[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23323-23327]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09098]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69368; File No. SR-BOX-2013-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Suspend Certain Provisions in Rule 7170 Regarding Obvious Errors During
Limit Up-Limit Down States in Securities That Underlie Options Traded
on the Exchange on a Pilot Basis

April 12, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on April 8, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule 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 IM-7080-1 (Trading Conditions During
Limit State or Straddle State) to permit the Exchange to suspend
certain provisions in BOX Rule 7170 (Obvious and Catastrophic Errors)
during limit up-limit down states in securities that underlie options
traded on the Exchange on a pilot basis. The text of the proposed rule
change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet
Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of 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 IM-7080-1 (Trading Conditions During
Limit State or Straddle State) to permit the Exchange to suspend
certain provisions in BOX Rule 7170 (Obvious and Catastrophic Errors)
during limit up-limit down states in securities that underlie options
traded on the Exchange on a pilot basis. This is a competitive filing
that is based on a proposal recently submitted by International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') and approved by the Commission.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69329 (April 5,
2013) (SR-ISE-2013-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility (the ``Plan''),\4\ which establishes
procedures to address extraordinary volatility in NMS Stocks. The
procedures provide for market-wide limit up-limit down requirements
that prevent trades in individual NMS Stocks from occurring outside of
specified Price Bands. These limit up-limit down requirements are
coupled with Trading Pauses to accommodate more fundamental price
moves. The Plan procedures are designed, among other things, to protect
investors and promote fair and orderly markets.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77
FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631) (``Plan Approval Order'').
    \5\ Id. at 33511 (Preamble to the Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BOX is not a participant in the Plan because it does not trade NMS
Stocks. However, BOX trades options contracts overlying NMS Stocks.
Because options pricing models are highly dependent on the price of the
underlying security and the ability of options traders to effect
hedging transactions in the underlying security, the implementation of
the Plan will impact the trading of options classes traded on the
Exchange. Specifically, under the Plan, upper and lower price bands
will be calculated based on a reference price for each NMS Stock.\6\
When one side of the market for an individual security is outside the
applicable price band, the national best bid or national best offer
will be disseminated with a flag identifying it as non-executable
(i.e., a ``Straddle State''). When the other side of the market reaches
the applicable price band, such national best bid or offer will be
disseminated with a flag identifying it as a Limit State Quotation.\7\
If trading for a security does not exit a Limit State within 15
seconds, a Trading Pause will be declared by the Primary Listing
Exchange.\8\ The Trading Pause will last at least five minutes\9\ and
will end when the Primary Listing Exchange disseminates a Reopening
Price.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The reference price equals the arithmetic mean price of
eligible reported transactions for the NMS Stock over the
immediately preceding five-minute period. See Section I(T) of the
Plan.
    \7\ See Section I(D) of the Plan. The Limit State will end when
the entire size of all Limit State Quotations are executed or
cancelled.
    \8\ See Section VII(A) of the Plan. The Primary Listing Exchange
is the market on which an NMS Stock is listed. If an NMS Stock is
listed on more than one market, the Primary Listing Exchange is the
market on which the security has been listed the longest. See
Section I(O) of the Plan. A trading pause may also be declared when
the national best bid (offer) is below (above) the lower (upper)
price band and the security is not in a Limit State, and trading in
that security deviates from normal trading characteristics. See
Section VII(A)(2) of the Plan.
    \9\ A Trading Pause may last longer than 5 minutes if, for
example, the Primary Market declares a Regulatory Halt, or if there
is a significant order imbalance. See Section VII(B) of the Plan. If
the Primary Listing Exchange does not report a Reopening Price
within ten minutes after the declaration of a trading Pause and has
not declared a Regulatory Halt, all trading centers may begin
trading the security. Id.
    \10\ The Reopening Price is the price of a transaction that
reopens trading on the Primary Listing Exchange following a Trading
Pause or a Regulatory Halt, or, if the Primary Listing Exchange
reopens with quotations, the midpoint of those quotations. The
Exchange notes that under BOX Rule IM-7080-11 (IM-7080-12 as of 4/
7), trading on the Exchange is halted whenever trading in the
underlying security has been paused by the primary listing market.
Accordingly, the Exchange need not adopt any rule changes to address
this aspect of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal

    When the national best bid (offer) for a security underlying an
options class is non-executable, the ability for options market
participants to purchase (sell) shares of the underlying security and
the price at which they may be able to purchase (sell) shares will
become uncertain, as there will be a lack of transparency regarding the
availability of liquidity for the security.\11\ This uncertainty will
be factored into the options pricing models of market professionals,
such as options market makers, which will likely result in wider
spreads and less liquidity at the best bid and offer for the options
class. Accordingly, during a Limit State, the Exchange will
automatically reject all incoming orders that do not contain a limit
price to protect them from being executed at prices that may be vastly
inferior to the prices available immediately prior to or following a
Limit State or Straddle State.\12\ Such un-priced orders include Market
Orders and BOX-Top Orders, which become market orders when the stop
price is elected. The Exchange will also cancel any resting Market
Orders and BOX-Top Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Letter to Boris Ilyevsky, Managing Director, ISE, from
Thomas Price, Managing Director, Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association, dated October 4, 2012 (``SIFMA Letter'').
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69186 (March 20,
2013), 78 FR 18413 (March 26, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to exclude transactions executed during a
Limit State or Straddle State from certain provisions in BOX Rule 7170,
on a one-year pilot basis. This will not include Rule 7170(e) and (f),
which specify when a trade resulting from an erroneous print or quote
in the underlying security may be adjusted or busted.
    The remaining provisions in BOX Rule 7170 provide a process by
which a transaction may be busted or adjusted

