,
while five were generally supportive. None of the comments regarding
the frequency of RAC drills were submitted by plan holders. With the
exception of one, all comments in support of reducing the frequency of
RAC drills were from salvage providers. One salvage provider opposed
reducing the frequency of RAC drills. The other commenters who opposed
reducing the frequency of RAC drills were from individual citizens and
citizens' advisory councils who felt that reducing RAC drill frequency
from one drill per year to once every 3 years is inadequate for
purposes of ensuring the salvage providers fully recognize the scope of
area for which they are responsible to cover. Three comment submissions
addressed concerns regarding the language for Incident Management Team
(IMT) exercises for offshore facilities regulated by the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), which include (1) the
members of an IMT which must be exercised, (2) the involvement of
participating IMT members in the design phase of the exercise, (3) the
exercising of source control positions, and (4) the requirement that
IMT exercises must be a functional exercise rather than a tabletop
exercise for offshore facilities as outlined in section 6.2 and
appendix B of the PREP Guidelines. One comment submission addressed
concerns over response timelines for facilities regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in remote locations.

Coast Guard Response to Industry Comments

    One commenter noted the Coast Guard ``committed waste by conducting
a deregulatory savings analysis for guidelines that are voluntary to
regulated industry and for which, the Coast Guard did not identify any
costs or potential cost savings associated with the Federal
Government.'' The commenter also noted the annualized cost savings
analysis to the maritime industry is a benefit to private industry that
apparently outweighs the Coast Guard's own policy to ensure adequate
spill response planning and preparedness. Finally, the commenter noted,
``the potential costs and benefits were originally determined to be
found `not significant.' ''
    Response: As mentioned above, the Coast Guard conducted a
deregulatory savings analysis for the population affected by a
reduction in RAC drills, which are plan holders that would be required
to conduct RAC drills for vessels listed in their respective response
plans. As stated in our deregulatory savings analysis, we did not
identify any cost savings associated with the Federal Government. We
disagree with the commenter that the ``benefit to private industry
apparently outweighs the Coast Guard's own policy to ensure adequate
spill response planning and preparedness . . .'' First and foremost, we
do not believe plan holders' response preparedness will degrade by
reducing RAC drills. Our intent in reducing the frequency of RAC drills
is to establish adequate spill response planning and preparedness
without imposing an undue burden on plan holders. Finally, we are
unsure what the commenter is referring to when the commenter states,
``the potential costs and benefits [. . .] were originally determined
to be found not significant.'' The Coast Guard did not make a prior
statement regarding the significance or non-significance of the
potential costs and benefits in either the deregulatory savings
analysis or the notice of availability, in which we invited the public
to comment on the deregulatory savings analysis.
    Reduction of RAC drill frequency: As mentioned above, 9 of the 11
comment submissions concerned the proposed Coast Guard change that
reduced the RAC drill frequency from one annual RAC drill per vessel to
one triennial RAC drill per plan holder, noting that a single plan
