[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66615-66619]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23901]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1170; Project Identifier AD-2022-00023-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the FAA's analysis of the
Model 747 airplane fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer,
and by the determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA
is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by December
19, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet myboeingfleet.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available at regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1170.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1170; or in person at Docket
Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Dorsey, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1170; Project Identifier
AD-2022-00023-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Samuel Dorsey, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-
3415; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, the FAA issued a
final rule titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements that rule
included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 (SFAR 88) at 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR 88
was amended by Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002;
corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002), Amendment 21-83 (67 FR
72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to
change ``21-82'' to ``21-83''), and Amendment 21-101 (83 FR 9162, March
5, 2018).
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the final rule published on
May 7, 2001, the FAA intended to adopt airworthiness directives to
mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions
identified as a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, the FAA has established four
criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel
tank systems that

require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during
which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these
criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under
evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with
another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all
four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous
actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
    This proposed AD was prompted by significant changes made to the
airworthiness limitations (AWLs) related to fuel tank ignition
prevention and the nitrogen generation system. This condition, if not
addressed, could result in the potential for ignition sources inside
fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or
maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors,
could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the
airplane.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related ADs

    The FAA issued AD 2008-10-06 R1, Amendment 39-16160 (75 FR 906,
January 7, 2010), which applies to certain Model 747-400, -400D, and -
400F series airplanes. AD 2008-10-06 R1 requires revising the existing
maintenance program by incorporating new airworthiness limitations
(AWLs) for fuel tank systems to satisfy SFAR 88 requirements. That AD
also requires the phasing in of certain repetitive AWL inspections, and
repair if necessary. AD 2008-10-06 R1 was prompted by the FAA's
analysis of the fuel system reviews of Model 747 airplanes conducted by
the manufacturer.
    This proposed AD also affects the following ADs, which include
requirements to incorporate certain airworthiness limitations into the
existing maintenance or inspection program. Revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program specified in this proposed AD would
terminate certain actions specified in these ADs:
     AD 2008-18-09, Amendment 39-15666 (73 FR 52911, September
12, 2008), which applies to certain Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.
     AD 2010-13-12, Amendment 39-16343 (75 FR 37997, July 1,
2010), which applies to certain Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD,
747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F,
747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.
     AD 2010-14-08, Amendment 39-16353 (75 FR 38397, July 2,
2010), which applies to certain Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series
airplanes.
     AD 2011-06-03, Amendment 39-16627 (76 FR 15814, March 22,
2011), which applies to certain Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD,
747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F,
747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.
     AD 2014-15-14, Amendment 39-17916 (79 FR 45324, August 5,
2014), which applies to certain Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD,
747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F,
747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.
     AD 2016-19-03, Amendment 39-18652 (81 FR 65872, September
26, 2016), which applies to certain Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-
400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 747-400
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D621U400-9, dated September
2021. This service information specifies airworthiness limitations for
fuel tank systems. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. For information on the
procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1170.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and
Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance
with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(k) of this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 119 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the average total cost per
operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 airworthiness
directive:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2022-1170; Project Identifier AD-
2022-00023-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by December 19, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(7) of this AD.
    (1) AD 2008-10-06 R1, Amendment 39-16160 (75 FR 906, January 7,
2010) (AD 2008-10-06 R1).
    (2) AD 2008-18-09, Amendment 39-15666 (73 FR 52911, September
12, 2008) (AD 2008-18-09).
    (3) AD 2010-13-12, Amendment 39-16343 (75 FR 37997, July 1,
2010) (AD 2010-13-12).
    (4) AD 2010-14-08, Amendment 39-16353 (75 FR 38397, July 2,
2010) (AD 2010-14-08).
    (5) AD 2011-06-03, Amendment 39-16627 (76 FR 15814, March 22,
2011) (AD 2011-06-03).
    (6) AD 2014-15-14, Amendment 39-17916 (79 FR 45324, August 5,
2014) (AD 2014-15-14).
    (7) AD 2016-19-03, Amendment 39-18652 (81 FR 65872, September
26, 2016) (AD 2016-19-03).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D,
and -400F series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the FAA's analysis of the fuel system
reviews on Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes
conducted by the manufacturer, and by the determination that new or
more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information specified in Section B, Airworthiness
Limitations--Systems, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)
and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), of Boeing 747-400
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D621U400-9, dated
September 2021; except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD. The
initial compliance time for doing the airworthiness limitation
instruction (ALI) tasks is at the times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) through (13) of this AD.
    (1) For AWL No. 28-AWL-01, ``External Wires Over Center Fuel
Tank'': At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or
(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 28-
AWL-01 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 144 months since issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 12 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this
AD: Within 144 months since AWL No. 28-AWL-01 was added to the
maintenance or inspection program, or within 144 months after the
most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-
01, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For AWL No. 28-AWL-03, ``Fuel Quantity Indication System
(FQIS)--Out of Tank Wiring Lightning Shield to Ground Termination'':
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of
this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 28-
AWL-03 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 144 months since issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 12 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this
AD: Within 144 months since AWL No. 28-AWL-03 was added to the
maintenance or inspection program, or within 144 months after the
most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-
03, whichever occurs later.
    (3) For AWL No. 28-AWL-10, ``Main Tank, Center Wing Tank, and
Horizontal Stabilizer Tank (if installed) Refuel Valve
Installation--Fault Current Bond'': At the applicable time specified
in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 28-
AWL-10 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 144 months since issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 12 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this
AD: Within 144 months since AWL No. 28-AWL-10 was added to the
maintenance or inspection program, or within 144 months after the
most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-
10, whichever occurs later.
    (4) For AWL No. 28-AWL-17, ``Over-Current and Arcing Protection
Electrical Design Features Operation--Fault Current Detector (FCD)
for Center Wing Tank (CWT) Pumps and Inboard Main Tank Override/
Jettison (O/J) Pumps and Horizontal Stabilizer Tank (HST) Transfer
Fuel Pumps'': At the applicable time specified in paragraph
(g)(4)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 28-
AWL-17 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 18 months since issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 90 days after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(4)(i) of this
AD: Within 18 months since AWL No. 28-AWL-17 was added to the
maintenance or inspection program, or within 18 months after the
most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-
17, whichever occurs later.
    (5) For AWL No. 28-AWL-24, ``Horizontal Stabilizer Tank (HST)
Fuel Pump Automatic Shutoff Circuit (If Installed)'': At the
applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(5)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 28-
AWL-24 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 12 months since issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 90 days after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(5)(i) of this
AD: Within 12 months since AWL No. 28-AWL-24 was added to the
maintenance or inspection program, or within 12 months after the
most

recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-24,
whichever occurs later.
    (6) For AWL No. 28-AWL-26, ``Main Tank 2 and Main Tank 3
Override/Jettison Fuel Pump Uncommanded on System'': At the
applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(6)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 28-
AWL-26 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 12 months since issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 90 days after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(6)(i) of this
AD: Within 12 months since AWL No. 28-AWL-26 was added to the
maintenance or inspection program, or within 12 months after the
most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-
26, whichever occurs later.
    (7) For AWL No. 28-AWL-28, ``Over-Current and Arcing Protection
Electrical Design Features Operation--Main Tank AC Fuel Pump Ground
Fault Interrupter (GFI)'': At the applicable time specified in
paragraph (g)(7)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 28-
AWL-28 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 12 months since issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 90 days after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(7)(i) of this
AD: Within 12 months since AWL No. 28-AWL-28 was added to the
maintenance or inspection program, or within 12 months after the
most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-
28, whichever occurs later.
    (8) For AWL No. 28-AWL-29, ``Over-Current and Arcing Protection
Electrical Design Features Operation--Center Tank Scavenge AC Fuel
Pump Ground Fault Interrupter (GFI)'': At the applicable time
specified in paragraph (g)(8)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 28-
AWL-29 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 12 months since issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 90 days after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(8)(i) of this
AD: Within 12 months since AWL No. 28-AWL-29 was added to the
maintenance or inspection program, or within 12 months after the
most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-
29, whichever occurs later.
    (9) For AWL No. 28-AWL-33, ``Cushion Clamps and Teflon Sleeving
Installed on Out-of-Tank Wire Bundles Installed on Brackets that are
Mounted Directly on the Fuel Tanks,'' at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (g)(9)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 28-
AWL-33 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 144 months since issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 12 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(9)(i) of this
AD: Within 144 months since AWL No. 28-AWL-33 was added to the
maintenance or inspection program, or within 144 months after the
most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-
33, whichever occurs later.
    (10) For AWL No. 28-AWL-40, ``Reserve Tank Refuel Valve
Installation--Lightning Protection Electrical Bond,'' at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(10)(i) or (ii) of this
AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 28-
AWL-40 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 72 months since issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness, or within 12 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(10)(i) of
this AD: Within 72 months since AWL No. 28-AWL-40 was added to the
maintenance or inspection program, or within 72 months after the
most recent inspection was performed as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-
40, whichever occurs later.
    (11) For AWL No. 47-AWL-07, ``Nitrogen Generation System--
Nitrogen Enriched Air (NEA) Distribution Ducting Inspection,'' at
the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(11)(i) or (ii) of
this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 47-
AWL-07 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 21,250 total flight hours since
issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness, or within 4 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(11)(i) of
this AD: Within 21,250 total flight hours since AWL No. 47-AWL-07
was added to the maintenance or inspection program, or within 21,250
total flight hours after the most recent inspection was performed as
specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-07, whichever occurs later.
    (12) For AWL No. 47-AWL-08, ``Nitrogen Generation System [NGS]--
Cross-Vent Check Valve Functional Check,'' at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (g)(12)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 47-
AWL-08 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 21,250 total flight hours since
issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness, or within 4 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(12)(i) of
this AD: Within 21,250 total flight hours since AWL No. 47-AWL-08
was added to the maintenance or inspection program, or within 21,250
total flight hours after the most recent inspection was performed as
specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-08, whichever occurs later.
    (13) For AWL No. 47-AWL-10, ``NGS--Thermal Switch,'' at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(13)(i) or (ii) of this
AD.
    (i) For airplanes that did not have any version of AWL No. 47-
AWL-10 in their maintenance or inspection program before the
effective date of this AD: Within 54,000 total flight hours since
issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness, or within 4 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g)(13)(i) of
this AD: Within 54,000 total flight hours since AWL No. 47-AWL-10
was added to the maintenance or inspection program, or within 54,000
total flight hours after the most recent inspection was performed as
specified in AWL No. 47-AWL-10, whichever occurs later.

(h) Additional Acceptable Wire Types and Sleeving

    As an option, during accomplishment of the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, the alternative materials specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD are acceptable.
    (1) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-08 identifies wire types BMS 13-48, BMS
13-58, and BMS 13-60, the following wire types, as applicable, are
acceptable: MIL-W-22759/16, SAE AS22759/16 (M22759/16), MIL-W-22759/
32, SAE AS22759/32 (M22759/32), MIL-W-22759/34, SAE AS22759/34
(M22759/34), MIL-W-22759/41, SAE AS22759/41 (M22759/41), MIL-W-
22759/86, SAE AS22759/86 (M22759/86), MIL-W-22759/87, SAE AS22759/87
(M22759/87), MIL-W-22759/92, and SAE AS22759/92 (M22759/92); and
MIL-C-27500 and NEMA WC 27500 cables constructed from these military
or SAE specification wire types.
    (2) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-08 identifies TFE-2X Standard wall for
wire sleeving, the following sleeving materials are acceptable:
Roundit 2000NX and Varglas Type HO, HP, or HM, as applicable.