when the execution price of a transaction deviates from the option's
theoretical price by a certain amount. Under these provisions, the
theoretical price is the national best bid price for the option with
respect to a sell order and the national best offer for the option with
respect to a buy order.\13\ As discussed above, during a Limit State or
Straddle State, options prices may deviate substantially from those
available prior to or following the limit state. The Exchange believes
these provisions would give rise to much uncertainty for market
participants as there is no bright line definition of what the
``theoretical value'' should be for an option when the underlying NMS
stock has an unexecutable bid or offer or both. Determining
``theoretical value'' in such a situation would be often times very
subjective as opposed to an objective determination, giving rise to
additional uncertainty and confusion for investors. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe that the approach employed under Rule 7170,
which by definition depends upon a reliable national best bid and offer
in the option, is appropriate during a Limit State or Straddle
State.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Rule 7170 provides that if there are no quotes from other
options exchanges for comparison purposes, the theoretical price
will be determined by designated personnel in the MRC. However,
given that options market makers and other industry professionals
will have difficulty pricing options during Limit States and
Straddle States, the Exchange does not believe it would be
reasonable for BOX personnel to derive theoretical prices to be
applied to transactions executed during such unusual market
conditions.
    \14\ See SIFMA Letter, supra note 11 (requesting that exchange
obvious error rules that reference theoretical prices be reviewed to
ensure that options exchange officials do not have the discretion to
cancel executions of limit orders and stop limit orders during a
limit or straddle state).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful consideration, the Exchange believes the application
of the current provisions in Rule 7170 would be impracticable given the
lack of a reliable national best bid or offer in the options market
during Limit States and Straddle States, and produce undesirable
effects. Pursuant to Rule 7170, market participants have five minutes
(in the case of a Market Maker) and 20 minutes (in the case of a non-
Market Maker Options Participant) to notify the Exchange to review a
transaction as an obvious error under 7170(g)(1) and Participants have
until 8:30 a.m. the following day to request that the Exchange review a
trade as a catastrophic error under Rule 7170(h)(1).\15\ The Exchange
believes that during periods of extraordinary volatility, the review
period for transactions under the obvious error and catastrophic error
provisions would allow market participants to re-evaluate a transaction
that occurred during a Limit State or Straddle State at a later time,
which is potentially unfair to other market participants and would
discourage market participants from providing liquidity during Limit
States or Straddle States. For example, 20 minutes after a transaction
that occurs during extraordinary volatility that triggers a Limit State
or Straddle State the market could look drastically different from a
price and liquidity level The Exchange believes that market
participants should not be able to benefit from the time frame to
review their transactions in these situations. Suspending application
of certain provisions in Rule 7170 would mitigate two of the
undesirable aspects described above--(i) the moral hazard associated
with granting a second look to trades that went against the market
participant after market conditions have changed and (ii) gaming the
obvious error rule to retroactively adjust market maker quotes by
adjusting the execution price at a later time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For transactions in expiring options series that take place
on expiration Friday, a Participant must notify MOC by 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time on that same day. See Rule 7170(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that there are additional protections in place
outside of the Obvious and Catastrophic Error Rule that will continue
to safeguard customers. First, SEC Rule 15c3-5 requires that,
``financial risk management controls and supervisory procedures must be
reasonably designed to prevent the entry of orders that exceed
appropriate pre-set credit or capital thresholds, or that appear to be
erroneous.''\16\ Secondly, the Exchange has price checks applicable to
limit orders that reject limit orders that are priced sufficiently far
through the NBBO that it seems likely an error occurred. The
requirements placed upon broker dealers to adopt controls to prevent
the entry of orders that appear to be erroneous, coupled with Exchange
functionality that filters out orders that appear to be erroneous,
serve to sharply reduce the incidence of errors arising from situations
where, for example, a participant mistakenly enters an order to pay $20
for an option offered at $2. The Exchange also notes that pursuant to
BOX Rule 7230(e), the Exchange may compensate Options Participants for
losses resulting directly from the malfunction of the Exchange's
systems, and that this protection is independent from the provisions in
BOX Rule 7170. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
eliminate any potential protection applying the obvious error rule
might provide during Limit and Straddle States, as its application may
produce inequitable results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 63241, 75 FR
69791 (November 15, 2010) (S7-03-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that Rule 15010 (Order Protection) will continue
to apply during Limit and Straddle States. Accordingly, only orders
identified as Intermarket Sweep Orders will trade through protected
bids and offers during Limit and Straddle States, and as a result, the
only trades that would potentially have been reviewed under Rule 7170
during Limit and Straddle States are those involving Intermarket Sweep
Orders. The Exchange believes that this is an additional factor that
supports its proposal to suspend certain provisions in Rule 7170 during
Limit and Straddle States.
    The Exchange proposes to review the operation of this proposal
during the one-year pilot period from the operative date and analyze
the impact of the Limit and Straddle States accordingly.\17\ In this
respect, the Exchange notes that its current obvious error rule does
not contain a provision that permits the Exchange to review trades on
its own motion. The Exchange believes that in normal market conditions,
such a provision is not necessary and undermines the objective nature
of the rule. However, during the pilot period, the Exchange will
evaluate whether adopting such a provision for reviewing trades during
Limit and Straddle states is necessary and appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ During the pilot, the Exchange will provide the Commission
with data regarding the how Limit and Straddle States affect the
quality of the options market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange represents that it will conduct its own
analysis concerning the elimination of the obvious error rule during
Limit and Straddle States and agrees to provide the Commission with
relevant data to assess the impact of this proposed rule change. As
part of its analysis, the Exchange will evaluate (1) the options market
quality during Limit and Straddle States, (2) assess the character of
incoming order flow and transactions during Limit and Straddle States,
and (3) review any complaints from members and their customers
concerning executions during Limit and Straddle States. The Exchange
also agrees to provide to the Commission data requested to evaluate the
impact of the elimination of the obvious error rule, including data
relevant to assessing the various analyses noted above. The Exchange
notes that these proposed changes are consistent with the views of the
Securities Industry and

