[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64791-64793]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0684; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-27-AD;
Amendment 39-16842; AD 2011-22-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(RRD) BR700-710 Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Analysis of service data carried out by Rolls-Royce Deutschland
has shown that the effect of touch-and-go and overshoot on life
cycle counting is higher than anticipated. Therefore, the life cycle
counting method for touch-and-go and overshoot as defined by the
Time Limits Manual needs to be changed to reflect this higher effect
on life.

We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of high-energy, life-limited
parts, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2011 (76 FR
39033). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states that:

    Analysis of service data carried out by Rolls-Royce Deutschland
has shown that the effect of touch-and-go and overshoot on life
cycle counting is higher than anticipated. Therefore, the life cycle
counting method for touch-and-go and overshoot as defined by the
Time Limits Manual needs to be changed to reflect this higher effect
on life.
    This AD requires a change of the life cycle counting method for
touch-and-go and overshoot for all critical parts and the Low
Pressure (LP) compressor blades as specified in the Rolls-Royce
Deutschland Alert NMSB-BR700-72-A900504 Revision 1. The chapter 05-
00-01 and 05-00-02 of the applicable Time Limits Manuals will be
revised accordingly.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are described in a separate paragraph of the AD, and take precedence
over the actions copied from the MCAI.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD would
affect about 1,052 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with this AD. The
average labor rate is $85

per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD
on U.S. operators to be $89,420.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2011-22-01 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Formerly Rolls-Royce
Deutschland GmbH, formerly BMW Rolls-Royce GmbH)]: Amendment 39-
16842; Docket No. FAA-2011-0684; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-27-
AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
23, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce Deutschland BR700-710A1-
10 and BR700-710A2-20 turbofan engines, all BR700-710C4-11 model
engines that have hardware configuration standard 710C4-11 engraved
on the engine data plate (Service Bulletin SB-BR700-72-101466
standard not incorporated), and all BR700-710C4-11 model engines
that have hardware configuration standard 710C4-11/10 engraved on
the engine data plate (Service Bulletin SB-BR700-72-101466 standard
incorporated). These engines are installed on, but not limited to,
Bombardier BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes and Gulfstream GV
(G500) and GV-SP (G550) airplanes.

Reason

    (d) This AD results from:
    Analysis of service data carried out by Rolls-Royce Deutschland
has shown that the effect of touch-and-go and overshoot on life
cycle counting is higher than anticipated. Therefore, the life cycle
counting method for touch-and-go and overshoot as defined by the
Time Limits Manual needs to be changed to reflect this higher effect
on life.
We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of high-energy, life-
limited parts, uncontained engine failure, and damage to the
airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the operators'
approved maintenance program (reference the Time Limits Manual
(TLM), chapters 05-00-01 and 05-00-02 of the applicable engine
manuals (EMs)) to remove the requirement to record each touch-and-go
or overshoot as \1/5\ of a flight cycle (FC) on an engine installed
on an airplane used for Pilot Training.
    (2) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the ALS of the operators' approved maintenance program (reference
the TLM, chapters 05-00-01 and 05-00-02 of the applicable EMs) to
add a requirement to record each touch-and-go or overshoot as 1 FC
to the life of all critical parts and the fan blades.
    (3) Within 120 days after the effective date of this AD,
determine the number of touch-and-go's and overshoots that each
individual critical part except the fan shaft and LP turbine rotor
shaft has experienced since entry into service for Pilot Training.
    (i) If the number of touch-and-go's and overshoots on an
individual critical part is less than one percent of the total
number of FCs on the critical part, no further action is required by
this AD.
    (ii) If the number of touch-and-go's and overshoots on an
individual critical part is one percent or more of the total number
of FCs on the critical part, disregard the previous calculations of
life on that individual critical part and retrospectively re-
calculate the accumulated FCs of that individual critical part by
the addition of one FC for every touch-and-go and overshoot to the
total number of FCs.

Definitions

    (f) A touch-and-go is a phase of a flight where a landing
approach of an airplane is continued to the touch-down point and the
airplane immediately takes off again without stopping.
    (g) An overshoot is a phase of a flight where a landing approach
of an airplane is not continued to the touch-down point. This
includes missed approaches due to safety reasons, weather minimums,
airplane engine configurations, runway incursions, and any other
undetermined causes.

FAA AD Differences

    (h) This AD differs from the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (MCAI) and/or service information as follows:
    (1) This AD requires within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD, revising the ALS of the operators' approved maintenance
program (reference the TLM chapters 05-00-01 and 05-00-02 of the
applicable EMs) to remove the requirement to record each touch-and-
go or overshoot as \1/5\ of a FC on an engine installed on an
airplane used for Pilot Training, and adding a requirement to record
each touch-and-go or overshoot as 1 FC to the life of all critical
parts and the fan blades. The MCAI requires that the revised method
of life counting for each touch-and-go and overshoot be accomplished
within 4 months.
    (2) The MCAI requires determining the total number of touch-and-
go's and overshoots that each individual critical part

(except the fan shaft and LP turbine rotor shaft) has experienced
since entry into service. This AD only requires determining those
numbers for touch-and-go's and overshoots that had occurred during
Pilot Training.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2010-0077, dated April 20, 2010, and Rolls-Royce
Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Alert Service Bulletin SB-BR700-72-A900504,
Revision 1, dated February 19, 2010, for related information.
Contact Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11,
Dahlewitz, 15827 Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; phone: 49 0 33-7086-
1883; fax: 49 0 33-7086-3276, for a copy of this service
information.
    (k) Contact Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information about
this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 7, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-26885 Filed 10-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: 05/ 08/ 2003 SUBJECT: [ Dimethylhydantoin] [ Acute, Probabilistic, Chronic, Cancer] Dietary Exposure Assessment[ s] for the [ Section ( 3, 18) Reregistration Eligibility Decision, etc.]

PC Code: 115501 DP Barcode: n/ a REVIEWER: A. Najm Shamim Ph. D, Chemist Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

THROUGH: A. Najm Shamim, Ph. D., Chemist, Name of Detailed Reviewer, Title Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

and Tim McMahon, Ph. D., Senior Toxicologist, Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C)

TO: Connie Welch, Chief, Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division ( 7510C) Page 2 of 18 Executive Summary The purpose of this memorandum is to report the results of a dietary exposure analysis for Hydantoins. These chemicals are diazines of five membered ring. Substitution can be made on positions 1 and 3 with halogens or any other functional group( s) like hydroxy methyl or bis ( 1,3 dihydroxy methyl) moities, or by dimethyl or ethylmethyl groups. These antimicrobials are registered for use in indoor food, in door non food, indoor industrial sites for control of bacteria, fungi and algal slimes. Indoor food use arises from the use of these chemicals in food contact paper and paperboards where the mixture of these substances are used as slimicide, filler preservative and coating preservative. In this analysis the [ acute, chronic, and/ or cancer] dietary exposure and risk estimates resulting from food intake were determined for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups. For reregistration actions: [ Acute, chronic, cancer] dietary exposure assessments were performed in order to determine the exposure and risk estimates which result from the use of [ dimethylhydantoin] as slimicide, filler preservative and filler for inorganic slurries, coating preservative in food contact paper and paperboard which is included in the reregistration eligibility decision.

