[Federal Register: September 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 60480-60482]
[DOCID:fr30se10-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0040]

Concrete and Masonry Construction; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Standard on
Concrete and Masonry Construction (29 CFR part 1926, subpart Q).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
November 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.

    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0040,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2010-0040) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All 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 Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The warning signs/barriers required by paragraph 1926.701(c)(2)
reduce exposure of non-essential workers to the hazards of post-
tensioning operations, principally a failed rope or wire striking a
worker and causing serious injury. The requirements to lockout and tag
ejection systems and other hazardous equipment (e.g., compressors,
mixers, screens or pumps used for concrete and masonry construction)
specified by paragraphs 1926.702(a)(2), (j)(1), and (j)(2) warn
equipment operators not to activate their equipment if another worker
enters the equipment to perform a task (e.g., cleaning, inspecting,
maintenance, repairing); thereby preventing serious injury or death.
    Construction contractors and workers use the drawings, plans, and
designs required by paragraph 1926.703(a)(2), to provide specific
instructions on how to construct, erect, brace, maintain, and remove
shores and formwork if they pour concrete at the jobsite. Paragraph
1926.705(b) requires employers to mark the rated capacity of jacks and
lifting units. This requirement prevents overloading and subsequent
collapse of jacks and lifting units, as well as their loads, thereby
sparing exposed workers from serious injury and death.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting an adjustment decrease of 3,485 burden hours
(from 15,088 hours to 11,603 hours). The decrease is a result of the
decreased number of construction worksites from 2.43 million to
725,199.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Concrete and Masonry Construction (29 CFR part 1926, subpart
Q).
    OMB Number: 1218-0095.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 145,040.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Five minutes (.08 hour) to post or place
warning signs, locks, or tags.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 11,603.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0040). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office

at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007
(72 FR 31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC on September 27, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-24560 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 221 (Monday, November 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72917-72918]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25162]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0751; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-42]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Paris, ID

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at Bear Lake County Airport, Paris, ID,
to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) procedures at the airport.
This action will ensure the safety and management of instrument flight
rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 25, 2021. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
    For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I,
Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle
VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the
Agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet AGL at Bear Lake County Airport, Paris, ID in support of IFR
operations.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 53308; August 28, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0751 to
modify the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
earth at Bear Lake County Airport, Paris, ID, in support of IFR
operations. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No substantive comments were received.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020 and effective
September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas,

air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by modifying Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bear Lake County
Airport, Paris, ID. The area east of the airport is being reduced from
15.3 miles wide (from east to west), and 28.1 miles tall (from north to
south) to 2 miles each side of the 115[deg] bearing from the airport
from the 6.6-mile radius to 11 miles southeast from the airport, and
the trapezoidal area west of the airport extending approximately 10.5
miles wide (from east to west) and 33.8 miles tall (from north to
south) is being reduced to 2 miles each side of the airport 315[deg]
bearing extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 17 miles northwest from
the airport, as the additional airspace is no longer required for
operations.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July, 21, 2020 and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM ID E5 Paris, ID

Bear Lake County Airport, ID
    (Lat. 42[deg]14'59'' N, long. 111[deg]20'30'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of the Bear Lake County Airport and that
airspace 2 miles each side of the airport 315[deg] bearing extending
from the 6.6-mile radius to 17 miles northwest from the airport, and
that airspace 2 miles each side of the 115[deg] bearing from the
6.6-mile radius to 11 miles southeast from the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 9, 2020.
Byron Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-25162 Filed 11-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27461-27463]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11260]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0384]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; Pediatric Information for X-Ray Imaging Device Premarket
Notifications; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Pediatric Information for
X-ray Imaging Device Premarket Notifications.'' This draft guidance
document outlines FDA's current thinking on information that should be