Financial Markets Association's (``SIFMA'') Listed Options Trading
Committee.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange agrees to provide the following data to
the Commission to help evaluate the impact of the proposal. At least
two months prior to the end of the pilot period the Exchange shall
provide an assessment that evaluates the statistical and economic
impact of Straddle States on liquidity and market quality in the
options markets; and assess whether the lack of obvious error rules in
effect during the Straddle and Limit States is problematic. On a
monthly basis, the Exchange shall provide both the Commission and
public a dataset containing the data for each Straddle and Limit State
in optionable stocks.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The dataset will include the options for each underlying
security that reaches a straddle state and meets the following
conditions: the option is more than 20% in the money (strike price
remains < 80% of last stock trade price for calls and strike price
remains > 120% of last stock trade price for puts when the straddle
or limit state is reached); the option has at least 2 trades during
the straddle or limit state; and any of the top 10 options (as
ranked by overall contract volume on that day) that meet the
conditions above. For each of those options affected the data record
will contain the stock symbol, option symbol, time at the start of
the straddle or limit state, an indicator for whether it is a
straddle or limit state. For activity on the Exchange the data
record will contain the executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-
ask spread, time-weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-
weighted average quoted depth at the offer, high execution price,
low execution price, number of trades for which a request for review
for error was received during straddle or limit states, an indicator
variable for whether those options outlined above have a price
change exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's straddle or limit
state compared to the last available option price as reported by
OPRA before the start of the straddle or limit state (1 if observe
30% and 0 otherwise), and another indicator variable for whether the
option price within five minutes of the underlying stock leaving
straddle or limit state (or halt if applicable) is 30% away from the
price before the start of the straddle or limit state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\20\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\21\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is necessary and appropriate in the
interest of promoting fair and orderly markets to exclude transactions
executed during a Limit State or Straddle State from the provision of
BOX Rule 7170. The Exchange believes the application of the current
rule will be impracticable given the lack of a reliable national best
bid or offer in the options market during Limit States and Straddle
States, and that the resulting actions (i.e., busted trades or adjusted
prices) may not be appropriate given market conditions. This change
would ensure that limit orders that are filled during a Limit State or
Straddle State would have certainty of execution in a manner that
promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments
to, and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. Moreover, given that options prices during brief Limit
States or Straddle States may deviate substantially from those
available shortly following the Limit State or Straddle State, the
Exchange believes giving market participants five minutes (in the case
of a Market Maker) and 20 minutes (in the case of a non-Market Maker
Options Participant) to re-evaluate a transaction would create an
unreasonable adverse selection opportunity that would discourage
participants from providing liquidity during Limit States or Straddle
States. In this respect, the Exchange notes that by rejecting market
orders and cancelling pending market orders, only those orders with a
limit price will be executed during a Limit State or Straddle State.
Therefore, on balance, the Exchange believes that removing the
potential inequity of busting or adjusting executions occurring during
Limit States or Straddle States outweighs any potential benefits from
applying Rule 7170 during such unusual market conditions. Additionally,
as discussed above, there are additional pre-trade protections in place
outside of the Obvious and Catastrophic Error Rule that will continue
to safeguard customers.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated
above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a
competitive response to a filing submitted by ISE that was recently
approved by the Commission.\22\ The Exchange does not believe that the
proposal will have any impact on competition among exchanges or market
participants on the Exchange, as the proposal provides that
transactions executed during such states will not be reviewed pursuant
to provisions in Rule 7170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \23\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's 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
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to those of
other exchanges that have been approved by the Commission to exclude
transactions executed during a Limit State or Straddle State from
certain provisions of the obvious error rules.\25\ Further, the
Commission notes that the Plan, to which these rules relate, was
implemented on April 8, 2013. Therefore, the Commission designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., supra note 3.
    \26\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-BOX-2013-20 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-BOX-2013-20. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-20 and should be
submitted on or before May 9, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09098 Filed 4-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22842-22843]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0038]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated March 22, 2012, CSX Transportation (CSX) has petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the
discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA has assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2012-0038.

Applicant

    Mr. David B. Olson, Chief Engineer Communications and Signals,
CSX Transportation, 500 Water Street, Speed Code J-350,
Jacksonville, FL 32202.

    CSX seeks approval of the proposed modification of the signal
system on the signaled siding between Holland and Waverly, Milepost
(MP) CG 25.3 to MP CG 24.03, on the Grand Rapids Subdivision, Chicago
Division.
    The modification consist of the removal of the crossover and the
signals, D243 and 6L, at MP 24.5 on the signaled siding; and the
installation of a crossover and Signal Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 8 at MP 24.32,
creating a double crossover at Waverly. The method of operation will be
changed from CSX Rule ABS 261 to CSX Rule 46, Non-Controlled Track, on
the siding from MP 24.32 to MP 25.3.
    The reason given for the proposed change is to improve switching
movements at Waverly Yard.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200

New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by June 1, 2012 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 11, 2012.
Ron Hynes,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-9126 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 35662-35663]
[DOCID:fr21jn06-98]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0081; FRL-7769-8]

2006 Tribal Pesticide and Special Projects; Request for Proposals

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), in coordination with
the EPA regional offices, is soliciting pesticide and special project
proposals from eligible tribes, Alaska native villages, and intertribal
consortia for fiscal year (FY) 2006 funding. Under this program,
cooperative agreement awards will provide financial assistance to
eligible tribal governments, Alaska native village governments, or
intertribal consortia to carry out projects that assess or reduce risks
to human health and the environment from pesticide exposure. The total
amount of funding available for award in FY 2006 is expected to be
approximately $400,000, with a maximum funding level of $50,000 per
project.