(i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless
the actions, intervals, and CDCCLs are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) Terminating Actions

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates all requirements of AD 2008-10-06 R1.
    (2) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates paragraph

(g)(2) of AD 2008-18-09 for Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F
airplanes only.
    (3) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates paragraph (h)(1) of AD 2010-13-12 for Model 747-400, -
400D, and -400F airplanes only.
    (4) Accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates
paragraph (j) of AD 2010-14-08.
    (5) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates paragraph (l) of AD 2011-06-03 for Model 747-400, -
400D, and -400F airplanes only.
    (6) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates paragraph (h)(1) of AD 2014-15-14 for Model 747-400, -
400D, and -400F airplanes only.
    (7) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates paragraph (h) of AD 2016-19-03 for Model 747-400, -
400D, and -400F airplanes only.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Samuel Dorsey,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on September 19, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-23901 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47018-47020]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19289]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75581; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Provide a
Web-Based Delivery Method for Completing the Regulatory Element of the
Continuing Education Requirements

July 31, 2015

I. Introduction

    On June 4, 2015, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to change the method of delivery for the
Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education (``CE'') program. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on June 17, 2015.\3\ The Commission received four comment letters on
the proposed rule change.\4\ This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75154 (June 11,
2015), 80 FR 34777 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letters from Kevin Zambrowicz, Associate General Counsel
& Managing Director and Stephen Vogt, Assistant Vice President &
Assistant General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, dated July 7, 2015 (``SIFMA Letter''); Daniel Kosowsky,
Chief Compliance Officer, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Rose-
Anne Richter, Chief Compliance Officer, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
dated July 8, 2015 (``Morgan Stanley Letter''); David T. Bellaire,
Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Financial Services
Institute, dated July 8, 2015 (``FSI Letter''); and Michele Van
Tassel, President, Association of Registration Management, dated
July 8, 2015 (``ARM Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Web-Based Delivery

    As FINRA described in the Notice, the CE requirements under FINRA
Rule 1250 consist of a Regulatory Element and a Firm Element. The
Regulatory Element applies to registered persons and consists of
periodic computer-based training on regulatory, compliance, ethical,
and supervisory subjects and sales practice standards, which must be
completed within prescribed timeframes.\5\ There are four Regulatory
Element programs: (1) The S106 for Investment Company and Variable
Contracts Representatives; (2) the S201 for registered principals and
supervisors; (3) the S901 for Operations Professionals; and (4) the
S101 for all other registration categories. Currently, the Regulatory
Element may be administered in a test center or at a firm that meets
the requirements in Rule 1250 for in-firm delivery of CE.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 34778 (describing the Regulatory
Element in more detail, including the timeframes for completing the
Regulatory Element). Currently, candidates have three and a half
hours to complete their CE session.
    \6\ See id. at n. 8 (describing in-firm delivery procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA proposed to amend FINRA Rule 1250 to provide that the
Regulatory Element program will be administered through Web-based
delivery or such other technological manner and format as specified by
FINRA, and to eliminate the requirements for in-firm delivery of the
Regulatory Element.\7\ FINRA proposed to implement Web-based delivery
for the S106, S201, and S901 Regulatory Element programs on October 1,
2015, and to implement Web-based delivery for the S101 Regulatory
Element program on January 4, 2016. FINRA also proposed to phase-out
test-center delivery by no later than six months after January 4,
2016.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FINRA also proposed to delete Incorporated NYSE Rule 345A
(Continuing Education for Registered Persons) and Incorporated NYSE
Rule Interpretation 345A (Continuing Education for Registered
Persons). According to FINRA, these rules are substantially similar
to FINRA Rule 1250.
    \8\ Under the proposal, firms will not be able to establish new
in-firm delivery programs after October 1, 2015. Firms that have
pre-existing in-firm delivery programs that are established before
October 1, 2015 will not be able to use that delivery method for the
S106, S201, and S901 Regulatory Element programs after October 1,
2015, and they will not be able to use that delivery method for the
S101 Regulatory Element program after January 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing these changes, FINRA noted that Web-based delivery
will provide registered persons the flexibility to complete the
Regulatory Element at a location of their choosing and at any time
during their 120-day window for completion of the Regulatory Element,
consistent with their firm's requirements. In addition, there will be
no three and a half hour time limitation, as there is currently. FINRA
also noted that the Web-based format will include safeguards to
authenticate the identity of the CE candidate (e.g., by asking the
candidate to provide a portion of his

Social Security Number (``SSN'') and date of birth). Before commencing
a Web-based session, each candidate must agree to the Rules of Conduct
for Web-based delivery. If FINRA discovers that a candidate has
violated the Rules of Conduct, the candidate will forfeit the results
of the session and may be subject to disciplinary action by FINRA.
FINRA considers violations of the Rules of Conduct to be conduct
inconsistent with high standards of commercial honor and just and
equitable principles of trade, in violation of FINRA Rule 2010.

B. Proctor Registration

    Currently, NASD Rule 1043 requires an associated person who is
designated by a firm as a proctor for the purposes of in-firm delivery
of the Regulatory Element to be registered as a Proctor with FINRA
through the filing of a Form U4 (Uniform Application for Securities
Industry Registration or Transfer).\9\ In light of the Web-based
delivery proposal, FINRA proposed to eliminate NASD Rule 1043, and to
automatically terminate the Proctor registration category in the CRD
system on January 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Currently, an associated person who is already registered in
another registration category may be designated as a proctor by a
firm without having to register as a Proctor with FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Fee for Web-Based Delivery