provided in premarket notifications for x-ray imaging devices with
indications for use in pediatric populations. FDA intends for this
guidance to minimize uncertainty during the premarket review process of
510(k)s for x-ray imaging devices for pediatric use, to encourage the
inclusion of pediatric indications for use for x-ray imaging device
premarket notifications, and to provide recommendations on information
to support such indications. This draft guidance applies only to
complete x-ray imaging devices that could be used on pediatric
patients. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this
time.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by September 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance document entitled ``Pediatric Information for X-ray Imaging
Device Premarket Notifications'' to the Division of Small
Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance, Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4613, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request, or fax your request to<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access
to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thalia Mills, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave. Bldg. 66, rm. 4527, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Currently, most x-ray imaging devices are marketed with a general
indication for use (IFU) statement. Many general use x-ray imaging
devices have neither addressed the unique issues associated with
pediatric use nor contain labeling specific for use on pediatric
patients, even though many (if not all) of these devices are used or
could be used to image pediatric patients.
    Exposure to ionizing radiation is of particular concern in
pediatric patients for three reasons: (1) Younger patients are more
radiosensitive than adults (i.e., the cancer risk per unit dose of
ionizing radiation is higher for younger patients) (Ref. 1); (2)
younger patients have a longer expected lifetime for the effects of
radiation exposure to manifest as cancer; and (3) use of equipment and
exposure settings designed for adult use can result in excessive
radiation exposure for the smaller patient. The third point is of
special concern because many pediatric imaging exams are performed in
facilities lacking specialized expertise in pediatric imaging (Ref. 2).
    In 2004, the Agency issued general pediatric guidance entitled
``Premarket Assessment of Pediatric Medical Devices'' (Ref. 3). The
guidance, which applies to all devices, defines pediatric
subpopulations and the general information that should be provided for
different types of premarket submissions for devices intended for use
in pediatric populations.
    In February 2010, FDA launched an ``Initiative to Reduce
Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging'' (Ref. 4)'' and on
March 30 and 31, 2010, the Agency held a public meeting entitled
``Device Improvements to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from
Medical Imaging'' (Ref. 5). At the meeting, FDA sought advice on
``steps that manufacturers of CT (computerized tomography) and
fluoroscopic devices could take to reduce unnecessary radiation
exposure through improved product design, enhanced labeling, or
improved instructions and training for equipment use and quality
assurance at medical imaging facilities.'' The Agency asked whether
manufacturers should incorporate special provisions for pediatric
patients, particularly with regard to hardware and software features.
Recommendations received by FDA, which apply to all general-use x-ray
imaging modalities, included making available pediatric protocols and
control settings, targeted instructions and educational materials
emphasizing pediatric dose reduction, quality assurance tools for
facilities emphasizing radiation dose management, and dose information
applicable to pediatric patients. Many of the recommendations from
pediatric experts focused on expanding the flexibility or range of
features already available on x-ray imaging devices, which may also
improve adult imaging for nonstandard applications (Ref. 5).
    Experts have commented that many radiological devices are sold
without the design features or labeling information that would help
users optimize benefit (clinically-usable images) in comparison to risk
(radiation exposure) for pediatric imaging. Imaging professionals can
safely use existing equipment that may not have specific features or
instructions for pediatric use by consulting recommendations provided
by the Alliance for Radiation Safety in Pediatric Imaging (ARSPI) and
other organizations. FDA has reviewed the recommendations from ARSPI
and believes they are appropriate. Because of the special concerns
about excessive exposure to radiation in children, FDA believes the new
x-ray imaging devices should be demonstrated to be appropriate for
pediatric use or use in pediatric populations should be cautioned
against. The end user can then make more informed decisions about use
of the device on pediatric patients.
    Manufacturers seeking marketing clearance for a new x-ray imaging
device with a pediatric indication should provide data supporting the
safety and effectiveness of the device in pediatric populations.
Manufacturers who seek marketing clearance only for general indications
or do not submit adequate data to the FDA to support a pediatric
indication for use for x-ray imaging devices where pediatric use is
likely should label their x-ray imaging device with the statement
``CAUTION: Not for use on patients less than approximately [insert
patient size (e.g., body part thickness or height and weight
appropriate to your device)].'' as part of the IFU statement. This
statement should be revised depending on the size subgroups (see
section 4 of the draft guidance) for which manufacturers submit data
and be prominently displayed on the device itself (e.g., control
panel).
    This draft guidance applies only to complete x-ray imaging devices
that could be used on pediatric patients. This document does not apply
to imaging equipment sold as components or accessories (such as tube-
housing assemblies, tables, or detectors). This guidance should be used
in conjunction with other guidance specific to your type of x-ray
imaging device (e.g., x-ray CT, general radiography and dental
radiography, and diagnostic and interventional fluoroscopy devices)
that addresses how you should meet premarket notification (510(k))
submission requirements under 21 CFR part 807. This guidance
supplements

other FDA documents regarding the general content and format
requirements of a 510(k) submission.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on information
necessary to establish substantial equivalence to a predicate device
and thus provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness
for x-ray imaging devices that may be used on pediatric populations. It
does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used
if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute
and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by using the Internet. The FDA draft guidance entitled ``Pediatric
Information for X-ray Imaging Device Premarket Notifications'' is
available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm300850.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. To receive
``Pediatric Information for X-ray Imaging Device Premarket
Notifications,'' you may either send an email request to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of the document or
send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive a hard copy. Please use
the document number 1771 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations and guidance documents. These
collections of information are subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part
807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120;
the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved
under OMB control number 0910-0485; and the collections of information
in 21 CFR parts 1002, 1010, 1020, 1030, 1040, and 1050 have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0025. In addition, FDA concludes
that the Indications for Use warning label does not constitute a
``collection of information'' under the PRA. Rather, the labeling
statements are ``public disclosure[s] of information originally
supplied by the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of
disclosure to the public.'' (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).

V. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES), and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
(FDA has verified the Web site addresses, but we are not responsible
for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.)

1. NAS National Research Council Committee to Assess Health Risks
from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, ``Health risks
from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII phase
2.'' Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National
Academies Press, 2006.
2. Larson, D.B. et al., ``Rising Use of CT in Child Visits to the
Emergency Department in the United States, 1995-2008,'' Radiology,
vol. 259(3), pp. 793-801, 2011.
3. The FDA pediatric guidance entitled ``Premarket Assessment of
Pediatric Medical Devices,'' available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm089740.htm, 2004.
4. The FDA initiative entitled ``Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary
Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging,'' available at http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/default.htm.
5. The recommendations from pediatric experts at FDA's Public
Meeting: Device Improvements to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation
Exposure from Medical Imaging, available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm201448.htm, March
30-31, 2010.