DATES: Proposals must be postmarked on or beforeAugust 7, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Kendall, Office of Pesticide
Programs (7506P), Tribal Grants Coordinator, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number:

(703) 305-5561; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    Potentially affected entities include federally recognized Tribal
governments, federally recognized Alaska native villages, or any
intertribal consortium. Only one project proposal from each tribal
government or intertribal consortium will be considered for funding. If
you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0081. Publicly
available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the

OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington VA. This docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may obtain electronic copies of this
document through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/    You may access the full text of the grant announcement at http://.

www.epa.gov/pesticides/grants/index.htm. Go to http://www.grants.gov to

electronically find and apply for competitive grant opportunities from
all Federal grant-making agencies. Grants.gov is the single access
point for over 1,000 grant programs offered by the 26 Federal grant-
making agencies.

II. Overview

    The following list provides key information concerning this funding
opportunity:
     Federal agency name: Environmental Protection Agency.
     Funding opportunity title: Tribal Pesticide and Special
Projects; Request for Proposals.
     Funding opportunity number: EPA-OPP-06-001.
     Announcement type: Announcement of a funding opportunity.
     Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number:
66.716.
     Dates: Proposals must be postmarked on or before August 7,
2006.
    For detailed information concerning the grant announcement refer to
the Agency website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ grants/index.htm.

The full text of the grant announcement includes specific information
regarding the: Purpose and scope; activities to be funded; award
information; eligibility requirements; application and submission
information; award review information; and regional agency contacts if
applicable.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides.

    Dated: June 7, 2006.
Susan B. Hazen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.
[FR Doc. E6-9751 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18086-18087]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0083]

Applied Research Laboratories of South Florida, LLC: Grant of
Recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to grant
recognition to Applied Research Laboratories of South Florida, LLC, as
a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: Recognition as a NRTL becomes effective on April 25, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. OSHA's web page includes information about the
NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Many of OSHA's workplace standards require that a NRTL test and
certify certain types of equipment as safe for use in the workplace.
NRTLs are independent laboratories that meet OSHA's requirements for
performing safety testing and certification of products used in the
workplace. To obtain and retain OSHA recognition, the NRTLs must meet
the requirements in the NRTL Program regulations at 29 CFR 1910.7. More
specifically, to be recognized by OSHA, an organization must: (1) Have
the appropriate capability to test, evaluate, and approve products to
assure their safe use in the workplace; (2) be completely independent
of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, and
manufacturers and vendors of products for which OSHA requires
certification; (3) have internal programs that ensure proper control of
the testing and certification process; and (4) have effective reporting
and complaint handling procedures. Recognition is an acknowledgement by
OSHA that the NRTL has the capabilities to perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
NRTL's scope of recognition. Recognition of a NRTL by OSHA also allows
employers to use products certified by that NRTL to meet those OSHA
standards that require product testing and certification.
    The Agency processes applications for initial recognition following
requirements in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
OSHA to publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an
application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application,
provides its preliminary finding, and solicits comments on its
preliminary findings. In the second notice, the Agency provides its
final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's
scope of recognition.

II. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the Agency's decision to grant
recognition to Applied Research Laboratories of South Florida, LLC
(ARL), as a NRTL. According to its public information (see http://www.arl-test.com), ARL states that it is an internationally accredited
testing laboratory. In its application, ARL lists the current address
of its headquarters as: Applied Research Laboratories of South Florida,
LLC, 5371 SW 161 Street, Miami, Florida 33014.
    Each NRTL's scope of recognition has three elements: (1) The type
of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard; (2) the recognized site(s) that have the
technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for the applicable test standards within the
NRTL's scope of recognition; and (3) the supplemental program(s) that
the NRTL may use, each of which allows the NRTL to rely on other
parties to perform activities necessary for testing and certification.
ARL applied on March 5, 2014, for initial recognition as a NRTL. In its
initial application, ARL requested recognition for two test standards,
one site, and two supplemental programs (OSHA-2007-0083-0050). This
application was amended on December 1, 2014, to add one additional test
standard (OSHA-2007-0083-0051).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ARL requested recognition for UL 1995, UL 1996, and UL 96.
OSHA denies ARL's UL 96 application. OSHA is, on the date of
publication of the current notice in the Federal Register, also
issuing a Federal Register Notice removing UL 96 from OSHA's List of
Appropriate Test Standards because UL 96 is not an appropriate test
standard. That notice can be accessed via www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID OSHA-2013-0012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing ARL's application
for recognition in the Federal Register on February 23, 2018 (83 FR
8113). The Agency requested comments by March 26, 2018, but it received
no comments in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with
this final notice to grant recognition to ARL as a NRTL.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
ARL's application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-2625, Washington, DC
20210. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0083 contains all materials in the record
concerning ARL's recognition.

III. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of ARL's application
packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA staff also
performed three comprehensive on-site assessments of ARL's testing
facilities on February 25-26, 2015, March 30, 2016, and November 28-29,
2017. Based on a review of this evidence, OSHA finds that ARL meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition as a NRTL, subject to the
specified limitation and conditions outlined in this notice. OSHA,
therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant recognition to
ARL as a NRTL. The following sections set forth the scope of
recognition included in ARL's grant of recognition.

A. Standards Requested for Recognition

    OSHA limits ARL's scope of recognition to testing and certification
of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards
listed in Table 1.

 Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in ARL's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 1995................................  Heating and Cooling Equipment.
UL 1996................................  Standard for Electric Duct
                                          Heaters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, a
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, we 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.