    Currently, the fee for test-center and in-firm deliveries is $100
per session, although in-firm deliveries receive a three-dollar rebate
per session.\10\ FINRA proposed to establish a $55 fee for each
candidate who completes the Regulatory Element via the Web-based
delivery method.\11\ However, FINRA is not proposing any changes to the
session fees for test-center and in-firm deliveries until it has
completed the phase-out process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ There are also additional fees for taking the session
outside of the United States, failing to appear on time for an
appointment, or cancelling or rescheduling an appointment. See
Section 4 of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws. See also Notice, supra
note 3 at 34779.
    \11\ FINRA also proposed to amend its fee schedule to clarify
that registered persons will not be required to complete the
Regulatory Element in a test center or in-firm during the phase-out
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received four comment letters that supported the
proposed rule change.\12\ In particular, the commenters noted that the
proposal would modernize FINRA's CE requirements,\13\ remove burdens
associated with the test center delivery method (e.g., the time spent
traveling to a test center),\14\ and reduce the fees and other costs
associated with the Regulatory Element.\15\ Commenters also supported
the flexibility associated with Web-based delivery.\16\ Moreover, two
commenter supported FINRA's proposed timeline for implementing Web-
based delivery.\17\ One of these commenters stated that a phased
approach will provide firms with the flexibility needed to address
technology, operations, and process issues that may arise.\18\ This
commenter additionally requested that, if FINRA proposes materially new
technology, delivery platforms, or other measures in the future, FINRA
solicit comments on the proposed changes through a Regulatory Notice
and seek and receive FINRA Board approval of the changes before
implementing the changes.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 4. These commenters also provided comments
relating to the implementation of this proposed rule change. In
particular, one commenter requested that FINRA continue to make CE
training data and test results available to firms. See FSI Letter at
1 and 3. Two commenters requested that FINRA provide clarification
on the level of information that will be available to firms
regarding an individual's initiation of, and progress on, a
particular CE session. See SIFMA Letter at 5 and ARM Letter at 2.
Commenters also requested that FINRA consider the use of identifiers
other than the SSN for candidates who do not have an SSN. See SIFMA
Letter at 5, Morgan Stanley Letter at 1, and ARM Letter at 2-3. Two
commenters requested that FINRA provide firms with an appropriate
degree of flexibility with respect to individual CE deadlines if
they encounter unexpected but demonstrated technical difficulties.
See SIFMA Letter at 4 and ARM Letter at 2. In addition, these two
commenters requested that FINRA provide guidance on the
implementation of Web-based delivery, including clarification
regarding how it will handle reasonably foreseeable technology and
operational issues that may arise with the implementation and use of
the Web-based CE program. See SIFMA Letter at 5 and ARM Letter at 2.
One commenter suggested that FINRA provide help guides, user
instructions, and frequently asked questions to minimize confusion
about completing the CE requirements through the new process, and
conduct information sessions for FINRA member firms to better
prepare for questions and issues about the new CE delivery method
and related completion process. See ARM Letter at 2. The Commission
understands that FINRA will provide guidance on these issues.
Finally, one commenter encouraged FINRA to continue to review its
rulebook, interpretations, and fees. See SIFMA Letter at 6.
    \13\ See SIFMA Letter at 4, Morgan Stanley Letter at 1, FSI
Letter at 1-3, and ARM Letter at 3.
    \14\ See SIFMA Letter at 4, Morgan Stanley Letter at 1, FSI
Letter at 1-3, and ARM Letter at 1 and 3.
    \15\ See SIFMA Letter at 4, Morgan Stanley Letter at 1, FSI
Letter at 2, and ARM Letter at 1 and 3.
    \16\ See SIFMA Letter at 4 and FSI Letter at 2.
    \17\ See SIFMA Letter at 4 and ARM Letter at 2.
    \18\ See SIFMA Letter at 4.
    \19\ See id. See also ARM Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comment
letters, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
association.\20\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\21\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest as it changes the delivery method for CE to
make it more flexible and efficient, as well as, less costly for the
industry. In addition, it will provide candidates the amount of time
that they feel they need to complete their CE session, enabling them to
use the resource material included in the CE program. Having additional
time to take the CE session may result in better learning outcomes,
which should enhance investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA stated in the Notice that it has provided safeguards to
preserve the integrity of the CE program.\22\ Moreover, as FINRA and
the commenters noted, the proposed rule change would provide
flexibility with respect to completing the Regulatory Element by
eliminating the need to go to a test center to complete a Regulatory
Element session.\23\ The proposal also will reduce the fees and other
costs associated with the Regulatory Element.\24\ In addition, FINRA
stated that Web-based delivery of the Regulatory Element will improve
its ability to update the content in response to rule changes and other
industry demands.\25\ Specifically, FINRA will be able to update the
Regulatory Element content directly and more efficiently because the
update will no longer involve a multi-layered release and quality
control process, which is required when FINRA employs vendors to
deliver CE.\26\ The ability to update the content of the Regulatory
Element directly will make the process

more efficient for FINRA and should promote better education of
associated persons and consequently enhance investor protection.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 34779-80. The Commission notes
that under FINRA's Sanction Guidelines, the recommended penalty for
cheating on the Regulatory Element is a bar. See id. at n. 17. The
Commission expects both FINRA and its member firms to take
appropriate measures to avoid any abuse that could be associated
with Web-based delivery of CE. As FINRA noted in the Notice, firms
may impose conditions on their associated persons regarding
completion of their CE requirements in a Web-based environment. See
id. at n. 14.
    \23\ See id. at 34780 and supra notes 14 and 16.
    \24\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 34780 and supra notes 14-15.
    \25\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 34780.
    \26\ See id.
    \27\ FINRA stated that the proposed rule change would ``allow
FINRA to adopt different delivery methods in the future based on
technology changes without having to amend the rule each time.'' See
id. at 34779. This statement was based on the addition of the phrase
``or such other technological manner and format as specified by
FINRA,'' to Rule 1250(a)(6). The Commission notes, however, that
FINRA must comply with the requirements of Section 19(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder.