VI. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: May 4, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-11260 Filed 5-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


1 Modification of Hazardous Waste Program Adding Mercury Containing Equipment to the Universal Waste Rule RCRA 2004 0012 I. In Support of the Rulemaking Thirty six commenters on the proposal expressed their general support for this rulemaking to add mercury containing equipment to the federal universal waste program. Some of those commenters included suggestions in their comments to improve the proposal; those suggestions will be addressed in the remainder of this document.

II. Comments on the Definition of Mercury Containing Equipment Many of the public comments received were, one way or another, focused on how mercury containing equipment was defined in the proposal. Those comments and EPA's responses to them are laid out in this section.

( 1) Comment: Six commenters suggested that EPA should put mercury containing equipment and mercury thermostats in the same category of universal waste to avoid confusion and duplicative labeling and reporting by generators of both materials ( 3.1.6 & 3.2.4).

Response: EPA agrees with the commenters and is finalizing one set of universal waste management requirements that applies to both MCE and thermostats. Because the new MCE regulations apply to a broad category of waste mercury containing materials, including mercury thermostats, the existing requirements for mercury thermostats have been incorporated into the final MCE sections so that no substantive changes have been made to the existing waste mercury thermostat requirements.

Specifically, in section 273.9, EPA is defining MCE to specifically include mercury thermostats, and in sections 273.13 and 273.33, EPA is replacing the requirements for mercury thermostats with requirements for mercury containing equipment. However, EPA is providing alternative labeling requirements for MCE that consist only of thermostats. In sections 273.14( d) and 27334.( d), large and small quantity handlers will be permitted to continue to label shipments containing only UW mercury 2 thermostats as, for example, " Universal Waste   Mercury Thermostats" rather than as MCE to avoid unnecessary burden on generators due to labeling requirements.

( 2) Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed rule did not include a definition of ampule and suggested that it should ( 3.2.10a).

Response: EPA agrees with the comment and has defined " ampule" in section 273.9 as " an airtight vial made of glass, plastic, metal, or any combination of these materials."

( 3) Comment: One commenter pointed out that some of the mercury containing equipment mentioned in the examples and used commonly in the marketplace does not have mercury in ampules,

but in open ended tubes. Another suggested that EPA amend the rule to allow a handler to remove mercury from equipment when it is not in an ampule, provided the handler follows appropriate management standards ( 3.2.2 & 3.1.13).

Response: EPA agrees that the mercury in some of the examples of MCE discussed in the preamble, such as manometers and barometers, is not enclosed in ampules. Although these items were presented as examples, there is no specific discussion of the difference between handling devices with ampules and those without ampules. In the final rule, EPA has clarified that items without ampules are included in its definition of MCE. To assure the safety of the handlers and of the public, EPA has included specific management standards for MCE without ampules. Thus, the handler may remove the open housing from the MCE, but must immediately seal the open housing containing the mercury when it is removed from the device. Unsealed housings of mercury are not allowed to be managed as universal waste, as they might easily spill and contaminate an area. If the entire device is managed as MCE ( i. e.,

the housing is not removed), it must be managed in a container that is closed, structurally sound,

compatible with the contents of the device, and reasonably designed to prevent the escape of mercury into the environment by volatilization or any other means.

( 4) Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of mercury containing equipment should be kept broad to promote recycling and decrease disposal ( 3.2.1).

Response: EPA believes that the definition of MCE in the final rule, which includes MCE with ampules as well as MCE without ampules, when certain further management standards are 3 followed, will allow much MCE to be managed under the universal waste program, which will increase collection and proper disposal, while being protective of human health and the environment.

( 5) Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should not allow equipment with mercury not in ampules to be universal waste ( 3.2.10b).

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment for two reasons: ( 1) appropriate limits on nonampule MCE and appropriate management requirements will be protective of human health and the environment, and ( 2) encouraging proper management of more MCE through the universal waste program will maximize the benefits achieved by adding MCE to universal waste. Therefore, EPA has decided to allow mercury not in ampules to be managed as universal waste when the handler meets certain additional management requirements designed to protect human health and the environment.

Whole waste MCE, ampules of mercury removed from MCE, and mercury in its original housing that has been removed from the bigger piece of equipment and immediately sealed with an air tight seal are all allowed to be managed under the final universal waste rule. To protect from releases of mercury to the environment, the management standards require that handlers of universal waste MCEs must contain any MCE that shows evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. In addition, standards for managing ampules and sealed original housings must meet the requirements in 273.13( c)( 2)( i) through ( viii) or 273.33 ( c)( 2)( i) through ( viii), which are designed to prevent leaking of mercury and to clean up any releases in the event that MCE does leak.

( 6) Comment: One commenter suggested that there be unique and more stringent management standards for unsealed devices because harm to human health and the environment is more likely from them ( 3.1.5).

Response: As stated above, EPA agrees with this position and has designed the management standards in this rule to prevent releases to the environment from mercury in ampules and mercury not in ampules. For an open ended tube of mercury to qualify as universal waste it must be the original housing for the mercury in the mercury containing device and it must be sealed immediately upon removal with an air tight seal so that, like an ampule, mercury will not escape from it.