B. Sites Requested for Recognition

    OSHA limits ARL's scope of recognition to include the site at:
    Applied Research Laboratories of South Florida, LLC, 5371 NW 161
Street, Miami, Florida 33014.
    OSHA's recognition of this site limits ARL to performing product
testing and certifications only to the test standards for which the
site has the proper capability and programs, and for test standards in
ARL's scope of recognition. This limitation is consistent with the
recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple
sites.

C. Supplemental Programs

    OSHA limits ARL's scope of recognition to include the following
supplemental programs:
    Program 9: Acceptance of services other than testing or evaluation
performed by subcontractors or agents (for calibration services only).

D. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
ARL must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. ARL 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. In response to a proposed corrective action to the February 2015
on-site assessment, OSHA Proposed and ARL agrees to increased OSHA
oversight of its operations including
     More frequent on-site assessments of ARL facilities;
     ARL providing OSHA with periodic reports listing the
products that have been certified under the NRTL Program; and
    3. Confirmation from ARL that products with ARL Listings (non-NRTL)
will undergo re-evaluation and re-testing and/or a thorough documented
review of previously gathered evaluation and testing results prior to
NRTL certification.
    4. ARL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    5. ARL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on ARL's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby grants
recognition to ARL as a NRTL, subject to these limitations and
conditions specified above.

IV. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 19, 2018.
Loren Sweatt,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-08598 Filed 4-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4632-4633]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01610]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-4803]

Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals
('Emerging Signals'); Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is extending
the comment period for the draft guidance for Industry and Food and
Drug Administration Staff entitled ``Public Notification of Emerging
Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals').'' A notice of
the availability of the draft guidance and our request for comments
appeared in the Federal Register of December 31, 2015. We initially
established February 29, 2016, as the deadline for the submission of
requested comments that can help improve the Agency's policy for
notifying the public about medical device ``emerging signals.'' The
Agency is taking this action due to the unanticipated high-level of
interest from external stakeholders and the medical device community
and will allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.

DATES:  FDA is extending the comment period on the ``Public
Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging
Signals')''; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; Availability, which was announced in the Notice
published December 31, 2015 (80 FR 81829). 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 March 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-D-4803 for ``Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket
Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals').'' Received comments will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    An electronic copy of the draft guidance document is available for
download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled
``Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals
('Emerging Signals')'' to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance
and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm.
5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive
label to assist that office in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Nipper, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1540, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 31, 2015, FDA published a
notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled
``Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals
('Emerging Signals'),'' with a 60-day comment period to request
comments on the Agency's policy for

notifying the public about medical device ``emerging signals.''
    FDA is extending the comment period for the publication
notification of ``emerging signals'' for 30 days, until March 29, 2016.
The Agency believes that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for
interested persons to submit comments.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search
capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance
documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons
unable to download an electronic copy of ``Public Notification of
Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals ('Emerging Signals')'' may
send an email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an
electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1500027
to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    Dated: January 21, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-01610 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


This would not be the preferred alternative. Under this option,
PHMSA would adopt other national or international standards, such as
those used by Canada, Australia, or the United Nations. These other
standards do not conform well to existing U.S. law and to the nine
special permits. For example, the U.S. Bridge Law (USBL) provides known
standards for bridge construction, by, among other requirements,
placing restrictions on the overall size of MBTs in service in the
United States. Other standards do not conform to the USBL. Also, these
standards are implemented in ways that may not be possible within the
regulatory framework in the United States. This alternative will not
have beneficial environmental effects beyond the status quo.
Alternative 5: Incorporate SLP-23 into the HMR With Additional Features
    This option is the preferred alternative, because it would provide
regulatory flexibility without imposing burdensome costs. SLP-23
recommends standards for MBT straight trucks that typically transport
multiple hazardous materials in support of blasting operations and
articulated cargo tanks that carry a single bulk blasting agent or
oxidizer. Under this option, PHMSA would incorporate SLP-23 into the
HMR with additional features. This rulemaking specifically proposes to
adopt a combination of features, including incorporating by reference
(IBR) the Institute of Makers of Explosives' (IME) Safety Library
Publication No. 23 ``Recommendations for the Transportation of
Explosives, Division 1.5, Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions, Division 5.1,
Combustible Liquids, Class 3 and Corrosives, Class 8 in Bulk
Packaging'' (referred to as SLP-23), requiring fire suppression systems
in heat-containing compartments (e.g., engine, transmission) and
emergency shut-off/battery disconnect of newly constructed or modified
MBTs, and complying with certain National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) requirements. The proposed requirements are more
comprehensive and have stricter standards than the nine special
permits, and may eliminate some duplicative functions covered by other
industry standards. While SLP-23 may need to be re-evaluated and
changed to keep pace with technological enhancements and other matters,
IME will perform this and publish the revised standards free of charge.
SLP-23 was developed with input of IME members, stakeholders, and
PHMSA. In addition to incorporating SLP-23, PHMSA would require fire
suppressions systems to the vehicles similar to the designs authorized
under the Canadian requirements. The fire suppression requirements
would strengthen the performance standards, and further accomplish
PHMSA's objective of enhancing safety. There are beneficial effects
with the proposed action that are superior to those achieved by the
other alternatives, and these environmental benefits (direct, indirect,
and cumulative) are discussed below.
Analysis of Environmental Impacts
    Routes used to transport bulk explosives traverse a variety of
environments--from highly populated urban sites to remote, unpopulated
rural areas. PHMSA manages the transportation of specific hazardous
materials, including bulk explosives, with special permits that must
achieve a level of safety at least equal to the level of safety
achieved when transported under the HMR.
    The physical environment potentially affected by the proposed rule
includes the airspace, water resources (e.g., oceans, streams, lakes),
cultural and historical resources (e.g., properties listed on the
National Register of Historic Places), biological and ecological
resources (e.g., coastal zones, wetlands, plant and animal species and
their habitat, forests, grasslands, offshore marine ecosystems), and
special ecological resources (e.g., threatened and endangered plant and
animal species and their habitat, national and state parklands,
biological reserves, Wild and Scenic Rivers) that exist directly
adjacent to and within the vicinity of roads and routes used in the
transportation of bulk explosives.
    The proposed rule incorporates SLP-23 into the HMR and eliminates
nine special permits. SLP-23 is more comprehensive and has stricter
standards than the nine special permits, and it may eliminate some
duplicative functions covered by other industry standards.
    Direct Effects: The proposed rule will not increase and may
decrease the frequency or severity of motor carrier incidents involving
bulk explosives, as SLP-23 is more comprehensive and has stricter
standards than the existing special permits. PHMSA assessment suggests
that there are no adverse significant environmental impacts associated
with the proposed rule.
    Indirect Effects: The proposed rule will not increase and may
decrease the frequency or severity of motor carrier incidents involving
bulk explosive, and thus will not have an adverse indirect effect on
the environment. PHMSA assessment suggests that there are no adverse
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed rule.
    Cumulative Effects: The proposed rule will not increase and may
decrease the frequency or severity of motor carrier incidents involving
bulk explosives, as SLP-23 is more comprehensive and has stricter
standards than the existing special permits. PHMSA assessment suggests
that there are no adverse significant environmental impacts associated
with the proposed rule.
Comments From Agencies and Public
    In considering the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
action, PHMSA does not anticipate that permitting the new alternative
would result in any significant impact on the human environment because
the process through which special permits for bulk explosives are
developed and certified has historically demonstrated an equivalent
level of safety of the HMR.
Conclusion
    Given that this rulemaking proposes to amend the HMR to permit an
alternative with equivalent and established safety records, these
proposed changes in regulation have the potential to increase safety
and environmental protections. However, PHMSA welcomes and will
consider and address comments about foreseeable environmental impacts
or risk that commenters believe PHMSA might have overlooked in this
NPRM. As such, PHMSA solicits comments about potential environmental
impacts associated with this rulemaking from other agencies,
stakeholders, and citizens.

