Supporting Statement

for

Various International Agreement Pollution Prevention

Certificates and Documents, and Equivalency Certificates

OMB No.:  1625-0041

COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS:  CG-5352, CG-5352A, CG-5352B, CG-6047, CG-6047A,
CG-6056, CG-6056A, CG-6056B, CG-6056C, CG-6057, CG-6059, CG-6059A,
CG-6060, CG-6060A & Instruction

A.  Justification

1.  Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

Title 33 U.S.C. 1901-1911 requires implementation of the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, as modified
by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78).  The United States Coast Guard
is delegated the authority to implement the requirements of MARPOL.  The
requirement to possess an international certificate is mandated by the
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships 1980 (Pub. L. 96-478; 33 U.S.C.
1901-1911). Additionally, the Coast Guard has the authority to issue
Flag State documents to prove equivalent compliance with MARPOL 73/78.
The Coast Guard is also authorized to administer/enforce the
International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems
on Ships (2001) (IAFS Conv) (Pub. L. 111-281, Title X).

–MARPOL Certificates and other related MARPOL requirements are listed
below:

a) IOPP Certificates and supplements (33 CFR 151.19) (forms CG-5352,
CG-5352A &

CG-5352B)

Each U.S. oil tanker of 150 gross tons and above and each other U.S.
ship of 400 gross tons and above; that engages on international voyages
to ports or off-shore terminals under the jurisdiction of other parties
to MARPOL 73/78.

b) Evidence required for ships not party to MARPOL 73/78 (33 CFR 151.21)

All oil tankers of 150 gross tons and above and all ships of 400 gross
tons and above.

c) Retain discharge data recorded by a cargo monitor (33 CFR 157.37(d))

All tank vessels 150 gross tons or more carrying oil in bulk.

d) Statement of Voluntary Compliance (International Maritime
Organization resolutions MEPC.94(46) & MEPC.111(50)) (form CG-6057)

Each U.S. single hull tank vessels 15 years old and older.

e) International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) Certificates and
International Energy Efficiency (IEE) Certificates (MARPOL 73/78 Annex
VI) (forms CG-6056, CG-6056A, CG-6056B,

CG-6056C, CG-6060 & CG-6060A)

Each U.S. ship of 400 gross tons and above; that engages on
international voyages to ports or off-shore terminals under the
jurisdiction of other parties to MARPOL 73/78.

-IAFS Conv Certificates:

f) International Anti-Fouling Systems (IAFS) Certificates (IAFS Conv)
(forms CG-6059 &

CG-6059A)

Each U.S. ship of 400 gross tons and above; that engages on
international voyages.

–Flag State documents:

g) Equivalency Certificate for MARPOL 73/78 (Revised) Annex IV (Sewage)
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (33
CFR 159) (forms CG-6047 &

CG-6047A)

Annex IV applies to all new vessels built on or after September 27,
2003, which are 400 gross tons International Tonnage Convention (ITC),
and above. The Annex also applies to new vessels less than 400 gross
tons (ITC), which are certified to carry more than 15 passengers.
Existing vessels 400 gross tons (ITC) and above and those existing
vessels less than 400 GT (ITC) which are certified to carry more than 15
passengers need not comply until September 27, 2008.  Existing federal
regulations concerning sewage are outlined in 33 CFR 159 under
‘Marine Sanitation Devices.’

h)  Ship-to-Ship (STS) Operations for MARPOL 73/78 (Annex I, Regs 40 &
41)

Each oil tanker and tank barge of 150 gross tons and above, that engages
in transfers of oil at sea.

a) IOPP Certificates and supplements.  All ships engaged in
international voyages are required to comply with IOPP certificate
requirements.  Due to the complex requirements of MARPOL 73/78 and the
language difficulties associated with international trade, a uniform
certificate listing vital information about the ship’s characteristics
in a standard form is necessary.  The format of the certificate was
agreed upon by the United States and other signatories to MARPOL 73/78.
The IOPP Certificate is valid for a period of 5 years from the date of
issue.