( 7) Comment: Two commenters objected to the phrase " necessary for its operation" in the definition of mercury containing equipment ( 3.2.3). 4 Response: EPA agrees with the comment and has changed the definition of MCE in the final rule to say " MCE means a device or part of a device ( including thermostats, but excluding batteries and lamps) that contains elemental mercury integral to its function." This phrase clarifies that the mercury must be part of the function of the device for it to be included in the universal waste rule; that is, if the mercury is in the device accidentally, or the device is contaminated with mercury from another source,

that device would not be universal waste and must be managed under full subtitle C regulation.

( 8) Comment: Two commenters suggested that EPA clarify that mercury containing equipment is not a solid waste when sent to a reseller for further evaluation of whether it is usable in its current condition ( 3.2.6).

Response: The MCE universal waste rule does not change the waste identification requirements under RCRA. Due to the wide variety of situations that the commenter's broad scenario covers, EPA cannot make a determination about whether MCE would or would not be waste in any given situation.

( 9) Comment: One commenter suggested that to preclude regulating large devices and to reduce the costs of the rule, the wording of § 273.4( b)( 2) describing devices that aren't regulated as hazardous waste be changed from " Mercury containing equipment that is not a hazardous waste" to " Equipment or devices from which the mercury containing equipment and components have been removed" ( 3.1.4).

Response: EPA agrees that it is valuable to clarify that part 273 for MCEs does not apply to items from which all ampules or open housings of mercury have been removed. However, we see this category as additional to and independent of " Mercury containing equipment that is not a hazardous waste." Therefore, the final rule includes section 273.4( b)( 3): " Equipment or devices from which the mercury containing components have been removed."

( 10) Comment: One commenter asked how the universal waste regulations would apply to electronic devices with mercury containing lamps providing backlighting for crystal displays. The commenter suggested that if EPA proceeds with the universal waste rule for mercury containing devices, handlers should have the option of managing these displays as universal waste lamps or as universal waste mercury containing equipment ( 3.1.10). 5 Response: It is the generator's responsibility to determine if waste meets the definition of MCE   a device that contains elemental mercury integral to its function. The definition of MCE expressly excludes mercury containing lamps. Based on the commenter's description of electronic devices with mercury containing lamps, it is not likely that it would meet the definition of MCE. EPA also suggests that the generator look for collection programs for electronics waste.

( 11) Comment: One commenter stated that switches used in electronic products should be universal waste to the extent that they are solid or hazardous waste ( 3.1.11).

Response: The Agency believes the final definition of MCE adequately addresses this type of equipment. Thus, switches would be universal waste MCEs if they meet the definition: a device or part of a device that contains elemental mercury integral to its function. Any other type of switch would be out of the scope of this rulemaking.

( 12) Comment: One commenter asked that EPA provide more specific guidance regarding which mercury containing equipment wastes fail the toxicity test ( 3.1.14).

Response: It is the generator's responsibility, under 40 CFR 262.11, to determine if the material they are generating is a hazardous waste. This rule does not change that existing requirementnt in any way. Because of the differing natures of the materials that may fall into the category of universal waste mercury containing equipment, the generator is in the best position to judge if their waste is universal waste.

( 13) Comment: Two commenters stated that it is not clear if the relief valve and pipe attached to a mercury containing gas regulator would be universal waste and suggested that they should be considered as universal waste ( 3.2.5).

Response: The Agency believes the final definition of MCE adequately addresses this type of equipment. Thus, if these parts of the MCE are ancillary parts of spent MCE that contain mercury not contained in an ampule, such as the valve at the end of a tube in a pressure device, they can be managed as universal waste if they are managed in a container, as specified in the final rule under 40 CFR 273.13( c)( 1) or 40 CFR 273.33( c)( 1), to minimize the chance of any escape of mercury into the environment. 6 ( 14) Comment: One commenter stated that anti tamper devices attached to meters and pressure and temperature correcting devices should also be universal waste ( 3.2.8).

Response: The Agency believes the final definition of MCE adequately addresses this type of equipment. Thus, if these devices are ancillary parts of spent MCE that contain mercury not contained in an ampule, they can be managed under universal waste if they are managed in a container, as specified in the final rule under 273.13( c)( 1) or 273.33( c)( 1), to minimize the chance of any escape of mercury into the environment due to their management.

( 15) Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify in the preamble the general application of the regulations to automobile related devices, for example, convenience light switches ( 3.2.12).

Response: EPA has included an automobile switch example in the final rule; the rule is applicable to auto switches that meet the definition of an MCE.

( 16) Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should identify a class of equipment that qualifies as universal waste under this rule instead of just giving examples ( 3.2.7).

Response: EPA believes that by defining MCE as " a device or part of a device ( including thermostats, but excluding batteries and lamps) that contains elemental mercury integral to its function,"

it has identified a class of equipment that qualifies as universal waste. Examples are included in the preamble language to assist the regulated community in determining if their waste is eligible to be managed under the universal waste rule.

( 17) Comment: One commenter suggested that the list of MCE in the preamble should clearly be examples, and not an all inclusive list ( 3.2.9).

Response: EPA believes that by defining MCE as " a device or part of a device ( including thermostats, but excluding batteries and lamps) that contains elemental mercury integral to its function,"

it has identified a class of equipment that qualifies as universal waste. Examples are included in the preamble language to assist the regulated community in determining if their waste is eligible to be managed under the universal waste rule but are not the only types of MCE that qualify as universal waste. 7 ( 18) Comment: One commenter wrote that EPA should add a de minimis cutoff for equipment with to provide guidance on what equipment might fail the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure ( TCLP) ( for example, less than 1% mercury by weight) ( 3.2.11).