holder may have responsibility over a fleet of vessels and not just one
vessel. The supportive comments cited the financial and administrative
burden of the current RAC drill frequency, and one commenter noted that
the proposed reduction in frequency is more reasonable and would not
degrade response preparedness. The opposing comments noted that the
reduction in RAC drills would diminish vessel master or crew
familiarity with Salvage and Marine Firefighting (SMFF) emergency
protocols, and would degrade overall preparedness. Additionally, the
unsupportive comments cited the importance of keeping RAC drills as
unique, vessel-centric drills that emphasize interaction between vessel
crew and salvage provider, versus plan holder-centric drills.
Additionally, commenters that opposed the reduction in RAC drills were
concerned that the proposed reduction in drill frequency would diminish
the SMFF provider's ability to accurately assess a condition that may
be compromising to the safety of a vessel and that, in turn, could
impair the effectiveness of a response.
    Response: The purpose of a required RAC drill is to exercise the
procedure for a RAC performed between the SMFF provider and the vessel
owner or operator. We expect these drills to be more than just
notifications and, instead, seek to encourage substantive interaction
between the vessel master and crew and the SMFF provider. The Coast
Guard believes the benefit of exercising one vessel in a plan will
extend to all vessels in the plan.
    Randomized selection of a vessel within a fleet for RAC drill
purposes: One commenter noted the need to add language specifying
random selection of a vessel within a fleet for purposes of performing
a RAC drill.
    Response: Under the final 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, the plan holder
has discretion for vessel selection. Nevertheless, this suggestion has
merit and we urge plan holders to conduct random selections when
determining which vessel, within a fleet of vessels, performs a RAC
drill. Moreover, the Coast Guard will consider adding a ``random
selection'' requirement in future revisions to the PREP Guidelines.
    Recordkeeping for RAC drills: One commenter noted some confusing
language in the guidelines regarding whether both the Qualified
Individual (QI) and the vessel are required to retain records.
    Response: Coast Guard regulations require the vessel owner to
maintain records for training and exercises. Pursuant to 33 CFR
155.1060(f), a vessel owner or operator must ensure that exercise
records are maintained and available to the Coast Guard for 3 years
following the completion of the exercise. Under existing PREP
guidelines, the vessel owner or operator must maintain RAC exercise
records for manned vessels in a minimum of two locations, on the vessel
and with one of the following: The U.S. location of the QI, the vessel
owner or operator, the IMT, or the SMFF provider. The Vessel Response
Plan must state the location of the records. This requirement remains
unchanged in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. Currently, PREP guidelines
require RAC exercise records for unmanned tank barges to be kept either
on board the barge or with the Vessel Response Plan for the barge. This
requirement remains unchanged in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines. However,
the Coast Guard may consider changing the required location of RAC
exercise records for both manned and unmanned vessels now that the
requirement applies to plan holders, and may include a fleet of vessels
covered by a plan. Until that time, we encourage plan holders to
maintain RAC exercise records on board each vessel on the plan. This
will assist the Coast Guard