° Briefly describe the assumptions that went into the assessment, using language from AD's approach for conducting dietary exposure and risk analyses. ° Provide an overview of the level of refinement used in the assessment.

The [ acute and/ or chronic] dietary analyses for [ chemical] show that....

° Discuss the results of the analyses. State whether or not the results are above or below AD's level of concern ( note: HED's level of concern ( i. e. < 100% PAD) should not be defined in the Executive Summary. It will be defined in the Introduction.). Provide the results for the general U. S. population and the most highly exposed population subgroup. For the acute analysis, state at which percentile of exposure the results are being reported.

The cancer dietary exposure estimate for the general U. S. population is ( X. X x 10 x), which is [ above/ below] AD's level of concern.

If the risk is above AD's level of concern, provide brief discussion of how/ if the risk estimate could be refined I. Introduction AD's label search has shown that hydantoins are mixtures of dimethyl and or methyl, ethyl halogenated hydantoins where halgenation can be either dichloro, or dibromo or chloro/ bromo isomers. In addition, hydroxymethyldimethyl hydantoin and or bisdihydroxymethyldimethyl hydantoin have been added to the list for which dietary exposure assessment is being conducted. Three major indirect food contact scenarios emerge from the use of Dantogard and these are: Page 3 of 18 1) Use as a slimicide in paper and paperboard manufacturing process; 2) filler preservative use in food and non food contact paper and paper board. These fillers are made of inorganic slurries used for food contact paper and paperboard; 3) Use as a coating preservative for food contact paper and paperboard. Moreover, uses of hydantoins as disinfectant in swimming pools, and in industrial once through cooling water systems as well as recirculating cooling water systems1 are established but are not included in the present risk assessment. ( AD's Memo by A. Najm Shamim on label reviews for hydantoins, March 2003).

For Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) process the Agency has carried out the dietary exposure and risk assessments of hydantoins. This includes, besides the halogenated dimethylhydantoins , methylhydroxydimethylolhydantoin and bisdimethylhydroxydimethylhydantoins In 1989, the Agency agreed to clustering of the hydantoins into one set and allowed the toxicity studies to be conducted on dimethylhydantoin, which would represent the cluster of hydantoins ( HED Memo by Joycelyn Stewart, August, 1989) 2. Further search of chemical data indicates that in particular, methylhydroxyhydantoins emit formaldehyde as a breakdown product. The toxicity or dietary risk assessment of hydantoins, therefore, should include assessment on hydantoins and methylhydorxyhydantoins Residue Chemistry:

Due to the unique use of these chemicals, no residue chemistry data were submitted by registrants ( Residue Chemistry Guidelines #. OPPTS GLN 860.1300, OPPTS GLN 860.1340, OPPTS GLN 860.1500) nor was asked by the Agency. For reregistration purposes of this chemical, there are no residue chemistry issues.

Dietary Exposure:

The Agency has used available methods to estimate hydantoin residues on food due to migration of these chemicals or their breakdown products, when these substances come into contact with food contact paper and paperboard. In this regard Food and Drug Administration has developed guidelines to estimate the residues of pesticides used as slimicides etc. and their migration onto food through surface contact ( called indirect food contact). The Agency has decided to use FDA Methodology to estimate the residues of such chemicals and or their breakdown products on food items and also to determine the Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of these pesticides to conduct dietary risk assessment Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide. For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose. This is the population adjusted dose ( PAD), which AD has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects. The PAD is the Reference Dose ( RfD) divided by the special FQPA Safety Factor. Dietary risk is expressed as a percentage of the PAD. For acute and noncancer chronic exposures, AD is concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD. AD is generally concerned when estimated cancer risk exceeds one in one million ( i. e., the risk exceeds 1 x 10 6). References which discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more Page 4 of 18 detail are available on the EPA/ pesticides web site: " Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User's Guide", 6/ 21/ 2000, web link: http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA PEST/ 2000/ July/ Day 12/ 6061. pdf ; or see SOP 99.6 ( 8/ 20/ 99).

The most recent dietary risk assessment for [ chemical] was conducted by [ name] ( date, DP Barcode).

II. Residue Information Review of the Agency's residue chemistry database does not show any residues on food or on any RACs. hence no residue chemistry data and analyses are included in this dietary exposure chapter.

[ Dimethylhydantoins] Use:

Include the CFR Reference. if applicable

State the residue( s) of concern, if applicable ° Brief discussion of tolerances currently in effect ( permanent as well as time limited), if applicable

Brief discussion of pending tolerances/ Section 18 time limited tolerances, if applicable

If applicable, briefly describe how the metabolites were accounted for in the assessments, and the rationale.

Summarize reassessed tolerances ( include or refer to date of completed RED chapter or AR assessment). Note general differences in reassessed vs. established tolerances, especially if there are significant changes in foods which comprise a substantial portion of the diets of infants and children.

The following section should be included only if applicable, that is, if an antimicrobial use is agricultural related.

III. DEEM FCID   Program and Consumption Information [ Chemical name] acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEM FCID   , Version 1.3), which incorporates consumption data from USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII), 1994 1996 and 1998. The 1994 96, 98 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two non consecutive survey days. Foods " as consumed" ( e. g., apple pie) are linked to EPA defined food commodities ( e. g. apples, peeled fruit  cooked; fresh or N/ S; baked; or wheat flour  cooked; fresh or N/ S, baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by USDA/ ARS and EPA. Consumption data are averaged for the entire U. S. population and within population subgroups for chronic exposure assessment, but are retained as individual consumption events for acute exposure assessment.

For chronic exposure and risk assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or Page 5 of 18 food form ( e. g., orange or orange juice) on the food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/ food form. The resulting residue consumption estimate for each food/ food form is summed with the residue consumption estimates for all other food/ food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average estimated exposure. Exposure is expressed in mg/ kg body weight/ day and as a percent of the cPAD. This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

For acute exposure assessments, individual one day food consumption data are used on an individual by individual basis. The reported consumption amounts of each food item can be multiplied by a residue point estimate and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a deterministic ( Tier 1 or Tier 2) exposure assessment, or " matched" in multiple random pairings with residue values and then summed in a probabilistic ( Tier 3/ 4) assessment. The resulting distribution of exposures is expressed as a percentage of the aPAD on both a user ( i. e., those who reported eating relevant commodities/ food forms) and a per capita ( i. e., those who reported eating the relevant commodities as well as those who did not) basis. In accordance with HED policy, per capita exposure and risk are reported for all tiers of analysis. However, for tiers 1 and 2, significant differences in user vs. per capita exposure and risk are identified and noted in the risk assessment.