J. 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

comments (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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) which may be
viewed at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-04-11/pdf/00-8505.pdf.

K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Under E.O. 13609, agencies must consider whether the impacts
associated with significant variations between domestic and
international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the
ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation
can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that
are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.
    Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as
amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465),
prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging
in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements,
Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international
standards, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic
objective, such as providing for safety, and do not operate to exclude
imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards
in order to protect the safety of the American public, and we have
assessed the effects of the proposed rule to ensure that it does not
cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. Accordingly, this
rulemaking is consistent with E.O. 13609 and PHMSA's obligations under
the Trade Agreement Act, as amended.

L. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g. specification of
materials, test methods, or performance requirements) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies.
    This proposed rulemaking involves one technical standard: IME
Safety Library Publication No. 23 (SLP-23), Recommendations for the
Transportation of Explosives Division 1.5, Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions
Division 5.1, Combustible Liquids Class 3, and Corrosives Class 8 in
Bulk Packagings, October 2011 version. This consensus technical
standard is proposed to be listed in 49 CFR 171.7.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 171

    Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Definitions and abbreviations.

49 CFR Part 172

    Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Markings, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

49 CFR Part 173

    Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference,
Packaging and containers, Radioactive materials, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Uranium.

49 CFR Part 177

    Hazardous materials transportation, Loading and Unloading,
Segregation and Separation.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA is proposing to amend 49
CFR Chapter I as follows:

PART 171--GENERAL INFORMATION, REGULATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97;
Pub. L. 101-410 section 4 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note); Pub. L. 104-134,
section 31001.

0
2. In Sec.  171.7, paragraph (r)(2) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  171.7  Reference material.

* * * * *
    (r) * * *
    (2) IME Standard 23, IME Safety Library Publication No. 23 (SLP-
23), Recommendations for the Transportation of Explosives Division 1.5,
Ammonium Nitrate Emulsions Division 5.1, Combustible Liquids Class 3,
and Corrosives Class 8 in Bulk Packagings, October 2011, into
Sec. Sec.  173.66; 177.835.
* * * * *

PART 172--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION, TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS, AND SECURITY PLANS

0
3. The authority citation for part 172 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5101-5128; 44701; 49 CFR 1.97.

0
4. In Sec.  172.101, the Hazardous Materials Table is amended by
revising the following entries to read as follows:

Sec.  172.101  Purpose and use of hazardous materials table.

* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JY14.012

BILLING CODE 4910-60-C

* * * * *
0
5. In Sec.  172.102(c)(1), special provision 148 is added as follows:

Sec.  172.102  Special provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    148 For domestic transportation, this entry directs to Sec.  173.66
for: (1) the standards for transporting a single bulk hazardous
material for blasting by cargo tank motor vehicles; and (2) the
standards for cargo tank motor vehicles capable of transporting
multiple hazardous materials for blasting in bulk and non-bulk
packagings.
* * * * *

PART 173--SHIPPERS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND
PACKAGINGS

0
6. The authority citation for part 173 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5128, 44701; 49 CFR 1.81, 1.97.

0
7. In Subpart C, Sec.  173.66 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  173.66  Requirements for Bulk Explosives.

