Oral Comments

of the

American Petroleum Institute

on

U.S. Government Positions for the 20th Session of the

United Nations Subcommittee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System
of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals

(UNSCEGHS)

75 FR 69472 – 69473, November 12, 2010

November 30, 2010

By

Derek D. Swick

Policy Advisor

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
202.682.8341

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street, Northwest

Washington, DC  20005

202-682-8000

Oral Comments of the American Petroleum Institute

Proposals in Preparation for the 20th Session of the

United Nations Subcommittee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System
of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS)

Introduction

My name is Derek Swick, and I am a Policy Advisor with the American
Petroleum Institute (API).  API is a nationwide, not-for-profit trade
association whose members include over 400 companies engaged in all
aspects of the oil and natural gas industry, including exploration,
production, transportation, refining, and marketing.

API is pleased to make these comments to the U.S. Interagency GHS
Coordinating Group for consideration in developing U.S. government
positions for the 20th Session of the United Nations Subcommittee of
Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS).

API member companies comply with many OSHA standards including the HCS
and support OSHA’s efforts to ensure that workers are provided with
information about hazards of chemicals they may be exposed to in the
workplace.  Through HCS compliance programs and broader safety and
product stewardship programs, API’s members evaluate the hazards of
the chemicals they produce or import and provide information about them
through container labels and detailed chemical information sheets (i.e.,
the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS or SDS)).  Each member company
prepares and implements a written hazard communication program, ensures
that chemical containers are labeled, provides employees with access to
SDSs, and conducts training for potentially exposed employees.  API
members are regulated under the existing HCS, and any change to it will
directly affect them.

Our following comments are organized by UNSCEGHS paper and topic.

ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/20

Proposals from the informal working group on GHS implementation issues:
Global list of GHS classified chemicals

API supports the UNSCEGHS discussion on a global list of GHS classified
chemicals.  API would like to summarize and emphasize positions
presented in comments on OSHA’s GHS NPRM and in the submission by the
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association
(IPIECA) in response to the UNSCEGHS survey on classification lists.

A global list of GHS classified chemicals has maximized value when it is
accepted by all countries implementing the GHS.  The proliferation of
national/regional lists is contrary to harmonization.

The benefits of a global list of GHS classified chemicals include
supporting cost-effective implementation, avoiding duplication of
effort, and promoting harmonization/consistency in classification. These
benefits apply to everyone:

A global list of GHS classified chemicals is useful to governments to
avoid duplication of effort in creating national systems, facilitate
international trade in chemicals, promote harmonization/consistency, and
reduce the costs of enforcement.  Also an international list of
chemicals classified in terms of the GHS will improve safety for workers
and others through consistent and harmonized communications on chemical
hazards and practices to follow for safe handling and use.

A global list of GHS classified chemicals is useful to manufacturers to
promote cost-effective implementation, to facilitate international trade
in chemicals; in applying expert systems resulting in maximizing expert
resources and minimizing labor and costs, to facilitate electronic
transmission systems with international scope, to promote
harmonization/consistency, to expand the use of training programs on
health and safety, to improve the credibility of communication, and to
reduce laboratory testing on animals.

A global list of GHS classified chemicals will greatly benefit countries
without national GHS implementing legislation and regulation and
countries lacking the capacity to implement the GHS.

A global list of GHS classified chemicals will focus attention on
divergent chemical classifications on multiple regional lists and
regional classifications that stray from the GHS criteria.

In order to promote the overarching GHS goals of global harmonization
and facilitation of trade, it is essential that any global list of GHS
classified chemicals:

be based on a rigorous, evidence-based scientific process to be defined
in advance and applied globally;

contain the data to support the classifications or a section explaining
the rationale behind the classifications;

ensure accuracy by including impurities and CAS numbers for the
chemicals;

include mechanisms for updating as new evidence-based science becomes
available;

have defined criteria for source data;

provide a conflict resolution mechanism; and

have provisions for stakeholder input/data.

Furthermore, the fundamental premise in the GHS of self-classification
should be maintained in efforts to develop any list of GHS
classifications.  According to the GHS Purple Book

“One objective of the GHS is for it to be simple and transparent with
a clear distinction between classes and categories in order to allow for
“self classification” as far as possible.”

Thus, future discussions on this topic must consider the benefits of a
global list of GHS classified chemicals along with the need to maintain
GHS’s self-classification premise and criteria-based approach.