V. Conclusion

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\28\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2015-015) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19289 Filed 8-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63687-63689]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22872]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0867]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Shipping Channel, Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel in a zone
defined by the following coordinates; 27[deg]50'31.28'' N,
97[deg]04'17.23'' W; 27[deg]50'31.73'' N, 97[deg]04'15.44'' W;
27[deg]50'29.06'' N, 97[deg]04'16.61'' W; 27[deg]50'29.32'' N,
97[deg]04'14.82'' W. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by
pipelines that will be removed from the floor of the Corpus Christi
Shipping Channel. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Corpus Christi or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 p.m. on October 19, 2022, through
5 a.m. on October 22, 2022. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from 7 p.m. on October 19, 2022, through October
20, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Anthony Garofalo, Sector Corpus
Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-
939-5130, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule

without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for
good cause finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not
publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this
rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone
immediately to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment
from potential hazards created by pipeline removal operations and lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then to
consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated
with pipeline removal operations in the Corpus Christi Shipping
Channel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with pipeline removal
operations occurring from 7 p.m. on October 19, 2022, through 5 a.m. on
October 22, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone within the Corpus
Christi Shipping Channel in a zone defined by the following
coordinates; 27[deg]50'31.28'' N, 97[deg]04'17.23'' W;
27[deg]50'31.73'' N, 97[deg]04'15.44'' W; 27[deg]50'29.06'' N,
97[deg]04'16.61'' W; 27[deg]50'29.32'' N, 97[deg]04'14.82'' W. The
purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and persons on
these navigable waters in the safety zone while pipelines are removed
from the floor of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 7 p.m. on
October 19, 2022, through 5 a.m. on October 22, 2022, and will be
subject to enforcement from 7 p.m. to 5 a.m. of the next day, each day.
The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters of the Corpus
Christi Shipping Channel in a zone defined by the following
coordinates; 27[deg]50'31.28'' N, 97[deg]04'17.23'' W;
27[deg]50'31.73'' N, 97[deg]04'15.44'' W; 27[deg]50'29.06'' N,
97[deg]04'16.61'' W; 27[deg]50'29.32'' N, 97[deg]04'14.82'' W. The
pipeline will be removed along the floor of the Corpus Christi Shipping
Channel. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the temporary safety
zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the
COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16
VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard
will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners,
and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone
will be enforced for a short period of only 9 hours each day. The rule
does not completely restrict the traffic within a waterway and allows
mariners to request permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, and Environmental Planning, COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety
zone for navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel in a
zone defined by the following coordinates; 27[deg]50'31.28'' N,
97[deg]04'17.23'' W; 27[deg]50'31.73'' N, 97[deg]04'15.44'' W;
27[deg]50'29.06'' N, 97[deg]04'16.61'' W; 27[deg]50'29.32'' N,
97[deg]04'14.82'' W. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by
pipeline that will be removed from the floor of the Corpus Christi
Shipping Channel. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60(c) Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165-REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0867 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0867  Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Shipping Channel,
Corpus Christi, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel in a zone defined by the
following coordinates; 27[deg]50'31.28'' N, 97[deg]04'17.23'' W;
27[deg]50'31.73'' N, 97[deg]04'15.44'' W; 27[deg]50'29.06'' N,
97[deg]04'16.61'' W; 27[deg]50'29.32'' N, 97[deg]04'14.82'' W.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 7 p.m. on
October 19, 2022, through 5 a.m. on October 22, 2022. This section is
subject to enforcement from 7 p.m. to 5 a.m. of the next day, each day.
    (c) Regulations. (1) According to the general regulations in Sec.
165.23, entry into this temporary safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a
designated representative. They may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM
(156.8 MHz) or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this
safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to
Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

    Dated: October 14, 2022.
M.A. Cintron,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Sector Corpus
Christi.
[FR Doc. 2022-22872 Filed 10-18-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11485-11487]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4613]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0542]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Information Request
Regarding Dissolvable Tobacco Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by April
1, 2011.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Information Request Regarding Dissolvable Tobacco Products--(OMB
Control Number 0910-NEW)

    On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L.
111-31) into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) by adding a new chapter granting
FDA important new authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and
distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally
and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
    Section 917 of the Tobacco Control Act (21 U.S.C. 387q) requires
the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to establish
a Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC). Section
907(f) of the Tobacco Control Act (21 U.S.C. 387g(f)) requires the
TPSAC to submit a report and recommendations to the Secretary on the
impact of the use of dissolvable tobacco products on the public health,
including such use among children. To ensure a comprehensive review of
this issue, FDA is requesting tobacco industry documents and
information to support the work of TPSAC. Under section 907(f), TPSAC
must submit its report and recommendations to the Secretary within 2
years after its establishment, or March 22, 2012.
    In order to provide TPSAC with the information it needs to carry
out its statutory obligation, FDA is requesting that tobacco companies
submit information under section 904(b) of the Tobacco Control Act (21
U.S.C. 387d(b)) pertaining to documents and underlying scientific and
financial information relating to research, and research findings,
conducted, supported, or possessed by the manufacturer (or agents
thereof) on a specified set of topics. For the purposes of this
request, ``research'' may include, but is not limited to, focus groups,
surveys, experimental clinical studies, postmarketing surveillance,
toxicological and biochemical assays, taste panels, and assessments of
the effectiveness of product marketing practices. Topics for which
information relating to dissolvable tobacco products is requested are
marketing research; marketing practices; effectiveness of marketing
practices; and health, toxicological, behavioral, and physiological
effects. FDA's request for documents related to dissolvable tobacco
products includes, but is not limited to products for research,
investigational use, developmental studies, test marketing, and/or
commercial marketing, and also to the components, parts, or accessories
of such products.
    In the Federal Register of October 25, 2010 (75 FR 65490), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received eight comments from seven
commenters; six comments pertaining to the notice, and two comments
pertaining to the information collection. Six comments were beyond the
scope of this information request (e.g., tobacco is dangerous,
dissolvable tobacco products are appealing to children, FDA should let
the market prevail, FDA reviewers and TPSAC are not impartial).
Comments relevant to the information request are addressed in this
document.
    One commenter suggested that they would like to withhold
proprietary information or have FDA mark the information received as
``confidential and proprietary'', and would like FDA to explicitly
state in the letter that FDA does not require nor accept publically
available information. The commenter would like FDA to accept
submission of lists, summaries, and abstracts as a first pass so FDA
could then decide which documents it really needs, and would like FDA
to better explain what it is looking for with regard to internal
reports. The commenter would like FDA to restrict submissions to
primary research data, and would like FDA to provide specific
instructions for the citing of previously submitted documents so they
can be fully referenced. FDA's response is that, with regard to
confidential and proprietary information, documents submitted under
section 904(b) of the FD&C Act may include, but are not limited to a
company's non-public, trade secret, or confidential commercial
information. FDA also notes that several laws govern maintaining the
confidentiality of new tobacco product information submitted under
section 904(b), including sections 301(j) and 906(c) of the FD&C Act
(21 U.S.C. 331(j) and 387f(c)), the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905),
and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), as well as
FDA's implementing regulations. FDA's general regulations concerning
the public availability of FDA's records are contained in 21 CFR part
20. With