IV. Toxicological Information Include general background information about the chemical as necessary.

Provide dates of relevant AD and HED memoranda, such as the reports of the HIARC, FQPA SFC, ADTOX, and Cancer SARCs.

Include the toxicological endpoint summary table from the HIARC document. Delete the non dietary exposure scenarios. In the event that the summary table has not been prepared, the table below can be used as a guide. The table should clearly indicate the LOAEL and NOAEL, the toxic effect observed ( e. g., weight loss, cholinesterase inhibition, etc.), the study type ( e. g., oral, dog), and the uncertainty factors ( UFs) applied to obtain the acute and chronic reference doses ( aRfD and cRfD, respectively), and the acute and chronic population adjusted doses ( aPAD and cPAD, respectively).

If the chemical is a carcinogen, note the classification and the risk assessment approach to be used, and the Q 1 * if applicable.

Table X. Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for [ CHEMICAL] for Use in Dietary Exposure Assessment Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF FQPA SF* and Endpoint for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary General US pop. NOAEL = [ ] mg/ kg/ day UF = [ ] Acute RfD = [ ] mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = [ ] aPAD =[ ]

= [ ] mg/ kg/ day [ insert study name] LOAEL = [ ] mg/ kg/ day based on [ ] Page 6 of 18 Table X. Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for [ CHEMICAL] for Use in Dietary Exposure Assessment Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF FQPA SF* and Endpoint for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary [ population subgroups] NOAEL = [ ] mg/ kg/ day UF = [ ] Acute RfD = [ ] mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = [ ] aPAD =[ ]

= [ ] mg/ kg/ day [ insert study name] LOAEL = [ ] mg/ kg/ day based on [ ]

Chronic Dietary all populations NOAEL= [ ] mg/ kg/ day UF = [ ] Chronic RfD = [ ] mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = [ ] cPAD =[ ]

= [ ] mg/ kg/ day [ insert study name] LOAEL = [ ] mg/ kg/ day based on [ ]

Cancer Q* =

V. Results/ Discussion FDA Methodology for Determining Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of a Pesticide Used As a Slimicide, Filler Preservative, and as Coating Preservative On Food Contact Paper and Paperboard.

AD has reviewed FDA Guidance on Food Contact Surfaces and related documents3,4,5,6,7 and a summary of the methodology/ technique is provided:

Some assumptions are made in the FDA calculations for the food contact surfaces and migration of the active into food from the food contact surfaces.: 1. Food contact surface ( paper in our case) could be a one time use/ day or repeat use material/ day. 2. Consumption factor ( CF) or fraction of the daily food that comes into contact with the packaging surface ( paper in our case). CF is actually the weight of food that comes into contact with the packaging material to the weight of all food packaged with the packaging material ( paper in our case). The CF varies from one packaging material to the other. 4. FDA calculations assume active material present in the food contact surface migrates out 100% ( this represents a worst case scenario).

I. Data Input Parameters for Hydantoins Used as Slimicide in Paper V. Rate of Application: Maximum level of 2 lbs. Hydantoins/ ton of paper ( it also means 1 kg of active/ 1000 kg of paper.

2. Paper slurry: Prior to entering paper manufacturing machine: 1% ( 99% water and 1% pulp)

3. Concentration of Slurries entering Driers: 33% pulp and 67% water Page 7 of 18 4. Standard Paper Weight: 50 mg/ in2.

5. Finished Paper: 8% water and 92% pulp8 ( RASSB Memo by Bob Quick)

6. Mass of Food in Contact With Surface Area of Treated paper: 10 gm. Food/ in2.

7. Consumption Factor ( CF) for Treated paper: 0.10 8. Daily Average food in take ( adult) = 3 kg.

9. Daily Average food Intake ( child) = 1500 g.

Calculations:

I. Assume the active is 98% and from input parameters 1 & 2: 1.96 lbs/ ton of paper ~ 2 lbs/ ton of paper = 200,000 lbs slurry x 1% paper slurry = 2 lbs/ 2000 lbs finished paper = 10 ppm of active in the paper slurry.

Output:

Concentration of DMH in Paper/ Pulp:

1a. From input parameter 3, the concentration of the active present in the pulp prior to entering the driers: Appl. Rate x % water/% pulp = 10 ppm DMH = 10 µ g DMH/ gm pulp slurry x 0.67 gm water/ 0.33 gm pulp = 20 µ g active/ gm pulp i Based on input parameters ( 1 7) and calculations a and b, the outputs are:

1b.. Concentration of Hydantoins in Food:

µ g of active/ mass of pulp x mass of pulp/ mass of paper x standard mass of paper x mass of food/ surface area.  i = 20 µ g active/ mass of pulp x 0.92 gm pulp/ gm of paper x 0.05 gm/ in2 x 1 in2/ 10 gm food = 0.092 µ g of active/ gm food.  ii Taking into account the CF of 0.10, the actual dietary concentration of hydantoins in daily diet would be: 0.092 µ g active/ gm food x 0.10 = 0.0092 µ g of DMH/ gm of food. iii Environmental fate studies ( see environmental fate assessment chapter, A. Najm Shamim) have shown that the halogenated hydantoins are not stable in aqueous system and major breakdown product is dimethylhydantoin. Ratio of MW of dimethylhydantoin/ to average MWs. of halogen containing dimethylhydantoins is 0.59. Hence if we multiply ( ii) with 0.59 = 0.0054 µ g DMH/ gm food is the concentration in the daily diet  iv In most of the formulations, the Agency has noted that 10% of each formulation contains Page 8 of 18 1,3 dichloro 5 ethyl 5 methylhydantoin. Hence daily diet burden shown in equation ( iii) contains contributions from the ethyl/ methyl isomer, that is 10% of 0.0054 µ g dmh/ gm, the actual concentration of dmh/ gm of food is: 0.0054 µ g dmh/ gm food  0.00054 µ g/ gm food: = 0.0049 µ gdmh/ gm food present in the daily diet  v Concentration of Formaldehyde in Food:

4.9 ppb x 30 MW formaldehyde/ 128 MW DMH : = 1.14 ppb  vi 1b. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of DMH For An Adult = 0.0049 µ g of DMH/ gm food x 3000gm food = 14.7 µ g DMH/ person/ day  vii 1c. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) For a Child = 0.0049 µ g of DMH/ gm food x 1500 gm food = 7.4 µ g DMH/ person/ day  viii 1d. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of Formaldehyde for an Adult = 0.00114 µ g of Formaldehyde/ gm food x 3000 gm food = 3.42 µ g formaldehyde/ p/ d ix 1e. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of Formaldehyde for an child = 0.00114 µ g of formaldehyde/ gm food x 1500 gm food = 1.71 µ g formaldehyde/ p/ d  x II. Data Input Parameters for Hydantoins Used as a ( Clay) Preservative in Paper 1. Rate of Application: Maximum level of 2.4 lbs active/ ton of aqueous mineral slurry ( = 1200 ppm of active)