The IOPP certificates serve the necessary function of providing, in
standard format and language, for ships of various countries, all the
information needed by an inspecting official to efficiently determine
whether a ship is in compliance with the requirements of MARPOL 73/78.

b) Evidence required for ships not party to MARPOL 73/78.  This
implements Article 5(4) of MARPOL 73/78, and is intended to prevent a
ship from obtaining more favorable treatment due to its non-party
status.  Such ships will be required to have surveys conducted and valid
documentation that the ship is in compliance with MARPOL 73/78.

c) Retain discharge data recorded by a cargo monitor.  The installation
and use of cargo monitor and control systems on tank vessels that are
150 gross tons or more is required by 33 CFR 157.  Each tank vessel must
retain the printout of discharge data from that system for at least
three years.

d) Statement of Voluntary Compliance.  In order to satisfy signatory
port states, owners of single hull tankers 15 years old and older may
voluntarily comply with the Condition Assessment Scheme outlined in
International Maritime Organization (IMO) resolution MEPC.94(46).  The
format of the certificate was agreed upon by IMO and other signatory
nations the revised to MARPOL 73/78 regulations 13G and 13H.  The
Statement of Voluntary Compliance is valid for a period of not more than
5 years from the date of issue.  The Certificate may never be valid
beyond a single hull tanker’s phase-out date required by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990.

e) IAPP and IEE Certificates. All ships engaged in international voyages
are required to comply with IAPP & IEE certificate requirements.  Due to
the complex requirements of MARPOL 73/78 and the language difficulties
associated with international trade, a uniform certificate listing vital
information about the ship’s characteristics in a standard form is
necessary.  The format of the certificate was agreed upon by the United
States and other signatories to MARPOL 73/78.  The IAPP Certificate is
valid for a period of 5 years from the date of issue.  The IEE
Certificate is issued without expiration date.

f) IAFS Certificates.  Each U.S. ship of 400 gross tons and above; that
engages on international voyages must demonstrate compliance with the
IAFS Convention.  The IAFS Certificate is valid until the anti-fouling
system is changed or replaced, or upon transfer of the ship to the flag
of another country.

g) Flag State document for MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV (Sewage).  Since MARPOL
73/78 Annex IV has not been ratified by the United States, and U.S.
flagged vessels on international voyages sailing in the waters of
countries that have adopted MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV will be subjected to
Port State control boardings, these vessels will need to demonstrate
equivalent compliance through the Flag State documents issued by the US
Coast Guard.

h) STS Operations (Transfer of Oil Cargo between Oil Tankers at Sea)
(MARPOL 73/78 Annex I, Regs 40 & 41).

Each oil tanker and tank barge of 150 gross tons and above, that engage
in transfers of oil at sea, and that engage in an STS oil-transfer
operation is required to carry and follow an “STS Operations Plan,”
based on the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Manual on Oil
Pollution, Section 1: Prevention. Regulation 41 also requires that the
person in charge of STS Operations be qualified to perform all relevant
duties, and that records of STS Operations be retained on board for 3
years.

This information collection supports the following strategic goals:

Department of Homeland Security

Prevention

Protection

Coast Guard

Maritime Safety

Protection of the Natural Resources

Prevention Policy and Response Policy Directorates (CG-5P & CG-5R)

Safety:  Eliminate deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with
commercial maritime operations.

Human and Natural Environment:  Eliminate environmental damage
associated with maritime transportation and operations on and around the
nation’s waterways.

2.  Purpose of the information collection.

a) and b) This data is used by Coast Guard inspectors to prepare for
inspections requested by ship owners or operators and to issue an IOPP
Certificate in a minimum amount of time.  The IOPP Certificate makes
possible the efficient and effective enforcement of MARPOL 73/78, saving
both the government and the ship owner/operator time and expense.
Without a standard IOPP Certificate, the routine inspection of a ship
upon entry to a port would be extremely burdensome and time consuming
for both the government inspector and ship operator.  The potential
delay represents a significant expense to the ship owner due to lost
time for the ship to transfer cargo.

c) This recordkeeping requirement stems directly from the requirements
of Regulation 15(3)(a) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 that each vessel
retain the printout of cargo monitor discharge data from the recording
device (part of the control system for three years.)  This requirement
has been incorporated in 33 CFR 157.37(d).  These printouts verify the
vessel’s compliance with oil discharge standards.  There is no
requirement that these printouts be submitted to any agency.