    When Sec.  172.101 of this subchapter specifies that Class 1
(explosive) materials may be transported in accordance with this
section (per special provision 148 in Sec.  172.102(c)(1)), only the
bulk packagings specified for these materials in IME SLP-23 (IBR, see
Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter) are authorized, subject to the
requirements of subparts A and B of this part and the special
provisions in column 7 of the Sec.  172.101 table. In addition, the
requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section apply to:
a new multipurpose bulk truck constructed after December 31, 2014
(i.e., a motor vehicle authorized to transport the Class 1 (explosive)
materials, Division 5.1 (oxidizing) materials, Class 8 (corrosive)
materials, and Combustible Liquid, n.o.s., NA1993, III, as specified in
IME SLP-23 (see Sec.  177.835(d) of this subchapter)); and a modified
existing multipurpose bulk truck (see Sec.  173.66(d)).
    (a) Fire Suppression Systems--(1) Requirements. The Fire
Suppression System must be an engineered system connected to the engine
and transmission compartments. The system shall be activated by manual
switch or passive means in the event of a fire. All fire extinguishers
used as components of the system must meet the requirements of 49 CFR
Section 393.95(a) and the applicable NFPA codes and standards.
    (2) Qualification. The Fire Suppression System's design must be
verified and certified by the Design Certifying Engineer (DCE) of the
vehicle. The design must be tested through engineering analysis or
physical testing to verify the initial design or future modification(s)
to the current fire suppression system.
    (3) Periodic inspection. The Fire Suppression System must be
visually inspected annually for defects, flaws, damage, etc., and
ensure none are present. The system must be pneumatically tested every
five years to ensure the system is free of debris, leaks, and damage,
and to ensure the system will function properly.
    (4) Recordkeeping requirements. Following the verification and
certification of the vehicle's Fire Suppression System by the DCE of
the vehicle, the DCE must prepare a test report and provide the test
report to the manufacturer of the vehicle. At a minimum, the test
report must contain the information and be maintained as follows:
    (i) Name and address of the DCE and the DCE facility;
    (ii) Name and address of the vehicle manufacturer. For a foreign
manufacturer, the U.S. agent or importer must be identified;
    (iii) A test report number, drawing(s) of the vehicle design, and
description of the vehicle in sufficient detail to ensure that the test
report is traceable (e.g. a unique product identifier) to a specific
vehicle design;
    (iv) The tests conducted through engineering analysis or physical
testing and the results;
    (v) A certification that the design was tested through engineering
analysis or physical testing to verify the initial design or
modification(s) to the current fire suppression system; and
    (vi) For at least ten (10) years after testing, a copy of each test
report must be maintained by the DCE. For as long as the vehicle design
is being manufactured, and for at least ten (10) years thereafter, a
copy of each test report must be maintained by the manufacturer of the
vehicle. The manufacturer must provide a copy of the test report to the
owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle must maintain a copy of
the test report for as long as the vehicle is owned. Test reports must
be made available to a representative of the Department upon request.
    (b) Emergency shut-off/battery disconnect. (1) The battery on the
motor vehicle must be equipped with three easily accessible manual
disconnect switches. One manual disconnect switch must be located
inside the driver's cab and does not include the ignition. The
remaining two manual disconnect switches must be located on each side
of the vehicle. All three switches must be connected to the positive
battery terminal and the line of the switch must be protected from
rubbing and abrasion that could cause a short circuit.
    (2) The battery disconnect must isolate all manufacturing equipment
except critical instrumentation which requires the maintenance of the
electrical supply. The battery disconnect shall be tested monthly to
ensure proper operation.
    (c) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). Multipurpose
bulk trucks must be in compliance with the FMVSS found in 49 CFR part
571, as applicable. Furthermore, the multipurpose bulk truck
manufacturer must maintain a certification record ensuring the final
manufacturing is in compliance with the FMVSS, in accordance with the
certification requirements found in 49 CFR part 567. These
certification records must be made available to DOT representatives
upon request.
    (d) Modification. The term modification means any change to the
original design and construction of a multipurpose bulk truck (MBT)
that affects its structural integrity or lading retention capability,
(e.g. rechassising, etc.). Excluded from this category are the
following:
    (1) A change to the MBT equipment such as lights, truck or tractor
power train components, steering and brake systems, and suspension
parts, and changes to appurtenances, such as fender attachments,
lighting brackets, ladder brackets; and
    (2) Replacement of components such as valves, vents, and fittings
with a component of a similar design and of the same size.

PART 177--CARRIAGE BY PUBLIC HIGHWAY

0
8. The authority citation for part 177 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.97.

0
9. In Sec.  177.835, paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (d) is
added to read as follows:

Sec.  177.835  Class 1 materials.

* * * * *
    (a) Engine stopped. No Class 1 (explosive) materials may be loaded
into or on or be unloaded from any motor vehicle with the engine
running, except that the engine of a multipurpose bulk

truck (see paragraph (d) of this section) may be used for the operation
of the pumping equipment of the vehicle during loading or unloading.
* * * * *
    (d) Multipurpose bulk trucks. When Sec.  172.101 of this subchapter
specifies that Class 1 (explosive) materials may be transported in
accordance with Sec.  173.66 of this subchapter (per special provision
148 in Sec.  172.102(c)(1)), these materials may be transported on the
same vehicle with Division 5.1 (oxidizing) materials, or Class 8
(corrosive) materials, and/or Combustible Liquid, n.o.s., NA1993 only
under the conditions and requirements set forth in SLP-23 (IBR, see
Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter) and paragraph (g) of this section. In
addition, the segregation requirements in Sec.  177.848 do not apply.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 8, 2014, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-16382 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 13, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN

DOCKETS OST-2003-15021 and OST-2002-12554

________________________________________________________________________
______

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of  American Airlines, Inc.  filed  February 6, 2004, for:

XX  Limited dormancy waiver  to preserve  American’s seven Los
Angeles-Tokyo frequencies from the March 31, 2004, blanket dormancy
waiver expiration date, until April 18, 2004.