Response: It is the generator's responsibility, under 40 CFR 262.11, to determine if the waste they are generating is a hazardous waste. This rule does not change that requirement in any way.

Because of the differing nature of materials that may fall into the category of universal waste mercurycontaining equipment, EPA is unable to tell generators whether or not their specific waste would be a hazardous waste.

III Comments on the Regulatory Requirements in the Proposed Rule ( 19) Comment: One commenter wrote that EPA should require that processors and manufacturers using materials from electronic devices and appliances have sufficient training to identify and properly manage mercury containing wastes ( 3.1.16).

Response: Training is included in the universal waste standards. A handler of universal waste must ensure that " employees removing ampules of mercury are thoroughly familiar with proper waste mercury handling and emergency procedures, including transfer of mercury from containment devices to appropriate containers" ( 273.13( c)( 2)( vi) & 273.33( c)( 2)( vi)). The Agency believes this requirement addresses the commenter's concerns.

( 20) Comment: Two commenters wrote that when ampules of mercury are removed from a larger piece of equipment to be managed as universal waste, only the weight of the ampules removed for universal waste management should be counted towards the 5,000 kilogram threshold for a large quantity handler of universal waste, not the weight of the larger piece of equipment. Section VI ( a) of the preamble to the final rule clarifies this point. ( 3.1.3).

Response: EPA agrees that if an ampule or other housing has been removed from mercurycontaining equipment for management as universal waste, the entire weight of that equipment does not have to be counted toward the 5,000 kg limit.

( 21) Comment: Two commenters stated that because different universal wastes are typically managed, handled, stored and transported separately, EPA should modify the definition of small 8 quantity handler of universal waste to allow accumulation of 5,000 kg of each universal waste, not total universal waste ( 3.1.2).

Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. EPA did not propose any amendment to the definition of " small quantity handler." The only purpose of the proposal was to add MCE to the federal list of universal wastes.

( 22) Comment: One commenter requested that EPA further discuss the nature of mercury destination facilities and the requirements designed to ensure proper management by such facilities ( 3.1.15).

Response: The universal waste rule requires that mercury containing devices be sent to the same destination facilities they would be sent to under full subtitle C regulation. The land disposal restriction ( LDR) standard for treatment of nonwastewaters expected to exhibit the toxicity characteristic for mercury and containing 260 mg/ kg or more of total inorganic mercury, as mercury containing equipment is expected to contain, is RMERC, retorting mercury for recovery. Other LDR standards can be found at 40 CFR 268.40.

IV. Comments on Creating a Conditional Exclusion for MCE Instead [ 3.3]

( 23) Comment: EPA received several comments that it should develop a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for mercury containing equipment rather than add it to the universal waste program with the goal in mind to encourage recycling of these items.( 3.3.1 & 3.3.2)

Response: EPA did not propose a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for mercury containing equipment. Thus, these comments are beyond the scope of this final rulemaking.

V. Comments on Duplicative Notification [ 3.4]

EPA's proposed rule solicited comment on a change to the universal waste notification requirements.

Section 273.32( b)( 5) required large quantity handlers of universal waste to include a statement indicating that the handler is accumulating more than 5,000 kg of universal waste at one time and a list of the types of universal waste accumulated above this quantity when they sent notification to the Regional Administrator. EPA proposed to eliminate the requirement to send a list of types of waste 9 because it seemed redundant with another required list of types of universal wastes managed by the handler in section 273.32( b)( 4)). The requirement in ' 273.32( b)( 5) did not identify the amounts of each waste being generated because the 5,000 kg limit for being a large quantity handler takes into account all universal wastes accumulated by a handler, not a particular type. .

( 24) Comment: Sixteen commenters agreed that the existing provision is duplicative and not useful ( 3.4.2).

Response: EPA agrees and is eliminating the duplicative notification requirements, as proposed.

( 25) Comment: Two commenters noted that although EPA described this change in the preamble to the proposal, the change was not made to the proposed regulatory language in section 273.32( b)

( 3.4.1).

Response: To implement this change as it was discussed in the preamble to the proposal,

EPA has fixed this and, in the final rule, has removed the requirement from the regulatory text at 40 CFR 273.32( b)( 5).

( 26) Comment: EPA received one comment that it should add volume reporting requirements to the universal waste program ( 3.4.3).

Response: EPA does not believe that additional reporting requirements are warranted under the federal universal waste program because of existing requirements for large quantity handlers of universal waste to notify the Regional Administrator if they accumulate more than 5,000 kilograms of universal waste.

( 27) Comment: EPA received one comment that this requirement is useful to a state in collecting information on the universal waste at a facility.

Response: Because the information duplicates information submitted elsewhere, EPA is removing it, as proposed. It should be noted, however, that states may choose to have more stringent hazardous waste requirements than the federal regulations. Thus, if a state finds this information useful,

it may choose to incorporate this requirement into its universal waste program. 10 ( 28) Comment: EPA received two comments that it should eliminate the notification requirement that requires a breakdown in the individual categories of universal waste handled by a large quantity handler altogether.