In the event of an oil discharge this information will be used to verify
if the vessel causing the discharge violated the oil discharge limits of
MARPOL 73/78.  If the vessel did not, it could be used by the vessel
operator as mitigating evidence regardless of the presence of visible
traces of oil.  This would not be possible if this information was not
available.  However, this information is not required to be submitted to
an agency, merely retained by the vessel and/or ashore for 3-years.  In
addition, this is a specific requirement of MARPOL 73/78, to which the
United States is party, and under the terms of this treaty, must be
implemented.

d) MARPOL 73/78 Annex I Regulations 13G and 13H have not been ratified
by the U.S. Senate, however, certain U.S. flag vessels may be required
by signatory nations to prove compliance with those provisions through
Flag State documents.  In order to satisfy signatory port states, owners
of single hull tankers 15 years old and older may voluntarily comply
with the Condition Assessment Scheme outlined in International Maritime
Organization resolution MEPC.94(46).

e) This data is used by Coast Guard inspectors to prepare for
inspections requested by ship owners or operators and to issue an IAPP
or IEE Certificate in a minimum amount of time.  The Certificates makes
possible the efficient and effective enforcement of MARPOL 73/78, saving
both the government and the ship owners and operator’s time and
expense.  Without standard Certificates, the routine inspection of a
ship upon entry to a port would be extremely burdensome and time
consuming for both the government inspector and ship operator.  The
potential delay represents a significant expense to the ship owner due
to lost time for the ship to transfer cargo.  MARPOL 73/78, Annex VI
entered into force for the U.S. on January 8, 2009.

f) This data is used by Coast Guard inspectors to prepare for
inspections requested by ship owners or operators and to issue an IAFP
Certificate in a minimum amount of time.  The IAFS Certificate makes
possible the efficient and effective enforcement of IAFS Convention,
saving both the government and the ship owner/operator time and expense.
 Without a standard IAFS Certificate, the routine inspection of a ship
upon entry to a port would be extremely burdensome and time consuming
for both the government inspector and ship operator.  The potential
delay represents a significant expense to the ship owner due to lost
time for the ship to transfer cargo.

g) Since MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV has not been ratified by the United
States, and U.S. flagged vessels on international voyages sailing in the
waters of countries that have adopted MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV will be
subjected to Port State control boardings, these vessels will need to
demonstrate equivalent compliance through the Flag State
documents--Certificates of Equivalency or Statements of Voluntary
Compliance—issued by the US Coast Guard.

h) This data is used to ensure compliance with the STS Operation
requirements, including the development and periodic review of STS
Operations Plan, and retention of records are required by the Plan.

3.  Considerations of the use of improved technology.

Information is not submitted to the Coast Guard.  Upon successful
completion of an inspection, the CG will issue the appropriate
Certificate(s).  The Certificate(s) should be posted on the vessel.  For
oil tanker discharge monitoring and control systems, per Resolution
MEPC.108(49) dated 18 July 2003, monitoring and control system data may
be recorded and stored electronically (paragraphs 6.9.1 & 6.9.3).  This
information is not sent to the Coast Guard, rather it is made available
upon inspection.  We estimate that 50% of all recordkeeping is done
electronically.

4.  Efforts to identify duplication.

The Coast Guard is the only agency, Federal, State or private that
requires this information collection and that administers these MARPOL
73/78 requirements on commercial vessels.  The regulations allow foreign
vessels to show compliance through an IOPP Certificate, or an
Equivalency Certificate, rather than directly submitting information to
the Coast Guard.  This avoids duplication on an international level.

5.  Methods used to minimize the burdens to small entities if involved.

This information collection does not have an impact on small businesses
or other small entities.

6.  Consequences to the Federal program if collection were conducted
less frequently.

Without these international Certificates and Statements of Voluntary
Compliance, a ship could encounter severe international trade
restrictions and delays.  Most certificates are reissued every 5 years.
Without the cargo monitor discharge data, engine fuel and exhaust
emissions data, or the Certificate of Equivalency for MARPOL 73/78 Annex
IV (Sewage), it would not be possible to confirm that the ship is
operating in compliance with U.S. regulations and/or international
pollution prevention-related treaties.

7.  Special collection circumstances.

This information collection is conducted in manner consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8.  Consultation.