when it verifies compliance with exercise requirements during vessel
inspections.

Environmental Protection Agency-Regulated Facilities Comments

    Alternative timelines for extreme situations: One commenter
suggested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allow regional
administrators to develop alternative timelines for ``extreme
situations'' when it is unfeasible to secure oil spill recovery
equipment on scene within response timelines specified in 40 CFR part
112 because of the geographic remoteness of some facilities.
    Response: The EPA's Facility Response Plan regulation in 40 CFR
part 112, subpart D, does not include a provision to request alternate
timeframes outlined in appendix E for responses to small, medium, and
worst-case discharge planning levels. However, the EPA encourages plan
holders to evaluate the specific response needs (both equipment and
personnel considerations) for their facilities, which may include
partnerships with companies operating in the same oil fields.

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement-Regulated Offshore
Facilities Comments

    Participation of the Incident Commander during an IMT exercise: One
commenter stated that the proposed change in section 6.2 of the
guidelines, which involves including the ``command and general staffs,
at a minimum,'' would require the participation by every member of the
IMT in each IMT exercise. The commenter recommended changing the
language to state that the ``incident command, as well as the command
and general staff, may be exercised with appropriate objectives during
an IMT exercise.''
    Response: BSEE agrees with the commenter that not all members of
the entire IMT must participate in each IMT exercise, but rather
participation by the command and general staff in any particular IMT
exercise should be driven by the objectives being tested. BSEE has
adjusted the language to clarify this point in section 6.2 of the
2016.1 PREP Guidelines. The primary purpose for adjusting the language
in section 6.2 is to clarify that the participating incident commander
is considered part of the IMT that is being exercised and, as such,
should not be given access to the script and Master Scenario Event List
(MSEL) prior to the start of the exercise.
    Including source control positions as exercise participants: One
commenter stated that some IMT exercises might have source control
objectives that are minimal in nature, such as only activating a source
control provider, and would not require further participation of source
control positions. This commenter suggested clarifying the language to
state that source control positions should participate in an IMT
exercise ``as appropriate.''
    Response: BSEE agrees that source control positions do not always
need to be exercised for every scenario that has a source control
component. The language in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines states that a
source control branch should be exercised when source control
objectives are a significant element of the scenario. BSEE believes the
existing language leads to the same outcome that the commenter wants,
and that the existing language provides greater clarity regarding the
agency's intent regarding this matter. As such, the existing language
will remain unchanged.
    Ensuring IMT exercise participants do not have prior knowledge of
the exercise scenario: Three commenters commented on this issue. The
first commenter stated that while there may be times when portions of
the exercise specifics may have to be divulged to certain IMT members
that will be playing in the exercise, those instances should be kept to
a minimum. This commenter also noted that having advance knowledge of
the scenario allows the players to develop tactics and strategies prior
to the exercise. However, the commenter felt that developing solutions
collaboratively between industry, government agencies, and other
stakeholders during exercises provides a more valuable overall learning
experience for participants.
    Response: BSEE agrees.
    The second commenter stated that the exercise scenario script is
typically general in nature and does not greatly affect how the
response is organized or conducted. The commenter also recommended
amending language in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines to refer to the MSEL
instead of the scenario script.
    Response: BSEE considers the MSEL to be a critical supporting
document to the exercise scenario script, and agrees with the commenter
that IMT members who participate in the exercise should not have prior
access to or knowledge of the MSEL. BSEE has amended the language in
section 6.2 of the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines to include a reference to the
MSEL in addition to the scenario script.
    The third commenter agreed that preventing IMT participants from
having prior access to the information on the exercise scenario results
in a better test of preparedness. However, this commenter requested
that BSEE clarify that these exercises test the overall preparedness of
the company, rather than evaluate each IMT member's performance.
    Response: BSEE believes that IMT exercises should test both the
overall preparedness of the company and the individual preparedness of
each member of the IMT, as appropriate, based on the exercise
objectives. The performance of IMT members during an exercise is an
important indicator of the plan holder's overall preparedness to
respond to an actual incident, and should be evaluated. BSEE does not
agree with, and has not adopted, the change requested by the commenter.
    Exercising source control and subsea containment capabilities: One
commenter stated that source control operations are the weak link in a
major oil spill response and source control equipment should be
exercised in the same way as any other spill response equipment,
including offshore deployments.
    Response: While BSEE agrees that source control is a critical part
of any response, BSEE disagrees that source control equipment should be
exercised in the same manner as all other spill response equipment.
While this comment is outside of the scope of the changes proposed in
the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, this subject was addressed at length in the
preamble of the Federal Register notice that published the final 2016
PREP Guidelines (81 FR 21362). As outlined in Notices to Lessees 2010-
N10 and 2012-N06,\1\ 30 CFR part 254 requires a plan holder to describe
a Worst Case Discharge in its plan, and then exercise how it will
respond to the discharge, including identifying any equipment necessary
to contain and recover the discharge. BSEE interprets this regulatory
language to be inclusive of any resources necessary to contain and
secure the source of a potential or actual discharge, which could
include the use of well control capabilities such as capping stacks,
cap and flow equipment, subsea containment devices, and other
supporting equipment. As the current regulations in 30 CFR part 254 do
not establish a required interval for the deployment of this type of
equipment, the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines cannot provide any additional
guidance