regard to the submission of summary lists instead of documents, it is
the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to identify and
submit all documents that are responsive to a request under section
904(b). Information which could be responsive to this section 904(b)
request that has been previously provided to FDA does not have to be
re-submitted as long as the document is fully referenced with
information including file name and file extension, Bates number (begin
Bates number to end Bates number), the date of submission, and relevant
page numbers. If the documents were previously submitted to FDA under
the section 904(a)(1), 904(c)(1), 904(c)(2) or 904(c)(3) requirement to
submit listings of ingredients in tobacco products, FDA asks that the
respondent please provide the date of submission, section under which
the document was submitted, and the tobacco product brand/subbrand name
and product identification number.
    One commenter indicated that they bear responsibility for
coordinating the implementation of the Tobacco Control Act for itself
and its subsidiaries, and that they had already provided FDA with
substantial information regarding dissolvable tobacco products in
response to a February 1, 2010, request from FDA for this information.
They also are concerned that FDA does not appear to give meaningful
consideration to the burden imposed by FDA's requests, or to
respondent's ideas for more efficient collections of information. The
commenter hoped that FDA will consider the comments received as it
continues to formulate future document and information collection
requests and realize that FDA has seriously underestimated the time and
cost burden to gather, review, and produce the requested documents. In
addition, the commenter felt that FDA did not adequately explain how it
calculated the estimated burden for respondents, as the 230 burden
hours listed in the 60-day Federal Register notice may be accurate for
manufacturers conducting peripheral research, but may not be that
accurate for a large tobacco manufacturer. The commenter stated that
they estimate it will take 10,000 hours to produce the documents FDA
requested related to dissolvable tobacco products. The commenter stated
that FDA has exhibited a pattern of underestimating burden associated
with document production requests in the past, and that this collection
runs counter to the PRA because the collection does not minimize
respondent burden, and will have no practical utility to FDA. The
commenter also asked that FDA, rather than respondents, identify
previously submitted documents because they should be able to produce
this information using commonly available commercial software. The
commenter re-emphasized that FDA and TPSAC would be unable to process
the sheer volume of this information, so it has little practical
utility and does not minimize paperwork burden in violation of the PRA.
They ask that FDA revise its estimated time and burden on
manufacturers, allow time for meaningful review, and maximize the
practical utility of this collection. In estimating the initial burden
for this collection, FDA utilized its staff expertise and previous
experience with similar types of Agency collections to determine the
burden. While FDA understands that there appears to be a large
discrepancy in burden between this commenter's estimate and FDA's
estimate, FDA did follow a methodology to determine as accurate an
estimate of average burden as possible. However, due to the comments
received for this information collection and other comments submitted
by stakeholders, FDA has revised the burden for this collection.
Information received by the public directly and in response to requests
for comments will assist FDA in determining more accurate burden
estimates in the future. With regard to the submission of documents
previously, it is the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to
identify and submit all documents that are responsive to a request
under section 904(b). As stated in the 60-day Federal Register notice
(75 FR 65490) and letter, information responsive to this section 904(b)
request which has been previously submitted to FDA under the Tobacco
Control Act does not have to be re-submitted as long as the document is
fully referenced.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                       Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Annual
                        Activity                             Number of     frequency per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours    Total capital
                                                            respondents      response        responses       response                          costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Submission of Dissolvable Tobacco Product Documents Under Section 904(b)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Tobacco Manufacturers or Importers................               3               1               3           7,500          22,500            $435
Small to Medium Tobacco Product Manufacturers or                       7               1               7             230           1,610             324
 Importers..............................................
Submission of Letter indicating no documents available..             110               1             110               1             110             165
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................             120  ..............             120  ..............          24,220             924
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA has adjusted the burden for this information collection based
on stakeholder and public comments received for this collection of
information. Originally, FDA estimated that 10 tobacco manufacturers
would be responsible for submitting documents, and that their burden
would average 230 hours each. After reviewing comments, FDA still
maintains that 10 tobacco manufacturers will be responsible for
submitting documents, and has now broken the burden into three tiers--
large manufacturers and importers, small to medium manufacturers and
importers, and manufacturers who are only required to submit a letter
indicating that they have no tobacco documents to submit. As shown in
table 1, FDA now estimates that 3 large manufacturers are estimated to
take approximately 7,500 hours apiece to provide dissolvable tobacco
product documents, 7 small to medium manufactures are estimated to take
approximately 230 hours apiece to provide dissolvable tobacco product
documents, and 110 other manufacturers who do not have documents, do
not manufacture dissolvable tobacco products, or do not