2. Clay Filler, Active filler Concentration = 1200 ppm 3. 1 g. filler/ g paper pulp 4. Standard paper weight:= 50 mg/ in2 5. Mass of food im contact with surface area of paper treated with preservative = 10 g food/ in2 6. Consumption Factor ( CF) for paper treated with preservative = 0.10 7. Finished preservative Treated Paper = 8% water and 92% pulp ( Bob Quick) 8 8. Daily Average Food Intake ( adult) = 3 kg 9. Daily Average Food Intake ( child) = 1500 g. Page 9 of 18 Page 10 of 18 Output:

Calculations:

2a. Concentration of DMH In Paper/ Pulp:

Rate of Appl. x 10% filler x MW of DMH/ MW of bismethylhydroxy = 1200 ppm x 0.1 x 128 MW of DMH/ 188 MW bismethylhydroxy = 82 ppm of DMH  i If the pulp is 5% in the slurry water, Amount of DMH is: 0.05 x 82 ppm = 4.1 ppm of DMH in slurry water  ii If mass of water to mass of pulp is 2: 1 ( 67%/ 33%), Amount of DMH/ g of pulp is: 4.1 ppm = 4.1 µ g DMH x 2 = 8.2 µ g DMH/ g pulp  iii 2b. Concentration of DMH In Food:

Mass of DMH/ g paper x mass of pulp/ g paper x standard mass of paper/ in2 paper/ mass of food/ in2 paper; using the input parameters from above:

8.2 µ g DMH/ g paper x0.92 g pulp/ g paper x 0.05 g paper/ in2 paper x 10 g food/ in2 paper = 0.038 µ g DMH/ g food = 0.038 ppm DMH iv Taking into account the consumption factor ( CF) of 0.10 for treated and untreated paper, Amount of DMH in the food is: = 0.1 x 0.038 ppm = 0.0038 ppm = 3.8 ppb DMH in the food/ diet v 2c. Concentration of Formaldehyde in Food:

If the methylhydroxy and or bismethylhydroxy convert to DMH, then the amount of formaldehyde produced from these two moities is:

= 3.8 ppb DMH x MW formaldehyde/ MW DMH = 3.8 ppb DMH x 30/ 128 = 0.89 ppb  vi 2d. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of DMH for an Adult = 0.0038 µ g of DMH/ gm food x 3000 gm food = 11.4 µ g food/ p/ d  vii 2e. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of DMH for a child = 0.0038 µ g of DMH/ gm food x 1500 gm food = 5.7 µ g food/ p/ d  viii Page 11 of 18 2f. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of Formaldehyde for an Adult = 0.00089 µ g of formaldehyde/ gm food x 3000 gm food = 2.67 µ g/ p/ d  ix 2g. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of Formaldehyde for a child = 0.00089 µ g of formaldehyde/ gm food x 1500 gm food = 1.34 µ g/ p/ d  x III. Input Parameters for Hydantoins Used as a Coating Preservative 1. Rate of Application: Maximum level of 2.4 lbs/ US ton of aqueous mineral slurry 2. Coating Concentration = 1200 ppm 3. Slurry: 50% by weight of paper coating 4. Standard paper Weight: 50 mg/ in2 5. Paper coating by weight of paper: 10%

6. Mass of food in contact with surface area of paper treated with the coating: 10 g food/ in2 7. Consumption Factor( CF) for paper treated with coating: 0.2*

8. Daily Average Food Intake ( adult) = 3000g 9. Daily Average Food Intake ( child) = 1500 g Output:

IIIa. Concentration of methylolhydantoin coating in paper/ pulp Calculations:

( Application Rate) x ( Coating slurry % by wt. Of paper coating) x ( paper coating % by wt. Of paper) x ( standard paper wt.) X ( conversion factor)

= ( 1200 µ g methylolhydantoins/ gm coating slurry) x ( 0.50)( 0.10)( 50 mg/ in2)( 1 x10 6 g/ µ g)

= 3 x 10 3 mg methyloldhydantoin/ in2 of paper i Page 12 of 18 IIIb. Concentration of methylolhydantoin in food ( Wt. of methoxyhydantoin/ paper area) x( food area / surface area) x(% food to coated paper)

= ( 3 x10 3 methylolhydantoin/ in2 of paper) x ( in2/ 10 gm food)( 0.2) = 0.06 µ g methoxymethylhydantoin = 0.06 ppm = 60 ppb ii DMH, when produced asa degradation product of this reaction mixture accounts for 70.6% and from the degradation of the two hydroxymethyl isomers, formaldehyde accounts for 29.4%. Hence DMH concentration = 60 ppb x 70.6/ 100 = 42.4 ppb  iii And Formaldehyde Concentration = 60 42.4= 17.6 ppb  iv IIIc. Concentration of DMH in Food: ( Conc of Methylolhydantoin) x (% DMH)

42.4 ppb v IIId. Concentration of formaldehyde in food ( Concentration of methylolhydantoin) x ( percent of formaldehyde produced)

= 60 ppb x 0.294 = 17.6 ppb  iii IIIe. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of Methylolhydantoin ( adult) = 3000 g food / p/ day x 0.06 µ g hydroxymethylhydanotin/ gm food = 180 µ g/ p/ d   iv IIIe. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of methylolhydanotin ( child) = 1500 g food/ person/ day x 0.06 µ g methylolhydantoin/ gm food = 90 µ g/ p/ d v IIIf. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of DMH for an adult = 0.042 µ g/ gm food x 3000 gm food/ p/ d = 126 µ g/ p/ d  vi IIIg. Estimated Daily Intake ( EDI) of DMH for a child = 0.042 µ g/ gm food x 1500 gm food/ p/ d = 63 µ g/ p/ d  vii IIIh. Estimated Daily Intake of Formadehyde ( adult) = 3000 g food x 17.6 ppb = 53 µ g/ p/ d  viii IIIi Estimated Daily Intake of formaldehyde ( child) = 1500 g food x 17.6 ppb = 26.5 µ g/ p/ d  ix Page 13 of 18 A. . Aggregate Concentrations of DMH / g food Three use:

0.0049 µ g + 0.0038 µ g + 0.042 µ g = 0.051 µ g x A1. Aggregated Estimated Daily Intake of DMH for All three Uses ( For an Adult):

= 3000 g food x 0.051 µ g DMH = 153 µ g/ day  xi A2. Aggregated Estimated Daily Intake of DMH for a Child:

1500 g food x 0.051 µ g DMH = 76.5 µ g/ day  xii A3. Aggregated Estimated Daily Intake of Formaldehyde from All three Uses ( adult): ( 3.42 + 2.67 + 53.0) µ g = 59.09 µ g  xiii A4. Estimated Daily Intake of Formaldehyde for All Three Uses ( for a child):