A 60-day Notice will be published in the Federal Register to obtain
public comment on this collection.

9.  Provide any payment or gift to respondents.

There is no offer of monetary or material value for this information
collection.

10.  Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents.

There are no assurances of confidentiality provided to the respondents
for this information collection.

11.  Additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.

There are no questions of sensitive language.

12.  Estimate of annual hour and cost burdens to respondents.

The estimated annual respondents are 1,566.

The estimated annual responses are 11,527.

The estimated annual burden hours are 73,900.

The estimated annual cost is $3,026,953.

The burden to respondents is provided in Appendix A.  Table 2, available
at the end of these calculations in this section, provides a summary of
all the different components involved in this collection of information
with the grand totals.

a) IOPP Certificates and supplements.

The total number of U.S. vessels affected by the IOPP Certificate
requirements is estimated to be 1,556 (1,044 Nontank Vessels + 461 Tank
Barges + 51 Tank Ships as shown in Table 1).  This figure was obtained
from the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Information for Safety and Law
Enforcement database (MISLE).  The required posting of an IOPP
Certificate and supplement take approximately twenty minutes (0.33
hours) per ship.  The IOPP Certificate will be issued once every five
years.  Approximately 1,556 vessels are required to have an IOPP
Certificate.  The total number of annual responses is estimated to be
311 (rounding 1,556 ships / 5 years).  The total estimated annual burden
on the public is 103 hours (rounding up 311 x 0.33 hours/ship).  Total
cost to the public is estimated to be $6,283 per year (103 hours/year x
$61 hour).

b) Evidence required for ships not party to MARPOL 73/78.

The Coast Guard does not maintain the data required to calculate burden
on foreign-flagged vessels trading in U.S. waters that are not signatory
to MARPOL 73/73.  We have historically estimated this population to be
approximately 10.  The presentation and compilation of the required
information needed is expected to take approximately twenty hours per
ship.  The total estimated annual burden on the public is 200 hours (10
ships x 20 hours/ship).  Total cost is estimated to be $12,200 per year
(200 hours/year x $61 hour).

c) Retain discharge data recorded by a cargo monitor.

There are approximately 512 tank vessels in the U.S. fleet that are
required to keep records of cargo monitor discharge data (461 Tank
Barges + 51 Tank Ships).  To estimate the annual burden the following
assumptions are made:

each vessel operates for 350 days a year;

a ballast discharge is made every 20 days, making approximately 17
discharges per year;

recordkeeping takes ¼ hour per ballast discharge; and .

a person with an equivalent wage to a GS-11 would be in charge of
keeping the record, receiving an hourly salary of $61.

The total number of annual responses is estimated to be 8,704 (rounding
512 ships * 17 discharges per year).  The total estimated annual burden
on the public is 2,176 hours (rounding up 8,704 x 0.25 hours/ship).
Total cost to the public is estimated to be $132,736 per year (2,176
hours/year x $61 hour).

d) Statement of Voluntary Compliance.

The total number of U.S. vessels affected by the Statement of Voluntary
Compliance (SVC) is estimated to be 0 (0 Tank Barges + 0 Tank Ships).
This figure was obtained from the data available from the MISLE
database.  The completion of the SVC is estimated to take approximately
thirty minutes (0.17 hours) per vessel.  The SVC lasts for five years
and approximately 0 vessels are applicable for the program.  The total
number of annual responses is estimated to be 0 (0 ships /0 years).  The
total estimated annual burden on the public is 0.00 hours (0 x
0.17hours/ship).  Total cost to the public is estimated to be $0 per
year (0.00 hours/year x $61 hour).

e) IAPP & IEE Certificates.

The total number of U.S. vessels affected by the IAPP & IEE Certificate
requirements is estimated to be 1,556 (1,044 Nontank Vessels + 461 Tank
Barges + 51 Tank Ships as shown in Table 1).  This figure was obtained
from the MISLE database.  The required posting of a Certificate takes
approximately ten minutes (0.17 hours) per ship.  An IAPP Certificate is
issued once every five years.