Response: EPA believes that because the wastes being handled are hazardous wastes, it is important for the EPA to be notified of the types of wastes managed at a facility so it is able to provide appropriate assistance and oversite. Thus, EPA is not eliminating this requirement in 40 CFR 273.32( b)( 4), just the duplicative requirement in 40 CFR 273.32( b)( 5).

VI Comments on State Implementation ( 29) Comment: Three commenters requested that EPA encourage all the states to pick up the universal waste rules so the full potential in reducing burden can be realized ( 3.1.7).

Response: EPA strongly encourages all states to adopt the universal waste program as part of their strategies to keep hazardous materials out of municipal waste streams. Specific to this rule, EPA is encouraging states to adopt the universal waste regulations for MCE. Some states are already in the process of adding MCE to their lists of universal wastes.

( 30) Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify that states that currently allow mercury containing equipment in universal waste are not in violation of RCRA delegations ( 3.1.12).

Response: Under the existing universal waste program, states are permitted to add wastes that are not in the federal regulations to their own universal waste lists and, therefore, states that currently include MCE in their universal waste program do not violate RCRA delegations ( 60 FR 25537,

May 11, 1995).

( 31) Comment: One commenter disagreed with a portion of the rationale for the rule regarding the sixth criterion at 273.81( f) [ that regulation of a material as universal waste will increase the likelihood that the waste will be diverted from non hazardous waste management systems to recycling, treatment,

or disposal in compliance with subtitle C of RCRA]. The commenter stated that because the streamlined universal waste tracking regulations, which do not require a manifest, may or may not improve any improper disposal activities practiced by some generators, given that some states still require a manifest for these materials ( 3.1.8). 11 Response: EPA strongly encourages states to adopt a universal waste rule if they have not already done so and to add MCE to their lists of universal wastes if they already have a universal waste rule. However, even if a generator must still prepare a manifest in order to ship universal wastes through states that do not have a universal waste program, there are other benefits from the universal waste program that will make it likely that more of these wastes will be collected and sent for proper disposal.

These benefits include the accumulation requirements and time limits under the universal waste rule,

which are less burdensome requirements for these materials than full subtitle C regulation.

VII. Comments Otherwise Not Specified [ 3.5]

EPA received several public comments on typographical errors or topics that did not fit in any other subcategory. Those are listed in this section.

( 32) Comment: Within the definition of " universal waste," MCE should be listed as subsection "( 5)" in § 273.9 " Universal Waste means...", rather than as subsection "( e)" ( 3.5.1).

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and has changed the regulatory language in the final rule to reflect this numbering.

( 33) Comment: EPA should change section 273.14( f) to read as follows :

"( f) Waste mercury containing equipment...." [ rather than " Mercury containing equipment" ( 3.5.2).

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the proposed numbering was incorrect and has changed the regulatory language to reflect this comment.

( 34) Comment: Mercury containing equipment deserves regulation as a hazardous waste. It should be subject to subparts E and H of Part 262 regarding export [ notification, reporting,

recordkeeping, international agreements, OECD requirements] ( 3.5.6).

Response: Part 273 contains general export requirements for all universal waste,, rather than separate requirements for each type of universal waste. Therefore, although export requirements were not specifically included in the regulatory text in the June 12, 2002 Federal Register notice proposing this rule, by adding MCE to part 273, they also become subject to the export requirements in this part. 12 Export requirements for small quantity handlers of universal waste are found at 40 CFR 273.20 and export requirements for large quantity handlers of universal waste are found at 40 CFR 273.40.

( 35) Comment: EPA received one comment that it should provide guidance on filling out the US DOT Description field for the manifest for generators in states that recognize mercury containing equipment as universal waste but shipping through states that do not. Because they are not federal hazardous wastes, DOT would identify them as hazardous substances only if they meet the DOT definition of hazardous substance. EPA should suggest that generators use the following phrases on the manifest: ( 1) " Mercury containing equipment  non DOT regulated"; ( 2) " Mercury containing equipment  non DOT regulated. State of __ regulated hazardous waste only." ( 3.5.3)

Response: Because of the wide variety of mercury containing equipment that might be managed under the provisions of the universal waste rule and the different shipment situations handlers may face, EPA cannot be certain that any given device would or would not meet DOT's definition of a hazardous substance. As that decision must be made by the transporter of the item, EPA will not suggest language to be used on the manifest for federal universal wastes in states that do not recognize them.

( 36) Comment: In studies performed by California EPA's Department of Toxic Substances,

mercury was only detected in groundwater at two landfill sites at concentrations just above the MCL.

( 3.5.4)

Response: These findings are heartening from an environmental standpoint, but EPA does not believe they provide a basis for not adding MCE to the universal waste program. Regardless of the presence or absence of heavy metals in groundwater at landfill sites, it is still desirable to divert wastes containing these constituents from landfill disposal and recycle them to the greatest extent practicable.