( 1.71 + 1.34 + 26.50) µ g = 29.55 µ g  xiv Table 1A Dietary Exposure From Hydantoins Aggregate EDI: From DMH Aggregate Exposure: From DMH Male Adult = 153 µ g/ d 153 µ g/ 70kg/ d = 2.18 µ g/ kg/ bw/ d Female Adult = 153 µ g/ d 153 µ g/ 60 kg/ d = 2.55 µ g/ kg/ bw/ d Child = 76.5 µ g/ d 76.5 µ g/ 10kg/ d = 7.6 µ g/ kg/ bw/ d Page 14 of 18 Table 1B Dietary Exposure From Formaldehyde Released From Hydantoins Aggregate EDI From Formaldehyde Aggregate Exposure: From Formaldehyde Male Adult = 59.09 µ g/ d 59.09 µ g/ 70 kg/ d = 0.844 µ g/ kg/ bw/ d Female Adult = 59.09 µ g/ d 59.09 µ g/ 60kg/ d = 0.98 µ g/ kg/ d Child = 29.55 µ g/ d 29.55 µ g/ 10 kg/ d = 2.95 µ g/ kg/ d Provide the results of the analyses in the text as well as in a table format. Depending on the complexity of the analysis, several tables may be needed.

As stated above, for acute and chronic assessments, AD is concerned when dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD. The DEEM FCID   analyses estimate the dietary exposure of the U. S. population and 26 population subgroups. The results reported in Table( s) X ( and X) are for the general U. S. Population, all infants (< 1 year old), children 1 2, children 3 5, children 6 12, youth 13 19, females 13 49, adults 20 49, and adults 50+ years. Cancer risk is determined for the general U. S. population only.

Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis Results are reported at the [ 95th/ 99.9th] percentile of exposure because the assessment incorporated [ 100% CT assumptions/ estimates of % CT]. Page 15 of 18 Table for Tier 1 and 2 Analyses ( i. e., 100% CT assumptions were made):

Table X. Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis at the 95th Percentile of Exposure Population Subgroup aPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD General U. S. Population All Infants (< 1 year old)

Children 1 2 years old Children 3 5 years old Children 6 12 years old Youth 13 19 years old Adults 20 49 years old Females 13 49 years old Adults 50+ years old Table for Tier 2a, 3, and 4 Analyses ( i. e., estimates of % CT were used):

Table X. Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis Population Subgroup aPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) 95th Percentile 99th Percentile 99.9th Percentile Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD General U. S. Population All Infants (< 1 year old)

Children 1 2 years old Children 3 5 years old Children 6 12 years old Youth 13 19 years old Adults 20 49 years old Females 13 49 years old Adults 50+ years old Comments: ( If any of the acute dietary risk estimates reported in the table exceed HED's level of concern, include a commodity contribution analysis and summarize in general terms). Page 16 of 18 Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis Table X. Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis Population Subgroup cPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD General U. S. Population All Infants (< 1 year old)

Children 1 2 years old Children 3 5 years old Children 6 12 years old Youth 13 19 years old Adults 20 49 years old Females 13 49 years old Adults 50+ years old Comments: ( If any of the chronic dietary risk estimates reported in the table exceed HED's level of concern, include a commodity contribution analysis and summarize in general terms).

Results of Cancer Dietary Exposure Analysis ( In the event that the chemical has a Q*, the following language can be used):

The estimated exposure of the general U. S. population to [ chemical name] is [?] mg/ kg/ day. Applying the Q 1* of x. xxx ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 to the exposure value results in a cancer risk estimate of Y. Y x 10 x. Therefore, estimated cancer risk is ( below/ above) HED's level of concern.

Table X. Results of Cancer Dietary Exposure Analysis Population Subgroup Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) Estimated Cancer Risk General U. S. Population Comments: ( If the cancer dietary risk exceeds AD's level of concern, include a commodity contribution analysis and summarize in general terms).

In the following sections, discussion should be included if it is applicable to the particular chemical under discussion and if some parts of the section are not applicable these should be deleted. Page 17 of 18 VI. Discussion of Uncertainties In the course of conducting a Tier 3/ 4 dietary exposure analysis, decisions are made regarding the following: the residue data used in the analysis ( e. g., field trials, monitoring data, etc.), refinements incorporated in DEEM FCID   such as percent crop treated and processing factors, sensitivity analyses, and a variety of other issues which may be chemical or crop specific. Include a discussion of uncertainties for any Tier 3/ 4 dietary exposure analyses. Only relevant topics need to be addressed.

Potential Issues/ Topics to Include in the " Uncertainties" Discussion

Sensitivity analyses

Is the analysis sensitive to the assumption of ½ LOD values? Are there certain crops that are not expected to have residues ( or have very low % CT); and therefore, are unlikely to contribute to the risk? What types of sensitivity analyses were conducted and what did the results show?

What additional data could be used to refine AD's risk estimates?

VII. Conclusions Provide a concise summary of the results of the dietary analyses and whether or not risk estimates are below AD's level of concern. ( If practical, cut and paste the conclusions from the Executive Summary.) The following language may also be used. The summary table below should be included. This table can also be found in the Format and Risk Characterization Guidance ( SOP 00.2).

The [ Tier ½ / 3/ 4/ Monte Carlo][ acute, chronic, cancer] dietary risk assessment( s) were conducted for all supported [ chemical name] food uses. For all supported registered commodities, the [ acute] risk estimates are [ above/ below] the Agency's level of concern at the [ 95th/ 99.9th] exposure percentile for the general U. S. population (?% of the [ a] PAD) and [ all population subgroups/ most highly exposed population subgroup]. The [ acute] dietary exposure estimate for [ highest exposed population subgroup] is [?%] of the [ a] PAD. For all commodities, the [ chronic] risk estimates are [ above/ below] the Agency's level of concern for the general U. S. population (?% of the [ c] PAD) and [ all population subgroups/ most highly exposed population subgroup]. The [ chronic] dietary exposure estimate for [ highest exposed population subgroup] is [?%] of the cPAD. The cancer risk estimate associated with exposure to [ chemical] is [?] for the general U. S. population, and is [ above/ below] the Agency's level of concern. Page 18 of 18 Table X. Summary of Dietary Exposure and Risk for [ Chemical]

Population Subgroup** Acute Dietary Chronic Dietary Cancer Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD Risk General U. S. Population All Infants (< 1 year old)

N/ A Children 1 2 years old Children 3 5 years old Children 6 12 years old Youth 13 19 years old Adults 20 49 years old Females 13 49 years old Adults 50+ years old ** The values for the highest exposed population for each type of risk assessment should be bolded.

VIII. List of Attachments Attach acute and chronic analyses, including commodity files, RDFs, summary pages from acute and chronic analyses, and % CT memo from BEAD. For cancer analyses, delete from the attachment all results except those for the general U. S. population. Attachments generated by the DEEM FCID   model should be formatted in either Courier TT8 or Courier New font ( size 8).