Approximately 311 vessels (1,556/5) will receive an IAPP Certificate
annually.  The total estimated annual burden on the public is 53 hours
(311 x 0.17 hours/ship (rounded)).  Total cost to the public is
estimated to be $3,233 per year (53 hours/year x $61/ hour).

f) IAFS Certificates.

The total number of U.S. vessels affected by the IAFS Certificate
requirements is estimated to be 0 at this time.  The total number of
annual responses is estimated to be 0 (0 ships /0 years).  The total
estimated annual burden on the public is 0.00 hours (0 x 0.17
hours/ship).  Total cost to the public is estimated to be $0 per year
(0.00 hours/year x $61 hour).

g) Flag State documents (Certificates of Equivalency) for MARPOL 73/78
Annex IV (Sewage).

The Coast Guard estimates that the 1,556 vessels are candidates for the
Certificate of Equivalency.  We also assume that only 75% of the
eligible vessels will apply for the certificate.  Approximately 1,556
vessels will have 1,167 responses (1,556 vessels *75%).  We assume that
it takes 10 minutes to post the Certificate of Equivalency, and that
someone of rank equivalent to O-4 posts the document, and the equivalent
wage rate for this is $104/hour.  The estimated annual burden for
posting the Certificate of Equivalency is 200 hours and the cost is
$20,800.  See Appendix A, table 2 for details.

h)(1) Initial STS Operations Plan preparation

The Coast Guard estimates that there are 512 oil tankers and tank barges
of 150 gross tons and above, that engage in transfers of oil at sea, and
that engage in an STS oil-transfer operation.  We assume that it takes
135 hours to prepare an initial STS Operations Plan per vessel and
assume that training and development specialists will prepare the STS
Operations Plan at the rate of $40.07.  The estimated one-year burden
for the STS Operations Plan is 69,120 hours.  The total cost to the
public is estimated to be $2,769,638 for one year (69,120 hours/year x
$40.07 hour).

h)(2) Recurring STS Operations Plan update

The Coast Guard estimates that there are 512 oil tankers and tank barges
of 150 gross tons and above, that engage in transfers of oil at sea, and
that engage in an STS oil-transfer operation.  We assume that it takes 4
hours to prepare an annual recurring STS Operations Plan update per
vessel and assume that specialists will prepare the STS Operations Plan
at the rate of $40.07.  The estimated one-year burden for the STS
Operations Plan update is 2,048 hours.  The total cost to the public is
estimated to be $82,063 per year (2,048 hours/year x $40.07 hour).

13.  Estimate of annual capital and start-up costs.

There are no capital, start-up or maintenance costs associated with this
information collection.

14.  Estimates of annualized Federal Government costs.

The annualized Federal Government cost estimate is $126,398. This cost
is comprised of 2 elements.

a) International treaty Certificates

It takes the Coast Guard an average of 2.0 hours to complete each
Certificate.  We assume a GS-13 is involved with the issuance of the
forms, at an hourly rate of $85.  For the Statement of Voluntary
Compliance, it takes approximately 30 minutes for the Coast Guard to
review the form.  Regarding cargo monitor discharge records, we assume
no specific costs are associated with them, as these records would be
examined in the general course of a Coast Guard inspection or
investigation.  The total cost of this element is $105,740.

b) Issuing Flag State documents

These documents are generally completed by someone of a rank equivalent
to W-3, and the applicable government wage rate is $106/hour.  We
estimate that it takes about 10 minutes a document, and since the total
number of applications is 1,167 the total cost to the government is
$20,658 [$106 * 0.167 * 1,167].

15.  Explain the reasons for the change in burden.

The change in burden is an ADJUSTMENT due to a change (i.e., increase)
in the estimated annual number of responses.  There is no proposed
change to the recordkeeping requirements of this collection.  The
recordkeeping requirements, and the methodology for calculating burden,
remain unchanged.

16.  Plans for tabulation, statistical analysis and publication.

This information collection will not be published for statistical
purposes.