on a specific exercise frequency requirement at this time. In the
absence of any defined scope and frequency interval in the regulations,
BSEE will continue to conduct deployments of source control
capabilities at the discretion of the BSEE Oil Spill Preparedness
Division Chief, in consultation with the appropriate BSEE Regional
Director, as needed in order to assess and verify the overall
preparedness of a plan holder, or group of plan holders, to operate in
an Outer Continental Shelf region. As the scope and cost of such
deployment exercises can be quite large, BSEE does not intend to
require plan holders or providers of source control, subsea
containment, and supporting equipment to conduct deployment exercises
at the same semi-annual or annual frequency as required for other spill
response equipment. BSEE purposely added section 6.5 to the 2016.1 PREP
Guidelines to provide specific interim guidance for exercising source
control and subsea containment equipment. BSEE will work to clarify
expectations and requirements in the regulations in a future
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notices to Lessees can be found on BSEE's website at https://www.bsee.gov/guidance-and-regulations/guidance/notice-to-lessees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Nature of IMT exercises for offshore facilities: One commenter
stated that the title of section 6.2 of the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines
should be changed from ``Functional Exercise (FE): Incident Management
Team Exercise--Offshore Facility'' to ``Tabletop Exercise (TTX):
Incident Management Team Exercise--Offshore Facility'' to better align
with language in 30 CFR part 254.
    Response: While this comment is outside of the scope of the
proposed changes made in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, the BSEE feels it
is important to provide clarification on this important issue. When the
PREP 4C published the 2016 PREP Guidelines, it updated many terms and
concepts to align with developments that have occurred in the National
Response System since the previous version was published in 2002. This
included adopting the term ``Incident Management Team,'' as opposed to
``Spill Management Team,'' as well as incorporating many elements of
today's exercise typology and terminology as established by the
Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP). As such, the
2016 PREP Guidelines changed ``SMT Tabletop Exercises (TTX)'' to ``IMT
Exercise.'' This language was purposely adopted to allow each PREP
agency the flexibility to determine the type and scope of the IMT
exercise. As defined in HSEEP and the 2016 PREP Guidelines, a TTX is a
type of discussion-based exercise intended to generate discussion of
various issues regarding a hypothetical, simulated emergency. The 2016
PREP Guidelines also state that discussion-based exercises focus on
strategic, policy-oriented issues, with facilitators or presenters
usually leading the discussion to keep participants on track to meet
exercise objectives. In addition, the 2016 PREP Guidelines state that
functional exercises focus on exercising plans, policies, and
procedures, and staff members are involved in management, direction,
command, and control functions. In functional exercises, events are
projected through an exercise scenario with event updates that drive
activity at the management level, and are conducted in a realistic,
real-time environment, even though the movement of personnel and
equipment is usually simulated. The BSEE believes that functional
exercises, as currently defined by the terminology under HSEEP and the
2016 PREP Guidelines, more closely capture the stated intent of 30 CFR
254.42(b)(1), which provides that ``the exercise must test the spill
management team's organization, communication and decision-making in
managing a response.'' Therefore, the BSEE will retain the ``Functional
Exercise (FE)'' language in the existing title for section 6.2 of the
2016.1 PREP Guidelines. However, in a future regulatory update, the
BSEE will amend the exercise terminology in 30 CFR 254.42(b)(1) to
reflect that an annual IMT functional exercise is required to properly
align the CFR terminology with today's HSEEP and the PREP guidance. For
additional background information on the adoption of HSEEP exercise
terminology for the 2016 PREP Guidelines, see 81 FR 21362.

IV. Cost Savings Analysis

    Since our affected population and projected cost estimates have
remained the same from when we published the potential deregulatory
savings analysis in February 2018, we have retained the projected cost-
saving estimates for this notice, which we present below. As stated in
the aforementioned economic analysis, which is available in the public
docket, we estimate the net cost savings to the U.S. maritime industry
to be $1,084,671 annually ($1,177,975 for drills under prior PREP
Guidelines--$93,304 for drills under new PREP Guidelines),
undiscounted. We estimate the discounted net cost savings to the U.S.
maritime industry over a 10-year period of analysis to be between $7.6
million and $9.3 million at 7- and 3-percent discount rates,
respectively. The Coast Guard did not identify any costs or potential
cost savings associated with the Federal government as a result of the
changes in the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines.

V. Public Availability of 2016.1 PREP Guidelines

    The PREP 4C has finalized the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines, which are now
publicly available. The Coast Guard is releasing the 2016.1 PREP
Guidelines on behalf of the PREP 4C.
    In addition to the docket, the 2016.1 PREP Guidelines are available
at https://homeportr.uscg.mil/missions/incident-management-and-preparedness/contingency-exercises/port-level-exercises/port-level-exercises-general-information.

    Dated: September 27, 2018.
K. M. Sligh,
Acting Chief, Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-21450 Filed 10-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59831-59832]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-2778]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Threshold of
Regulation for Substances Used in Food-Contact Articles

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing
that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
December 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0298.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Threshold of Regulation for Substances Used in Food-Contact Articles--
21 CFR 170.39