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12067-12068]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03866]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 2

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1355]
RIN 0910-AH36

Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with a determination by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that the direct final rule (``Use
of Ozone Depleting Substances'') published on October 26, 2016, is
excluded from the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to
the President and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory Freeze Pending
Review,'' this action confirms the effective date of February 23, 2017,
for the direct final rule.

DATES: The effective date of the direct final rule that published on
October 26, 2016, at 81 FR 74298, is confirmed to be February 23, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Orr, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6246, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 26, 2016, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or Agency) issued a direct final rule amending the
regulation on uses of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), including
chlorofluorocarbons, to remove the designations for sterile aerosol
talc administered intrapleurally by thoracoscopy for human use and
metered-dose atropine sulfate aerosol human drugs administered by oral
inhalation as ``essential uses'' under the Clean Air Act. FDA took this
action because alternative products that do not use ODSs are now
available, and because these products are no longer being marketed in
versions that contain ODSs. FDA did not receive any significant adverse
comments regarding the direct final rule, which was published with an
effective date of February 23, 2017.
    A memorandum of January 20, 2017 (82 FR 8346), from the Assistant
to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory Freeze
Pending Review,'' directed the heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies to temporarily postpone for 60 days from the date of the
memorandum the effective dates of all regulations that had been
published in the Federal Register but had not yet taken effect, for the
purpose of ``reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy they raise.''
The memorandum also stated that the Director of OMB may exclude certain
regulations if they ``affect critical health, safety, financial, or
national security matters, or for some other reason.'' Pursuant to the
memorandum, the Director of OMB has excluded the direct final rule that
published on October 26, 2016, at 81 FR 74298, from the directive to
delay the effective date of certain regulations. The Department,
therefore, confirms that the effective date of the direct final rule is
February 23, 2017.

    Dated: February 22, 2017.
Thomas E. Price,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03866 Filed 2-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 11360]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03901]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-30-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review of the Middlesex Extension Project

    On December 19, 2019, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas
Eastern) filed an application in Docket No. CP20-30-000 with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) requesting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural
gas pipeline facilities in Middlesex County, New Jersey. The proposed
project is known as the Middlesex Extension Project (Project) would
provide 264 million cubic feet (264,000 dekatherms) per day of natural
gas transportation to interconnects with Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC's (Transco) mainline system and Transco's existing
Woodbridge Lateral for the delivery to the 725-Megawatt natural gas-
fueled combined-cycle Woodbridge Energy Center in Woodbridge Township,
New Jersey.
    On January 6, 2020, the Commission issued its Notice of Application
for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies
issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all
necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a
federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This
instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the
completion of the EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--May 21, 2020
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--August 19, 2020
    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    The Middlesex Extension Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     1.55 Miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline;
     a new metering and regulating station;
     0.20 mile of 16-inch-diameter interconnecting piping; and
     related appurtenances and ancillary facilities.

Background

    On February 7, 2020, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Middlesex
Extension Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and
Notice of Public Scoping Session (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected
landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected
officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American
tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers.
All substantive comments will be addressed in the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP20-30), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC
website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: February 20, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03901 Filed 2-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 81454]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32646]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 242

[Release No. 34-73639A; File No. S7-01-13]
RIN 3235-AL43

Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity; Correction

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
making a technical correction to its rules concerning Regulation
Systems Compliance and Integrity (``Regulation SCI'') under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') and conforming
amendments to Regulation ATS under the Exchange Act, which applies to
certain self-regulatory organizations (including registered clearing
agencies), alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), plan processors, and
exempt clearing agencies (collectively, ``SCI entities'').

DATES: Effective December 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Hawkins, Special Counsel, Office
of Market Supervision, at<PHONE_NUMBER> and Alexander Zozos, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of Market Supervision, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Division of
Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is making a technical
correction to final rules that were published in the Federal Register
on December 5, 2014 (79 FR 72251) as part of Regulation SCI under the
Exchange Act and conforming amendments to Regulation ATS under the
Exchange Act.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR 242

    Brokers; Confidential business information; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements; and Securities.

    Accordingly, 17 CFR Part 242 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendment:

PART 242--REGULATIONS M, SHO, ATS, AC, NMS AND SCI AND CUSTOMER
MARGIN REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURITY FUTURES--[CORRECTED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 242 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 77g, 77q(a), 77s(a), 78b, 78c, 78g(c)(2),
78i(a), 78j, 78k-1(c), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(b), 78o(c), 78o(g),
78q(a), 78q(b), 78q(h), 78w(a), 78dd-1, 78mm, 80a-23, 80a-29, and
80a-37.

Sec.  242.1000  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  242.1000 in paragraph (3) of the definition of SCI
alternative trading system or SCI ATS, by revising the phrase ``until
six months after satisfying any of paragraphs (a) or (b) of this
section'' to read ``until six months after satisfying any of paragraphs
(1) or (2) of this definition''.

    Dated: December 22, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32646 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 5, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-22243

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 Delta Air Lines (Delta) filed 8/24/05 for:

XX	Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between (1) the terminal point Cincinnati, Ohio, and the terminal point
San Jose del Cabo, Mexico; (2) the terminal point Atlanta Georgia, and
the terminal point Merida, Mexico; (3) the terminal point New York, New
York/ Newark, New Jersey, on the one hand, and each of the following
terminal points in Mexico on the other hand: (a) Cozumel, (b) Puerto
Vallarta, (c) San Jose del Cabo, and (d) Acapulco; and to integrate this
authority with Delta’s existing exemption and certificate authority,
to the extent permitted by applicable international agreements.  Delta
proposes to operate these services on a year-round basis.

Applicant rep: Alexander Van der Bellen,<PHONE_NUMBER> 	DOT Analyst:
Tretha Chromey<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX	Granted, in part, exemption authority (subject to conditions, see
below)

XX	Deferred the New York-San Jose del Cabo request (see remarks below)

The above action was effective when taken: October 5, 2005 through
October 5, 2007.

Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

XX	The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX	Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX	Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Responsive Pleadings:  Continental Airlines (Continental) filed an
answer stating it does not object to Delta’s application so long as
its New York/Newark-Cozumel, San Jose del Cabo, Puerto Vallarta, and
Acapulco service remains effective.  American Airlines (American)
opposes Delta’s request for route authority for the New York-San Jose
del Cabo market.  American filed a competing application to serve the
New York-San Jose del Cabo market in Docket OST-2005-22331.  Because
only one designation opportunity is available, American states that a
carrier selection proceeding is required for this service.  By letter
dated September 1, 2005, counsel for Delta requested that we proceed
with Delta’s application, but defer decision on the New York-San Jose
del Cabo portion pending a carrier selection proceeding.

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our policy, the dormancy notice
period will begin on Delta’s proposed start-up dates for each city
pair market.