17.  Approval for not explaining the expiration date for OMB approval.

The certificates associated with this collection are prescribed by an
international treaty (e.g., MARPOL) that the U.S. Government is
signatory to.  These certificates either have specific five year
expiration dates related to requirements set out in treaty, or are valid
indefinitely.  The addition of an expiration date to these
certificates—that for OMB approval—may cause several problems.
First, it may cause U.S.-flag vessel owner/operators to interact with
the Coast Guard more frequently than required to reconcile the existence
of up to 2 expirations dates on their ships’ certificates.  Second, it
may cause confusion with foreign Port Sate Control boarding officers,
resulting in U.S.-flag ships being delayed or detained in foreign ports
due to up to 2 differing expiration dates.  It is for these reasons that
expiration dates for OMB approval are not displayed on the certificates
associated with this collection.  However, the OMB expiration date is
displayed on the Instruction sheet related to the information collection
request.

18.  Exception to the certification statement.

The Coast Guard does not request an exception to the certification of
this information collection.

B.  Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

This information collection does not employ statistical methods.

Appendix A

TABLE 1.  Vessels with Int’l treaty Certificates

(Carry oil and are greater than 150 gt., and all other ships greater
than 400 gt.)

Types of Vessels

	Nontank Vessels

	Freight Barge	189

Freight Ship	229

MODU	47

Oil Recovery	46

Towing Vessel	34

Industrial Vessel	93

OSV	268

Research Vessel	16

School Ship	4

Passenger Inspected.	118

Tank Vessels

	Tank Barge	461

Tank Ship	51

Ships – TOTAL 	1,556

Table 2. Summary of the Requirements for COI 1625-0041

Requirement	Annual Respondents	Annual Responses	Annual Burden Hours	Wage
Rate	Annual Costs

a) IOPP Certificates and supplements	1,556	311	103	$61 	$6,283

b) Evidence required for ships not party to MARPOL 73/78	10	10	200	$61
$12,200

c) Retain discharge data recorded by a cargo monitor	512*	8,704	2,176
$61	$132,736

d) Statement of Voluntary Compliance 	0*	0	0	$61	$0

e) IAPP & IEE Certificates	311*	311                              	53	$61
$3,233

f) IAFS Certificates	0*	0                                 	0	$61	$0

g) Flag State documents (Certificates of Equivalency)	1,167*	1,167
                         	200	$104	$20,800

h(1)) Initial STS Operations Plan preparation	512*
  512 	                        69,120 	$40.07	$2,769,638

h(2)) Recurring  STS Operations Plan update	512*
       512 	                               2,048 	$40.07	$82,063

TOTAL	1,566	11,527	73,900	 	$3,026,953

NOTE—These respondents are the same as, or a subset of, the
respondents listed in row (a).

Table 3 Estimate of Annual Burden for Vessels that Retain Cargo Monitor
Discharge Data

 	 	Annual Discharges	Hour Burden	Cost Burden

Type of Vessel	Number of Vessels	(17 per vessel)	(0.25 hrs. per
discharge)	($61 per hr.)

Tank Barges	461	7,837	1,959	$119,499

Tank Ships	51	867	217	$13,237

Total*	512	8,704 	2,176 	$132,736

*NOTES—Figures may be rounded

                  The totals from this Table are shown in Table 2 row
(c).

Table 4 Estimate of Annual Burden for Vessels with the

Certificate of Equivalency for MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV (Sewage)

Types of vessels that are candidates for Flag State documents	Number of
vessels in each category	Annual burden hours (assuming 10 minutes –
0.17 hours – to post the document)	Cost of burden hours (wage rate
$104/hour)

Freight Ship	229	39	$4,056

Towing Vessel	34	6	$624

Tank Ship	51	9	$936

Passenger Inspected	118	20	$2,080

Industrial Vessel	93	16	$1,664

Freight Barge	189	32	$3,328

MODU	47	8	$832

OSV	268	46	$4,784

Research Vessel	16	3	$312

School Ship	4	1	$104

Tank Barge	461	78	$8,112

Oil Recovery	46	8	$832

Total*	1,556 	266	$27,664

About 75% will actually apply for the Certificate of Equivalency *

1,167

200

$20,800

*NOTES—Figures may be rounded.

                  The totals from this Table are shown in Table 2 row
(g).