OMB Control Number 0910-0298--Extension

    Under section 409(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(a)), the use of a food additive is deemed
unsafe unless one of the following is applicable: (1) It conforms to an
exemption for investigational use under section 409(j) of the FD&C Act;
(2) it conforms to the terms of a regulation prescribing its use; or
(3) in the case of a food additive that meets the definition of a food-
contact substance in section 409(h)(6) of the FD&C Act, there is either
a regulation authorizing its use in accordance with section
409(a)(3)(A) or an effective notification in accordance with section
409(a)(3)(B).
    The regulations in Sec.  170.39 (21 CFR 170.39) established a
process that provides the manufacturer with an opportunity to
demonstrate that the likelihood or extent of migration to food of a
substance used in a food-contact article is so trivial that the use
need not be the subject of a food additive listing regulation or an
effective notification. The Agency has established two thresholds for
the regulation of substances used in food-contact articles. The first
exempts those substances used in food-contact articles where the
resulting dietary concentration would be at or below 0.5 part per
billion. The second exempts regulated direct food additives for use in
food-contact articles where the resulting dietary exposure is 1 percent
or less of the acceptable daily intake for these substances.
    To determine whether the intended use of a substance in a food-
contact article meets the threshold criteria, certain information
specified in Sec.  170.39(c) must be submitted to FDA. This information
includes the following components: (1) The chemical composition of the
substance for which the request is made; (2) detailed information on
the conditions of use of the substance; (3) a clear statement of the
basis for the request for exemption from regulation as a food additive;
(4) data that will enable FDA to estimate the daily dietary
concentration resulting from the proposed use of the substance; (5)
results of a literature search for toxicological data on the substance
and its impurities; and (6) information on the environmental impact
that would result from the proposed use. We use this information to
determine whether the food-contact substance meets the threshold
criteria.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to this information
collection are individual manufacturers and suppliers of substances
used in food-contact articles (i.e., food packaging and food processing
equipment) or of the articles themselves.
    In the Federal Register of June 21, 2019 (84 FR 29209), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                      Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                           21 CFR 170.39                                Number of      responses per    Total  annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold of regulation for substances used in food-contact                       7                1                7               48              336
 articles..........................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments. We estimate that
approximately seven requests per year will be submitted under the
threshold of regulation exemption process of Sec.  170.39, for a total
of 336 hours. In the Federal Register of June 21, 2019, we estimated
four requests per year. In reconsideration of the two to three requests
that were received but did not become effective, we retain our previous
estimate of seven requests per year, with

four of those requests becoming effective.
    The threshold of regulation process offers one advantage over the
premarket notification process for food-contact substances established
by section 409(h) of FD&C Act (OMB control number 0910-0495) in that
the use of a substance exempted by FDA is not limited to only the
manufacturer or supplier who submitted the request for an exemption.
Other manufacturers or suppliers may use exempted substances in food-
contact articles as long as the conditions of use (e.g., use levels,
temperature, type of food contacted, etc.) are those for which the
exemption was issued. As a result, the overall burden on both Agency
and the regulated industry would be significantly less in that other
manufacturers and suppliers would not have to prepare, and we would not
have to review, similar submissions for identical components of food-
contact articles used under identical conditions. Manufacturers and
other interested persons can easily access an up-to-date list of
exempted substances, which is on display at FDA's Dockets Management
Staff and on the internet at https://www.fda.gov/food/packaging-food-contact-substances-fcs/threshold-regulation-exemptions-substances-used-food-contact-articles. Having the list of exempted substances publicly
available decreases the likelihood that a company would submit a food
additive petition or a notification for the same type of food-contact
application of a substance for which the Agency has previously granted
an exemption from the food additive listing regulation requirement.

    Dated: October 23, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-24230 Filed 11-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 19705]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07906]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 228--Minimum Operational
Performance Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 228--Minimum Operational
Performance Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
fifth meeting of RTCA Special Committee 228--Minimum Operational
Performance Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 22, 2014 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1150 18th Street NW.,
Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 228--Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Unmanned Aircraft Systems. The
agenda will include the following:

Specific Working Group Sessions Before Plenary

May 19-21

    All Day, Working Group 1--DAA, MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Colson Board
Room.
    All Day, Working Group 2--C2, ARINC & Hilton-A4A Rooms

May 22

    Working Group 1--DAA, MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Colson Board Room.
    Working Group 2--CNPC, ARINC & Hilton-A4A Rooms

May 22 (Starting at 1:00 p.m.)

 Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks/SC-228
Participation Guidelines
 Agenda Overview
 Review/Approval of Minutes from Plenary 4 (RTCA Paper
No. 046-14/SC228-013) held Thursday, February 28, 2014 at RTCA
 Review of RTCA SC-228 Steering Committee Activity.
 Briefings from UAS Test Sites
 Status of coordination efforts with SC-147
 Report from WG-1 for Detect and Avoid progress on the DAA MOPS
 Report from WG-2 for Command and Control progress on the CNPC
MOPS
 Other Business
 Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting(s)
[cir] (Plenary 6--28 August 2014 @RTCA)
 Adjourn Plenary

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2014.
Paige L. Williams,
Management Analyst, Business Operations Group, ANG-A12, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-07906 Filed 4-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P