anticipate manufacturing dissolvable tobacco products will take
approximately 1 hour to draft and send a letter to FDA indicating that
they do not have documents to submit. These estimates were derived
based upon FDA experience and feedback provided by public and
stakeholder comments.
    The capital costs associated with this collection pertain to the
postage for mailing documents in electronic or paper formats.
Estimating these costs is problematic because the costs will vary
depending on the size of the document production (e.g. one binder of
documents vs. numerous boxes of paper) and the media type (e.g.,
compact disk (CD) or digital video disk) chosen to submit documents.
Currently, we cannot identify how many documents will be submitted per
response.
    Some sample postage costs are shown for different types of
packages:
     10 CDs in a flat envelope weighing 30 ounces:
approximately $8.00 using first class business mail
     5-pound parcel containing paper documents: approximately
$12 using business parcel post mail and delivering to the furthest
delivery zone
     10-pound parcel containing paper documents: approximately
$17 using business parcel mail and delivering to the furthest delivery
zone
     50-pound parcel containing paper documents: approximately
$52 using business parcel post mail and delivering to the furthest
delivery zone.
    FDA estimates the capital costs associated with this document
submission to be $924. The capital costs determined by this estimate
are based upon 3 submissions for large manufacturers, 7 submissions for
small to medium manufacturers, and 110 submissions of 1 letter apiece
for those who do not either manufacture dissolvable tobacco products or
have documents pertaining to the manufacture of dissolvable tobacco
products.
    For the three large manufacturers, it is estimated that each
manufacturer will submit their documents electronically on the
equivalent of one 500-gigabyte external hard drive of data. This is
estimated to cost approximately $125 per drive, and $20 to ship the
drive, for a total of $435 (3 manufacturers x [$125 + $20]).
    For the 7 small to medium sized manufacturers, it is estimated that
5 manufacturers (about 71 percent) will submit their documents
electronically on the equivalent of 10 CD-ROMs. This is estimated to
cost $20 for the 10 CD-ROM spindle, and $8 to ship each group of 10 CDs
per envelope for a total of $140 (5 manufacturers x [$20 + $8]). The
remaining two manufacturers will submit their documents via paper,
which is estimated to cost $184 (2 manufacturers x [$40 cost of one box
of paper + $52 to ship the box of paper]). The total capital cost for
small to medium manufacturers, therefore, is estimated to be $324 ($140
+ $184).
    For the remaining 110 manufacturers who must submit a letter to FDA
indicating that they do not have any documents, it is estimated that
each manufacturer will use $1 of paper products and pay postage
approximating a rounded figure of $0.50 for a total of $165 (110
manufacturers x [$1.00 + $0.50]). Therefore, FDA estimates the total
capital costs associated with this document submission to be $924.

    Dated: February 24, 2011.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2011-4613 Filed 3-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: November 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 66019-66021]
[DOCID:fr26no07-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0030]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Request for Comment;
Revision of an Information Collection: Hours of Service (HOS) of
Drivers Regulations, Supporting Documents

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plans to submit the Information Collection Request
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval, and invites public comment. The FMCSA invites comments on
its plan to request OMB approval to revise an existing information
collection (IC) entitled, ``Hours of Service of Drivers Regulations,''
OMB Control Number 2126-0001. The Agency has updated its calculation of
the paperwork burden of the hours of service (HOS) rules to reflect
changes in the number of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers, and to
clarify the burden associated with supporting documents. The Agency
requires most CMV drivers to complete and maintain a record of duty
status (RODS), commonly referred to as a logbook, reflecting details of
changes in duty status during each 24-hour period. Drivers retain the
RODS for a minimum period and then forward them, along with supporting
documents (e.g., fuel receipts, road toll tickets), to the motor
carrier. The motor carrier uses the supporting documents to assist in
reviewing the RODS for accuracy, and retains the RODS and supporting
documents for a minimum of 6 months. This IC promotes safety in the
operations of motor carriers of property and passengers by assisting
the carrier and enforcement officials in ensuring compliance with the
HOS rules that ensure drivers are provided adequate opportunities for
rest.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DOT Docket ID Number
0030, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Privacy Act: Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov
.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street

address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The FMCSA regulates the amount
of time a driver may drive and be on duty. A CMV driver must keep a

record of duty status (RODS), commonly referred to as a logbook, that
indicates his or her duty status (driving, on duty not driving, off
duty, sleeper berth) for all periods of the duty day. The RODS must be
maintained on the CMV for 7 days, and subsequently submitted to the
motor carrier along with any ``supporting documents,'' such as fuel
receipts and toll tickets, that could assist in verifying the accuracy
of entries on the RODS. The motor carrier must retain the RODS and
supporting documents for a minimum of 6 months from date of receipt.
    Statutory authority for regulating the hours of service (HOS) of
drivers operating CMVs in interstate commerce is derived from 49 U.S.C.
31136 and 31502. The penalty provisions are located at 49 U.S.C. 521,
522 and 526, as amended. On November 28, 1982, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the agency previously responsible for
administration of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR
350 et seq.)(FMCSRs) promulgated a final rule that required a motor
carrier to verify the accuracy of the HOS of each driver and to ensure
that drivers record their duty status in a specified format (47 FR
53383). The rule as amended is codified at 49 CFR 395.8. The FMCSRs
also state that:

    No driver shall operate a commercial motor vehicle, and a
commercial motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver to
operate a commercial motor vehicle, while the driver's ability or
alertness is so impaired, or so likely to become impaired, through
fatigue, illness, or any other cause, as to make it unsafe for him/
her to begin or continue to operate the commercial motor vehicle (49
CFR 392.3).