Developing and maintaining a global list of GHS classified chemicals
will be very resource intensive.  It will be important to prioritize
resources to develop a list that has maximum impact and value for the
resources expended.  A first step would be to review existing
national/regional classification lists to establish priority setting,
since those lists already represent priorities for those countries. The
first step in development of any classification list is the development
and agreement on the criteria for inclusion of chemicals on the list.

It would be logical to start with common hazardous high volume chemicals
with multiple suppliers that are involved in international trade.  To
facilitate acceptance and a propitious beginning, it would also be
logical to start with the chemicals where there is already agreement
among the existing regional classification lists.

ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/15

Proposals to address issues from the programme of work for the practical
classification issues correspondence group

This paper proposes recommended editorial changes to the GHS text which
would be incorporated into the next revised edition of the GHS.  The
changes include adding to GHS Chapter 1.3 that CMR classification is
usually based on the ingredients and testing out is only on a
case-by-case basis.  This proposed change would de-emphasize the role of
data on the mixture as a whole for use in classification of CMRs.

API supports the text in the individual germ cell mutagenicity,
carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity chapters that allows
classification based on test data for the mixture as a whole on a
case-by case basis. Testing out should be allowed if data are
sufficient.

Currently the GHS germ cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and
reproductive toxicity chapters state that

“… classification may be modified on a case-by case basis based on
the available test data for the mixture as a whole. In such cases, the
test results for the mixture as a whole must be shown to be conclusive
taking into account dose and other factors such as duration,
observations and analysis (e.g. statistical analysis, test sensitivity)
of germ cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and reproduction test
systems. Adequate documentation supporting the classification should be
retained and made available for review upon request.”

It is important that the GHS maintain for CMRs this principle that
allows consideration of test data for the mixture as a whole on a
case-by-case basis taking into account certain factors.  In the
formative GHS discussions this concept was a deal breaker for USA
stakeholders.  There was much discussion and the text currently in the
germ cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity
chapters was agreed to.  The U.S. should oppose this editorial amendment
to GHS Chapter 1.3 at the upcoming UNSCEGHS meeting.

ST/SG/AC.10/C.4/2010/17

Draft terms of reference for the work on corrosivity criteria

Can the U.S. Interagency GHS Coordinating Group explain the tasks and
work that will be done under the Terms of Reference for the work on
corrosivity criteria?  It is not clear from this paper exactly what work
is to be done.

Several points in the paper are broad, general, and vague and there
appears to be at least one typographical error.

Point (b) is not clear.

(b) Identify the discrepancies between assignment to sub-categories 1A,
1B and 1C, based on testing and the one based on theoretical approaches
(bridging principles, mixtures calculations, pH…);

What are the assignments to sub-categories 1A, 1B, and 1C based on
theoretical approaches (bridging principles, mixtures calculations, pH)
that are to be considered?  Where are these assignments to
sub-categories 1A, 1B, and 1C based on theoretical approaches (bridging
principles, mixtures calculations, pH) to be found?  Are there reference
documents?

Point (c) is not clear.

(c) Identify differences in assignment to categories in lists provided
by different regulations and guidance documents for the most common
substances. Analyse the reasons for these differences and use these
results for the work under paragraphs 1, 2 and 4.

What are the regulations and guidance documents that are to be
considered?  What are the most common substances? Should the text
actually read “paragraphs a, b and d”?

Point (d) is not clear.

(d) Check the way OECD guidelines are referenced to and their relevance.

What does this mean?

The U.S. should request clarification on the terms of reference for the
work on corrosivity criteria at the upcoming UNSCEGHS meeting.

Programme of Work of the Practical Classification Issues (PCI)
Correspondence Group in the Next Biennium (2011 – 2012)

API thanks the U.S. delegation to UNSCEGHS in agreeing to lead future
work on the harmonization of IMO and GHS SDS formats and requirements.

At the 19th Session of the UNSCEGHS, the Sub-Committee agreed (1) to
include an item on the development of guidance to address the needs of
IMO for MARPOL Annex I cargoes and marine fuel oils in the GHS in the
Sub-Committee’s program of work for the next biennium and (2) that the
proposals made by IPIECA in UN/SCEGHS/19/INF.18 be taken as the basis
for the work.  The U.S. agreed to lead this work in the next biennium
and suggested that the future work be addressed by the correspondence
group on practical classification issues (i.e., PCI Correspondence
Group).  The Sub-Committee agreed with this proposal.  API, through
IPIECA, looks forward to working with the PCI Correspondence Group in
framing its programme of work for the next biennium and the timely and
successful completion of that work.