The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that
any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all
applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign
countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route
integration authority granted should be construed as conferring upon
Delta rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights)
to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless Delta
notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market and unless
and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection
procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to
exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by any carrier
to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in Delta’s
authority by virtue of the route integration exemption granted here, but
that are not then being used by Delta, the holding of such authority by
route integration will not be considered as providing any preference for
Delta in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which
carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

Remarks:  Currently, under the Air Transport Agreement between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government of the
United Mexican States (Agreement), up to a total of two U.S. carriers
may be designated to provide direct-carrier (own-aircraft) services in a
given city-pair market.  Only one designation opportunity is available
for the New York-San Jose del Cabo market at this time.  However, recent
US-Mexico consultations have resulted in an ad referendum amendment to
the Agreement, which would expand the number of designations available
for US carriers to provide scheduled services in certain city pair
markets, including New York-San Jose del Cabo.  In the circumstances
presented, we defer action on the applicant’s request for authority
with respect to the New York-San Jose del Cabo city pair until such time
as the amendments are effective.

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or dismissed, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted 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:

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

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										  05/2004

 Delta proposed the following start-up dates: Cincinnati-San Jose del
Cabo - December 3, 2005; Atlanta-Merida - February 25, 2006; New
York-Cozumel/Puerto Vallarta - March 4, 2006; and New York-Acapulco -
March 11, 2006.

 A recently negotiated amendment to the Agreement that would expand the
number of U.S. carrier scheduled service designations in certain
city-pair markets, including the New York-San Jose del Cabo market, is
not yet effective between the Governments of the United States and
Mexico.    We note that American submitted a motion in this docket and
Docket OST-2005-22331, requesting that we grant the applications of
Delta and American with respect to New York-San Jose del Cabo route
authority in light of the increase in designation opportunities for this
market under the amended Agreement.  Delta answered in support of
American’s motion and urges us to grant the two applications.  We are
taking no action on American’s motion or Delta’s response at this
time.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59647-59649]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24093]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0012]

Modification to the List of Appropriate NRTL Program Test
Standards and the Scopes of Recognition of Several NRTLs

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to: (1) Add
a new test standard to the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories
(NRTL) Program's list of appropriate test standards and (2) update the
scopes of recognition of several NRTLs.

DATES: The actions contained in this notice will become effective on
November 5, 2019.

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; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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> or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's web page includes information about the
NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The NRTL program recognizes organizations that provide product-
safety testing and certification services to manufacturers. These
organizations perform testing and certification for purposes of the
program, to U.S. consensus-based product-safety test standards. The
products covered by the NRTL program consist of those items for which
OSHA safety standards require certification by a NRTL. The requirements
affect electrical products and 38 other types of products. OSHA does
not develop or issue these test standards, but generally relies on
standards-development organizations (SDOs), which develop and maintain
the standards using a method that provides input and consideration of
views of industry groups, experts, users, consumers, governmental
authorities and others having broad experience in the safety field
involved.

A. Addition of New Test Standards to the NRTL List of Appropriate Test
Standards

    Periodically, OSHA will add new test standards to the NRTL list of
appropriate test standards following an evaluation of the test standard
document. To qualify as an appropriate test standard, the agency
evaluates the document to: (1) Verify it represents a product category
for which OSHA requires certification by a NRTL, (2) verify the
document represents an end product and not a component, and (3) verify
the document defines safety test specifications (not installation or
operational performance specifications). OSHA becomes aware of new test
standards through various avenues. For example, OSHA may become aware
of new test standards by: (1) Monitoring notifications issued by
certain SDOs; (2) reviewing applications by NRTLs or applicants seeking
recognition to include a new test standard in their scopes of
recognition; and (3) obtaining notification from manufacturers,
manufacturing organizations, government agencies, or other parties that
a new test standard may be appropriate to add to its list of
appropriate standards. OSHA may determine to include a new test
standard in the list, for example, if the test standard is for a
particular type of product that another test standard also covers,
covers a type of product that no standard previously covered, or is
otherwise new to the NRTL Program.

B. SDO Deletion and Replacement of Test Standards

    The NRTL program regulations require that appropriate test
standards be maintained and current (29 CFR 1910.7(c)). A test standard
withdrawn by a standards-development organization is no longer
considered an appropriate test standard (Directive, App. C.XIV.B). It
is OSHA's policy to remove recognition of withdrawn test standards by
issuing a correction notice in the Federal Register for all NRTLs
recognized for the withdrawn test standards. However, SDOs frequently
will designate a replacement standard for standards they withdraw. OSHA
will recognize a NRTL for an appropriate replacement test standard if
the NRTL has the requisite testing and evaluation capability for the
replacement test standard.
    One method that NRTLs may use to show such capability involves an
analysis to determine whether any testing and evaluation requirements
of existing test standards in a NRTL scope are comparable (i.e., are
completely or substantially identical) to the requirements in the
replacement test standard. If OSHA's analysis shows the replacement
test standard does not require additional or different technical
capability than an existing test standard(s), the replacement test
standard is comparable to the existing test standard(s), then OSHA can
add the replacement test standard to affected NRTLs' scopes of
recognition. If OSHA's analysis shows the replacement test

standard requires an additional or different technical capability, or
the replacement test standard is not comparable to any existing test
standards, each affected NRTL that seeks to have OSHA add the
replacement test standard to the NRTL's scope of recognition must
provide information to OSHA that demonstrates technical capability.

C. Other Reasons for Removal of Test Standards From the NRTL List of
Appropriate Test Standards

    OSHA may choose to remove a test standard from the NRTL list of
appropriate test standards based on an internal review. The review will
determine if the test standards conform to the definition of an
appropriate test standard defined in NRTL program regulations and
policy. There are several reasons for removing a test standard based on
this review. First, a document that provides the methodology for a
single test is a test method rather than an appropriate test standard
(29 CFR 1910.7(c)). As stated above, a test standard must specify the
safety requirements for a specific type of product(s). A test method,
however, is a ``specified technical procedure for performing a test''
(Directive, App. B). As such, a test method is not an appropriate test
standard. While a NRTL may use a test method to determine if certain
safety requirements are met, a test method is not itself a safety
requirement for a specific product category.
    Second, a document that focuses primarily on usage, installation,
or maintenance requirements would also not be considered an appropriate
test standard (Directive, App. D.IV.B). In some cases, however, a
document may also provide safety test specifications in addition to
usage, installation, and maintenance requirements. In such cases, the
document would be retained as an appropriate test standard based on the
safety test specifications.
    Finally, a document may not be considered an appropriate test
standard if the document covers products for which OSHA does not
require testing and certification (Directive, App. D.IV.A). Similarly,
a document that covers electrical-product components would not be
considered an appropriate test standard. These documents apply to types
of components that have limitation(s) or condition(s) on their use, in
that they are not appropriate end-use products. These documents also
specify that these types of components are for use only as part of an
end-use product. NRTLs, however, evaluate such components only in the
context of evaluating whether end-use products requiring NRTL approval
are safe for use in the workplace. Testing such components alone would
not indicate that the end-use products containing the components are
safe for use. Accordingly, as a matter of policy, OSHA considers that
documents covering such components are not appropriate test standards
under the NRTL program. OSHA notes, however, that it is not proposing
to delete from NRTLs' scopes of recognition any test standards covering
end-use products that contain such components.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ OSHA notes also that some types of devices covered by these
documents, such as capacitors and transformers, may be end-use
products themselves, and tested under other test standards
applicable to such products. For example, the following test
standard covers transformers that are end-use products: UL 1562
Standard for Transformers, Distribution, Dry-Type--Over 600 Volts.
OSHA is not proposing to delete such test standards from NRTLs'
scopes of recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, OSHA notes that, to conform to a test standard
covering an end-use product, a NRTL must still determine that the
components in the product comply with the components' specific test
standards. In making this determination, NRTLs may test the components
themselves, or accept the testing of a qualified testing organization
that a given component conforms to its particular test standard. OSHA
reviews each NRTL's procedures to determine which approach the NRTL
will use to address components, and reviews the end-use product testing
to verify the NRTL appropriately addresses that product's components.