    The rule provides three methods of recording driver HOS:
    (1) Paper RODS: This grid form requires the driver to graph time
and location on a paper record over a 24-hour period (Section
395.8(g)). It must be present on the CMV in the absence of a regulatory
exception.
    (2) Automatic On-Board Recording Device (AOBRD): An electronic
record is permitted if it is created and maintained by an AOBRD as
defined by 49 CFR 395.15. The record must include all the information
that would appear on a paper log, and the driver or carrier must be
capable of producing this information upon demand.
    (3) Time Record: The HOS regulations allow certain ``short haul''
CMV drivers to record their hours of service by means of a time record,
commonly referred to as a time card, maintained at the place of
business (Section 395.1(e)). The regulations do not require that these
records reflect each change of duty status, but they must show for each
day: the time a driver begins work, the time the driver is released
from work, and the total hours worked. There are two categories of CMV
operators eligible for the exception: (1) Drivers operating certain
lightweight CMVs over short distances, and (2) drivers operating within
a 100 air-mile radius of the normal work reporting location and
returning to that location for release from duty within 12 hours of
going on duty.
    The RODS is an important tool because it provides the information
the carrier and enforcement personnel require to determine the
compliance of a driver with the HOS rules. The adherence of drivers and
motor carriers to the HOS requirements helps FMCSA protect the public
by reducing the number of tired CMV drivers on the highways.
    Most States receive grants from FMCSA under the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program. As a condition of receiving these grants,
States agree to adopt and enforce the FMCSRs, including the HOS rules,
as State law. As a result, State enforcement inspectors use the RODS
and supporting documents to determine whether CMV drivers, in
interstate or intrastate commerce, are complying with the HOS rules.
    In addition, FMCSA uses the RODS during on-site compliance reviews
(CRs) of motor carriers. The CR determines the overall safety rating of
a motor carrier, and a negative review can be damaging to a motor
carrier's CMV operations because the results of CRs are public
information. Many shippers of property use the results of these CRs, as
well as other records of a motor carrier's crash and violation history,
in selecting a motor carrier to transport their freight. Finally, the
RODS have traditionally been the principal document accepted by the
judicial system as evidence to support actions for violations of the
HOS regulations. This information collection supports the DOT's
Strategic Goal of Safety because the information helps the Agency
ensure the safe operation of CMVs in interstate commerce on our
Nation's highways.
    On August 26, 1994, Congress directed FHWA to revise the HOS rules
to improve both driver and motor carrier compliance and the
effectiveness of HOS enforcement, at a cost reasonable to the motor
carrier industry (The Hazardous Materials Transportation Authorization
Act of 1994 (HMTAA) (Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673)). Section 113(b)
of the HMTAA directs the Agency to specify the number, type, and
frequency of supporting documents that must be maintained as well as
the ``identification items'' that must appear on the documents. The
regulation in place at that time remains in effect today: ``Each motor
carrier shall maintain records of duty status and all supporting
documents for each driver it employs for a period of six months from
the date of receipt'' (49 CFR 395.8(k)).
    On April 20, 1998, FHWA proposed a new rule for supporting
documents (63 FR 19457). As the successor agency to FHWA for motor
carrier responsibilities, FMCSA on May 2, 2000, proposed additional
regulatory language to clarify the rules (65 FR 25540). The Agency
considered the comments it received from the public on each proposal.
On November 3, 2004, FMCSA published a Supplemental NPRM (SNPRM),
proposing further clarification of the duties of motor carriers and
drivers with respect to supporting documents (69 FR 63997). The SNPRM
addressed how a motor carrier could systematically monitor the RODS of
its CMV drivers, and discussed the use of supporting documents by the
Agency in enforcing the HOS. The principal method for motor carriers to
ensure the compliance of their CMV drivers with the HOS rules was a
``self-monitoring system'' employing supporting documents. The SNPRM
contained a list of documents that might serve as supporting documents
for a motor carrier's self-monitoring system.
    The Agency received 197 public comments on the SNPRM, as well as
public comment on all the proposals mentioned above. Some comments
indicated that the burden of the paperwork associated with the
supporting documents is greater than the estimates provided by FMCSA in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. FMCSA reevaluated its
analysis of the rule as required by the PRA. The Agency discovered that
the PRA analysis proposed for this rule, did not account for the
supporting document collection and retention burdens associated with
the existing driver RODS information collection requirements.
    In this Information Collection (IC) revision, FMCSA proposes an
increase in the number of CMV drivers affected by the HOS regulations.
This accounts for an increase in the total number of CMV operators on
the highways today, as compared to 2005 when OMB last approved this
information collection. The total number of interstate and intrastate
CMV drivers is currently estimated to be 7.0 million. Of these, 4.6
million are required to complete RODS and furnish supporting documents.
The remainder are ``short haul'' drivers or

others who are exempt from the RODS requirement.
    The FMCSA also describes its calculation of the HOS paperwork
burden with greater specificity. To do so, the Agency has reorganized
its breakdown of the various paperwork tasks performed by drivers and
motor carriers. The revised organization separates the paperwork
burdens imposed by the RODS requirements from those imposed by the
supporting document requirements.
    By this notice, the Agency seeks public comment on its revised
calculations of the paperwork burden of the HOS rules.
    Title: Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers Regulations, Supporting
Documents.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0001.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently-approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers, drivers of CMVs.
    Estimated Number of Respondents:
     Drivers: Approximately 4.6 million;
     Active Motor Carriers: Approximately 700,000.
    Estimated Time per Response: The driver will take an average of 6.5
minutes to fill out a RODS, and 5 minutes to forward the completed RODS
to the employing motor carrier. The motor carrier takes an average of 2
minutes to review a RODS, 1 minute per day to maintain a RODS, and 1
minute per day to maintain the supporting documents of one RODS.
    Expiration Date: 11/30/2008.
    Frequency of Response:
     Drivers: 240 days per year, on average.
     Motor Carriers: 240 days per year, on average.
    Total Number of Annual Responses Expected:
    A. DRIVER
    (1) Filling Out the RODS: 1,104,000,000 (4.6 million drivers x 240
days);
    (2) Forwarding the RODS to the Motor Carrier: 115 million (4.6
million drivers x 25 times per year) and
    (3) Forwarding the Supporting Documents to the Motor Carrier: 0
(the activity is usual and customary).
    B. MOTOR CARRIER
    (1) Reviewing the RODS: 552 million (2.3 million RODS reviewed
daily x 240 days);
    (2) Maintaining the RODS: 1,104,000,000 (4.6 million drivers x 240
days); and
    (3) Maintaining the Supporting Documents: 1,104,000,000 (4.6
million drivers x 240 days).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 184,380,000 hours [driver burden of
129,180,000 hours and motor carrier burden of 55,200,000 hours].
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information. The Agency will summarize or
include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this
information collection.

    Issued on: November 15, 2007.
 Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
 [FR Doc. E7-22879 Filed 11-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P