As the UNSCEGHS begins its work on the harmonization of the divergent
IMO and GHS SDS formats and requirements, API believes it is critical
for the U.S. Coast Guard to become involved in U.S. representation at
the UNSCEGHS.  The U.S. Coast Guard should begin to play an active role
in the U.S. Interagency GHS Coordinating Group as the Coast Guard is
currently grappling with implementation of the GHS as evidenced by Coast
Guard SDS requirements for MARPOL Annex 1 cargoes and marine fuel oils
which will be proposed in the near future.  See the June 26, 2009 U.S.
Coast Guard Federal Register Notice on U.S. implementation of SOLAS
regulation VI/5-1.  Further, we encourage a representative of the U.S.
Coast Guard to sit on the U.S. delegation for upcoming UNSCEGHS meetings
and to actively participate in PCI Correspondence Group discussions on
this issue.

Conclusion and Continued Need for U.S. Stakeholder Input before UNSCEGHS
Meetings

API thanks the U.S. Interagency GHS Coordinating Group for organizing
this public meeting in preparation for the upcoming session of UNSCEGHS.
 Such open meetings should take place before every UNSCEGHS session and
not only for meetings at the conclusion of the UNSCEGHS biennium.

 PAGE   1

 PAGE   3

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 4197]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01695]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-697-000]

Gray Hawk Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Gray Hawk Solar, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 12, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 23, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-01695 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 76 (Friday, April 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18797-18798]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08060]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80472; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

April 17, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 3, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Specifically, the
Exchange is eliminating certain fees relating to the PULSe workstation.
By way of background, the PULSe workstation is a front-end order entry
system designed for use with respect to orders that may be sent to the
trading systems of the Exchange. Exchange Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs'') may also make workstations available to their customers,
which may include TPHs, non-broker dealer public customers and non-TPH
broker dealers.
    The Exchange first proposes to eliminate the Away-Market Routing
Intermediary fee. This fee is payable by a Routing Intermediary and
only applicable for away-market routing from any PULSe workstation for
which it serves as the Routing Intermediary. The fee is $0.02 per
contract or share equivalent for the first million contracts or share
equivalent executed in a month for executions on all away markets
aggregated across all such PULSe workstations, and $0.03 per contract
or share equivalent for each additional contract or share equivalent
executed in the same month on all away markets.
    The Exchange also proposes to eliminate the CBOE Routing fee. The
CBOE Routing fee is payable by a TPH and only applicable for routing to
CBOE from non-TPH PULSe workstations made available by the TPH. The fee
is $0.02 per contract or share equivalent for the first 1 million
contracts or share equivalent executed in a month on CBOE that
originate from non-TPH PULSe workstations made available by the TPH,
and $0.03 per contract or share equivalent for each additional contract
or share equivalent executed on CBOE in the same month from the non-TPH
PULSe workstations made available by the TPH.
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Routing Intermediary
Inactivity fee. The Routing Intermediary Inactivity fee would be
charged to a Routing Intermediary in the calendar year after the year
in which the Routing Intermediary was charged the Routing Intermediary
Certification Fee. The fee is $5,000/year less the aggregate amount of
Away-Market Routing Intermediary and CBOE Routing fees charged to a
Routing Intermediary during that calendar year (if Routing Intermediary
was charged less than an aggregate of $5,000 in Away-Market Routing
Intermediary and CBOE Routing fees that year). As the Exchange is
eliminating both the Away-Market Routing Intermediary and CBOE Routing
fees and the inactivity fee is based in part on the amount of those
fees assessed, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the inactivity fee as
well.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\3\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \4\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes eliminating the Away-Market Routing
Intermediary fee, the CBOE Routing fee and the Routing Intermediary
Inactivity fee is reasonable because market participants who would
otherwise be subject to those fees will no longer be assessed

those fees. The Exchange believes it's reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it applies uniformly to the applicable
market participants (i.e., applies to all Routing Intermediaries and
TPHs that make the PULSe workstations available to non-TPHs).

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burdens on competition that are not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change
to eliminate certain PULSe fees applies to all applicable users of the
Pulse [sic] workstation. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed change will cause any unnecessary burden on intermarket
competition because the proposed relates to use of an Exchange-provided
order entry system. To the extent that any proposed change makes the
Exchange a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other
exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Exchange
market participants.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \7\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \8\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2017-028 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-028. 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-CBOE-2017-028 and should be
submitted on or before May 12, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08060 Filed 4-20-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P