D. Proposed Modification to the NRTL List of Appropriate Test Standards
and the Scopes of Recognition of Several NRTLs

    In a February 7, 2019, Federal Register notice (84 FR 2587,
referred to in this notice as ``Proposed Modification,'' and available
at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID OSHA-2013-0012-0011), OSHA
proposed: Adding one standard to the NRTL list of appropriate test
standards; deleting a withdrawn and deleted test standard from the NRTL
list of appropriate test standards; incorporating into the NRTL list of
appropriate test standards a replacement test standard for the
withdrawn and deleted test standard; and updating the scopes of
recognition of several NRTLs. OSHA received no comments, and in this
notice, takes final action on its proposals.

II. Final Decision To Add a New Test Standard to the NRTL Program's
List of Appropriate Test Standards

    In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to add one new
test standard, UL 61010-2-020, Standard for Safety Requirements for
Electrical Equipment for Laboratory Use; Part 2-020: Particular
Requirements for Laboratory Equipment for Laboratory Centrifuges, to
the NRTL program's list of appropriate test standards. In the Proposed
Modification, OSHA proposed adding the same test standard to the NRTL
Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards, as described in Table 1:

  Table 1--Test Standards OSHA Is Adding to the NRTL Program's List of
                       Appropriate Test Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Proposed replacement
Proposed test standard to be   Reason for proposed  test standard(s) (if
           removed                   removal             applicable)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 61010A-2-020--Electrical   Standard withdrawn    UL 61010-2-020--
 Equipment for Laboratory      by Standards          Standard for Safety
 Use; Part 2: Particular       Organization.         Requirements for
 Requirements for Laboratory                         Electrical
 Equipment for Laboratory                            Equipment for
 Centrifuges.                                        Laboratory Use;
                                                     Part 2-020:
                                                     Particular
                                                     Requirements for
                                                     Laboratory
                                                     Equipment for
                                                     Laboratory
                                                     Centrifuges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Decision To Modify Affected NRTLs' Scopes of Recognition

    In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to update the
scopes of recognition of several NRTLs. The tables in this section
(Table 2 thru Table 5) list, for each affected NRTL, the test standard
that OSHA will delete from its scope of recognition and, when
applicable, the test standard that OSHA will incorporate into its scope
of

recognition to replace withdrawn (and deleted) test standard.

  Table 2--Test Standard OSHA Will Remove and Replace From the Scope of
            Recognition of the Canadian Standards Association
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Replacement test
 Test standard to be removed   Reason for removal         standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 61010A-2-020--Electrical   Standard withdrawn    UL 61010-2-020--
 Equipment for Laboratory      by Standards          Standard for Safety
 Use; Part 2: Particular       Organization.         Requirements for
 Requirements for Laboratory                         Electrical
 Equipment for Laboratory                            Equipment for
 Centrifuges.                                        Laboratory Use;
                                                     Part 2-020:
                                                     Particular
                                                     Requirements for
                                                     Laboratory
                                                     Equipment for
                                                     Laboratory
                                                     Centrifuges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 3--Test Standard OSHA Will Remove and Replace From the Scope of
              Recognition of Intertek Testing Services, NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Replacement test
 Test standard to be removed   Reason for removal         standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 61010A-2-020--Electrical   Standard withdrawn    UL 61010-2-020--
 Equipment for Laboratory      by Standards          Standard for Safety
 Use; Part 2: Particular       Organization.         Requirements for
 Requirements for Laboratory                         Electrical
 Equipment for Laboratory                            Equipment for
 Centrifuges.                                        Laboratory Use;
                                                     Part 2-020:
                                                     Particular
                                                     Requirements for
                                                     Laboratory
                                                     Equipment for
                                                     Laboratory
                                                     Centrifuges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 4--Test Standard OSHA Will Remove and Replace From the Scope of
                  Recognition of TUV SUD America, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Replacement test
 Test standard to be removed   Reason for removal         standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 61010A-2-020--Electrical   Standard withdrawn    UL 61010-2-020--
 Equipment for Laboratory      by Standards          Standard for Safety
 Use; Part 2: Particular       Organization.         Requirements for
 Requirements for Laboratory                         Electrical
 Equipment for Laboratory                            Equipment for
 Centrifuges.                                        Laboratory Use;
                                                     Part 2-020:
                                                     Particular
                                                     Requirements for
                                                     Laboratory
                                                     Equipment for
                                                     Laboratory
                                                     Centrifuges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 5--Test Standard OSHA Will Remove and Replace From the Scope of
              Recognition of Underwriters Laboratory, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Replacement test
 Test standard to be removed   Reason for removal         standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 61010A-2-020--Electrical   Standard withdrawn    UL 61010-2-020--
 Equipment for Laboratory      by Standards          Standard for Safety
 Use; Part 2: Particular       Organization.         Requirements for
 Requirements for Laboratory                         Electrical
 Equipment for Laboratory                            Equipment for
 Centrifuges.                                        Laboratory Use;
                                                     Part 2-020:
                                                     Particular
                                                     Requirements for
                                                     Laboratory
                                                     Equipment for
                                                     Laboratory
                                                     Centrifuges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA will incorporate the modifications to each NRTL Scope of
Recognition on the informational web pages. These web pages detail the
scope of recognition for each NRTL, including the test standards the
NRTL may use to test and certify products under OSHA's NRTL Program.
OSHA also will add, to the Appropriate Test Standards web page, those
test standard added to the NRTL list of appropriate test standards, and
add, to the Standards No Longer Recognized web page, those test
standards that OSHA no longer recognizes or permits under the NRTL
program. Access to these web pages is available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby updates the
NRTL List of Appropriate Test Standards, subject to the limitation and
conditions specified above.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal 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 October 30, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-24093 Filed 11-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P