Background

Order 2003-4-18 granted U.S. passenger carriers holding limited
international route authority a blanket waiver of the dormancy
conditions applicable to their authorities through March 31, 2004.  The
order also required U.S. carriers to notify the Department in writing no
later than February 15, 2004, of the limited-entry rights that they will
not be using beginning April 1.  Finally, Order 2003-4-18 provided that
carriers are free to seek extension of the dormancy waiver beyond March
31, 2004, for specific city-pair limited-entry services where they can
demonstrate that circumstances warrant.

American filed a Notice of its intent to use seven weekly frequencies
for daily nonstop service between Los Angeles and Tokyo, starting April
4, 2004.  American noted that the Department granted Delta an amended
notice on February 5 to extend Delta’s waiver for  its Atlanta-Buenos
Aires market.  American requests similar treatment and thus requests its
waiver to be granted until April 18, 2004.  American stated that it
would poll all parties served with its application for non-objections.
By letter dated February 6, 2004, American advised the Department that
there are no objections to its application.

Applicant rep:  Carl B. Nelson, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT analyst:    Linda Senese,<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted (see Remarks below)

The above action was effective when taken   February 13, 2004, through
April 18, 2004 .

2

XX  Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

___________________________

Remarks:  We find that grant of American’s request, in the particular
circumstances presented, is in the public interest.  However, we are
putting American on notice that there should be no expectation that an
additional request will necessarily be granted.  Any future request to
extend the dormancy waiver for the frequencies at issue here will have
to be considered in light of any specific arguments offered and
responses thereto, and in the context of the circumstances present at
that time, including whether another carrier seeks to use the
frequencies at issue.

________________________________________________________________________
____

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that

 (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; and (2) grant of
the authority was consistent with the public interest.  To the extent
not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may
amend, modify, or revoke the action taken in this Notice at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 American’s waiver from the dormancy condition is effective through
April 18, 2004, or until the date on which American begins service with
each of these frequencies, whichever occurs earlier.  As to any
frequency with which American does not begin service by April 18,  2004,
its frequency allocation with respect to that frequency expires
automatically.


Citation Subject Applies to Subpart TTTTT Explanation 63.5 ................................. Construction and Reconstruction ........................... Yes. 63.6( a)   ( g) ...................... Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements Yes.

63.6( h) ............................. Determining Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emission standards. No.

63.6( i)   ( j) ......................... Extension of Compliance and Presidential Compliance Exemption. Yes.

63.7( a)( 1)   ( 2) .................. Applicability and Performance Test Dates ............. No ............ Subpart TTTTT specifies performance test applicability and dates. 63.7( a)( 3), ( b)   ( h) ........... Performance Testing Requirements ....................... Yes. 63.8 except for ( a)( 4),( c)( 4), and ( f)( 6). Monitoring Requirements ........................................ Yes.

63.8( a)( 4) ........................ Additional Monitoring Requirements for Control Devices in § 63.11. No ............ Subpart TTTTT does not require flares.

63.8( c)( 4) ......................... Continuous Monitoring System Requirements ....... No ............ Subpart TTTTT specifies requirements for operation of CMS. 63.8( f)( 6) ......................... Relative Accuracy Test Alternative ( RATA) ........... No ............ Subpart TTTTT does not require continuous emission monitoring systems. 63.9 ................................. Notification Requirements ....................................... Yes 63.9( g)( 5) ........................ Data Reduction ....................................................... No ............ Subpart TTTTT specifies data reduction requirements 63.10 except for( b)( 2)( xiii) and ( c)( 7)   ( 8). Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements ........ Yes.

63.10( b)( 2)( xiii) ................ Continuous Monitoring System ( CMS) Records for RATA Alternative. No ............ Subpart TTTTT does not require continuous emission monitoring systems. 63.10( c)( 7)   ( 8) ................ Records of Excess Emissions and Parameter Monitoring Accedences for CMS. No ............ Subpart TTTTT specifies recordkeeping requirements 63.11 ............................... Control Device Requirements ................................. No ............ Subpart TTTTT does not require flares. 63.12 ............................... State Authority and Delegations ............................. Yes. 63.13   63.15 .................... Addresses, Incorporation by Reference, Availability of Information. Yes.

[ FR Doc. 03   89 Filed 1   21   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 48 CFR Parts 1511 and 1552 [ FRL   7441   1]

Acquisition Regulation: Background Checks for Environmental Protection Agency Contractors Performing Services On Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is proposing to amend the EPA Acquisition Regulation ( EPAAR) to add a clause requiring contractors ( and subcontractors) to perform background checks and make suitability determinations for contractor ( and subcontractor) employees performing services on or within Federally owned or leased space and facilities, commercial space primarily occupied by Federal employees, and Superfund, Oil Pollution Act, and Stafford Act sites. The clause will require contractors ( and subcontractors) to perform background checks and make suitability determinations on their employees before the employees can perform onsite contract services for the EPA. Contracting Officers will be allowed to waive the requirements of the clause on a case by case basis. The process contemplated by the clause will allow EPA to mitigate any actual or potential threat to the public health, welfare and the environment. DATES: Comments should be submitted no later than March 24, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or through hand delivery/ courier. For comments submitted by mail, send three copies of your comments to: OEI Docket, Title: Background Checks for EPA Contractors Performing Services On Site, EPA Docket Center ( 28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OARM   2002   0001. For comments submitted electronically or through hand delivery/ courier, please follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Valentino, U. S. EPA, Office of Acquisition Management, Mail Code ( 3802R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, Telephone: ( 202) 564   4522. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information on the proposed regulation for background checks for contractors ( and subcontractors) performing on site work is organized as follows:

I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OARM   2002   0001. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 14: 27 Jan 21, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 22JAP1. SGM 22JAP1