( 37) Comment: EPA should use the information in NEWMOA's Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse to identify all the products that would be affected by the proposal and to track future impacts of the rule. ( 3.5.5)

Response: Thank you for the information on NEWMOA's Clearinghouse. EPA hopes to monitor the impacts of its rule on mercury waste to determine if the rule is achieving its goals. 13 ( 38) Comment: EPA received one comment that dental waste amalgam should also be made a universal waste. ( 3.5.8)

Response: Adding dental waste amalgam to the federal list of universal wastes is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

( 39) Comment: EPA received one comment requesting that EPA preempt the ability for state programs to be more stringent than the federal program in the case of transportation of universal waste because it would result in uniform nationwide rules that could facilitate development of a recycling infrastructure. ( 3.5.9)

Response: This proposal sought only to add mercury containing equipment to the federal list of universal wastes. Section 3009 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), 42 U. S. C.

§ 6929, expressly preserves the ability of states to impose more stringent requirements than those in federal regulations promulgated under RCRA.

( 40) Comment: One commenter stated that if EPA has the authority to require that mercurycontaining equipment be labeled so users know if they need to worry about hazardous waste regulations,

it should. ( 3.5.7)

Response: Requiring manufacturers to label their products falls outside of EPA's jurisdiction under RCRA. The Agency encourages handlers of MCE to contact manufacturers to get information about products to use in making waste determinations and in deciding which items meet the definition of MCE.

( 41) Comment: One commenter felt that the proposed rule implies that disposing non hazardous mercury containing equipment in non hazardous waste management units is improper disposal and that if EPA expects that hazardous and non hazardous mercury containing equipment may be managed as universal waste, it should state so plainly ( 3.1.9).

Response: Non hazardous MCE is not required to be managed under the federal hazardous waste regulations, including universal waste regulations. This rule does not change that. Generators may choose to handle technically non hazardous MCE under universal waste to avoid sampling and separation of similar wastes. Diversion of these wastes from municipal disposal is a stated goal of the universal waste program.


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78787-78789]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31559]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63507; File No. SR-EDGX-2010-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
EDGX Rule 11.14 To Extend the Operation of a Pilot Pursuant to the Rule
Until April 11, 2011

December 9, 2010.
    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 8, 2010, the EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The 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 EDGX Rule 11.14 to extend the
operation of a pilot pursuant to the Rule until April 11, 2011. The
text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 \3\ and is
available on the Exchange's Web site at--http://www.directedge.com, at
the Exchange's principal office, at the Public Reference Room of the
Commission, and on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission notes that the Exhibit is attached to the
filing itself, not to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend EDGX Rule 11.14 to extend the
operation of a pilot that allows the Exchange to provide for uniform
market-wide trading pause standards for individual securities in the
S&P 500 Index, securities included in the Russell 1000 [supreg] Index
(``Russell 1000''), and specified Exchange Traded Products (``ETP'')
that experience rapid price movement (collectively known as ``Circuit
Breaker Securities'') through April 11, 2011.
Background
    Pursuant to Rule 11.14, the Exchange is allowed to pause trading in
any Circuit Break Securities when the primary listing market for such
stock issues a trading pause in any Circuit Breaker Securities.
    EDGX Rule 11.14 was approved by the Commission on June 10, 2010 on
a pilot basis to end on December 10, 2010.\4\ As the Exchange noted in
its filing to adopt EDGX Rule 11.14, during the pilot period, the
Exchange would continue to assess whether additional securities need to
be added and whether the parameters of the rule would need to be
modified to accommodate trading characteristics of different
securities. The original pilot list of securities was all securities
included in the S&P 500[supreg] Index (``S&P 500''). As noted in
comment letters to the original filing to adopt EDGX Rule 11.14,
concerns were raised that including only securities in the S&P 500 in
the pilot rule was too narrow. In particular, commenters noted that
securities that experienced volatility on May 6, 2010, including ETFs,
should be included in the pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62252 (June 10,
2010) (SR-EDGX-2010-01), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these concerns, various exchanges and national
securities associations collectively determined to expand the list of
pilot securities to include securities in the Russell 1000 and
specified ETPs to the pilot beginning in September 2010.\5\ The
Exchange believed that adding these securities would address concerns
that the scope of the pilot may be too narrow, while at the same time
recognizing that during the pilot period, the markets will continue to
review whether and when to add additional securities to the pilot and
whether the parameters of the rule should be adjusted for different
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62884 (September 10,
2010) (SR-EDGX-2010-05), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, during the pilot, the Exchange continued to re-
assess, in consultation with other markets whether: (i) Specific ETPs
should be added or removed from the pilot list; (ii) the parameters for
invoking a trading pause continue to be the appropriate standard; and
(iii) the parameters should be modified.
    The Exchange believes that an extension of the pilot would continue
to promote uniformity regarding decisions to pause trading and continue
to reduce the negative impacts of sudden, unanticipated price movements
in Circuit Breaker Securities. The Exchange believes that the pilot is
working well, that it has been infrequently invoked in a six-month
period, and that the Exchange will be in a better position to determine
the efficacy of providing any additional functionality or changes to
the pilot by continuing to assess its operation in consultation with
other exchange and national securities associations. Therefore, the
Exchange requests an extension of the pilot through April 11, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\6\ which requires the rules of an exchange 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. The
proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of
Section 11A(a)(1) \7\ of the Act in that it seeks to assure fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule meets these requirements in
that it promotes uniformity across markets concerning decisions to
pause trading in a security when there are significant price movements.
Specifically, an extension will allow the Exchange additional time to
determine the efficacy of providing any additional changes to the
pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). When filing a proposed rule change
pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act, an exchange is required
to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date
of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Commission notes that the Exchange
has satisfied this requirement.

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\10\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has considered the Exchange's request to waive the
30-day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, as it will allow the pilot program to continue
uninterrupted, thereby avoiding the investor confusion that could
result from a temporary interruption in the pilot program.\12\
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For the purposes only of waiving the operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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 change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2010-22 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-EDGX-2010-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-EDGX-2010-22 and should be
submitted on or before January 6, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31559 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 8838]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-422-000.
    Applicants: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: RP 2023-02-03 Administrative
Changes to be effective 3/6/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-423-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Freepoint Commodities LLC R-7250-45 to be effective 2/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-424-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Macquarie Energy LLC R-4090-26 to be effective 2/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-425-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Citadel Energy Marketing LLC R-7705-14 to be effective 2/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5169.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-426-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Castleton Commodities Merchant Trading L.P. R-4010-35 to be effective
2/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-427-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Castleton Commodities Merchant Trading L.P. R-4010-36 to be effective
2/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5171.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-428-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2.3.23 Negotiated Rates--
Uniper Global Commodities North America LLC R-7650-05 to be effective2/
3/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/15/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 6, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02887 Filed 2-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 4940]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01790]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Notice of Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Indicator for
Recommending a Cost Share Adjustment

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice that the statewide per capita indicator for
recommending cost share adjustments for major disasters declared on or
after January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, is $135.

DATES: This notice applies to major disasters declared on or after
January 1, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Roche, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.47, the statewide per
capita indicator that is used to recommend an increase of the Federal
cost share from seventy-five percent (75%) to not more than ninety
percent (90%) of the eligible cost of permanent work under section 406
and emergency work under section 403 and section 407 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act is adjusted
annually. The adjustment to the indicator is based on the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers published annually by the U.S.
Department of Labor. For disasters declared on January 1, 2014, through
December 31, 2014, the qualifying indicator is $135 per capita of State
population.
    This adjustment is based on an increase of 1.5 percent in the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the 12-month period
that ended December 2013. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S.
Department of Labor released the information on January 16, 2014.

    (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-01790 Filed 1-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45999-46000]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0020; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2005 Jaguar XKR Passenger Cars Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition.

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

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

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is August 29,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How To Read Comments Submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as
the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being
readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible

for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the Federal
Register.
    U.S. Specs of Havre de Grace, Maryland (Registered Importer R-03-
321) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether nonconforming 2005 Jaguar
XKR passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States.
The vehicles which U.S. Specs believes are substantially similar are
2005 Jaguar XKR passenger cars that were manufactured for sale in the
United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all
applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 2005
Jaguar XKR passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and
found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to
compliance with most FMVSS.
    U.S. Specs submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2005 Jaguar XKR passenger cars, as
originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as
their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily
altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner
claims that non-U.S. certified 2005 Jaguar XKR passenger cars are
identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to
compliance with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence,
Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, 103 Windshield
Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing
Systems, 105 Hydraulic and Electric Brake Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109
New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake
Fluids, 124 Accelerator Control Systems, 135 Light Vehicle Brake
Systems, 202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward
Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 207 Seating Systems, 210 Seat Belt
Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact
Protection, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion,
301 Fuel System Integrity, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: recalibration of the
speedometer to read in MPH instead of KPH if the speedometer is not
already so calibrated; inscription of the word ``BRAKE'' on the brake
failure indicator in place of the ECE warning symbol, if the vehicle is
not already so equipped.
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: Replacement of the headlamps, side marker lamps, and tail
lamps with U.S.-model components; installation of a U.S.-model high-
mounted stop lamp.
    Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less: installation of a tire
information placard.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: replacement of the passenger
side rearview mirror with a U.S.-model component or inscription of the
required warning statement on the face of that mirror.
    Standard No. 114 Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention:
Installation of a warning buzzer if the vehicle is not already so
equipped or reprogramming the buzzer to comply with the standard.
    Standard No. 118 Power-operated Window, Partition, And Roof Panel
Systems: Inspection of each vehicle to verify compliance with the
standard and reprogramming and/or rewiring of the system to meet the
standard if it does not already comply.
    Standard No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact: Inspection
of components subject to this standard and replacement as necessary
with U.S.-model components.
    Standard No. 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components:
Inspection of door locks and retention components and installation of
U.S.-model components if the vehicle is not already so equipped.
    Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: Installation of a seat
belt warning lamp and audible buzzer if the vehicle is not already so
equipped; inspection of the vehicle to ensure that airbags, control
unit, sensors, seatbelts, and knee bolsters bearing U.S.-model part
numbers have been installed.
    Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies: Inspection of all seat belts
and replacement with U.S.-model components if the vehicle is not
already so equipped.
    Standard No. 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems: Installation of
a U.S.-model restraint anchorage system if the vehicle is not already
so equipped.
    Standard No. 401 Interior Trunk Release: Installation of a
compliant interior trunk release system.
    The petitioner states that a vehicle identification plate must be
affixed to the vehicle near the left windshield post if not already
present to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49
CFR 593.7; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

    Issued on July 25, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-18244 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 10/30/2007 01:18 PM

To

Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: O3 RIA Briefings through the first week in December between OAQPS and OMB

Do we have a call in number and code  yet?

Rob