Table 5 Hour Burden per Vessel – Initial STS Operations Plan
preparation

Procedures	Hours per procedure	Hourly Cost	Total Cost

General requirements	12	$40.07	$480.84

Step-by-step description of the entire STS Operation	12	$40.07	$480.84

A description of the mooring and unmooring procedures and arrangements,
including diagrams where necessary, and procedures for tending the oil
tankers' moorings during the transfer of cargo;	12	$40.07	$480.84

A description of the cargo and ballast transfer procedures, including
those used while underway or anchored and procedures for connecting and
testing integrity of cargo hoses and hose to manifold interface, topping
off cargo tanks and disconnecting cargo hoses	12	$40.07	$480.84

The titles, locations and duties of all persons involved in the STS
operation;	12	$40.07	$480.84

Procedures for operating the emergency shut-down and communication
systems and for rapid breakaway;	12	$40.07	$480.84

A description of the drip trays and procedures for emptying them	12
$40.07	$480.84

Procedures for reporting spillages of oil into the water;	12	$40.07
$480.84

An approved contingency plan which meets the requirements of 6.2.9; and
12	$40.07	$480.84

A cargo and ballast plan	12	$40.07	$480.84

Records retention: records of STS operations shall be retained on board
for three years and be readily available for inspection	3	$40.07	$120.21

An approved contingency plan which meets the requirements of 6.2.9; and
12	$40.07	$480.84

Burden per Vessel	135 	 	$5,409.45

Total Burden for 512 Vessels

(respondents & responses)	69,120

$2,769,638

NOTE—The totals from this Table are shown in Table 2 row (h)(1).

  See Enclosure (2) to COMDTINST 7310.1N (equivalent to the GS-11
out-of-govt. rate).

  See Enclosure (2) to COMDTINST 7310.1N (equivalent to the GS-11
out-of-govt. rate).

  See Enclosure (2) to COMDTINST 7310.1N (equivalent to the GS-11
out-of-govt. rate).

  See Enclosure (2) to COMDTINST 7310.1N (equivalent to the GS-11
out-of-govt. rate).

  See Enclosure (2) to COMDTINST 7310.1N (equivalent to the GS-11
out-of-govt. rate).

  See Enclosure (2) to COMDTINST 7310.1N (equivalent to the GS-11
out-of-govt. rate).

  See Enclosure (2) to COMDTINST 7310.1N (equivalent to the GS-11
out-of-govt. rate).

  See Enclosure (2) to COMDTINST 7310.1M (equivalent to the O-4
out-of-govt. rate).

    HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes131151.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes131151.htm  median wage rate is used
* 1.49 loaded wage rate.

    HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes131151.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oes131151.htm  median wage rate is used
* 1.49 loaded wage rate.

1625-0041

  PAGE  11  of   NUMPAGES  11


1 1 2 3 EPA PUBLIC HEARING 4 5 6 7 8 PORTLAND, OREGON 9 PROPOSED FEDERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 10 FOR OREGON 11 12 13 ______________________________________________

14 15 16 October 23, 2003 17 18

19 20 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant to the Oregon Rules 21 of Civil Procedure, the testimony was taken before Marta 22 Charles, a Professional Court Reporter and a Notary 23 Public for the State of Oregon, on October 23, 2003,

24 commencing at the hour of 2: 00 P. M., the proceedings 25 being reported at 100 West 10th Street, Eugene, Oregon. 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 JACKSON FOX 3 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 4 1200 6th Avenue 5 Seattle, WA 98104 6 ( 206) 553 1073 7 .

8 JUDY SMITH 9 MARY LOU SOSCIA 10 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 11 811 S. W. Sixth Avenue 12 Portland, OR 97204 13 ( 503) 326 3250 14 .

15 CARA LALLEY 16 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 17 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

18 Washington, D. C. 20460 19 ( 202) 566 0057 20 .

21 JEFF LOCKWOOD 22 NOAA Fisheries 23 525 N. E. Oregon Street 24 Portland, OR 97232 25 ( 503) 231 2249 3 1 ALAN HENNING 2 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 3 1102 Lincoln Street, Suite 210 4 Eugene, Oregon 97401 5 ( 541) 686 7838 6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

10 .

11 .

12 .

13 .

14 .

15 .

16 .

17 .

18 .

19 .

20 .

21 .

22 .

23 .

24 .

25 . 4 1 MR. FOX: Hello, everyone. I'm 2 Jack Fox. I'm Regional Counsel for EPA in Seattle,

3 and I'm the hearing officer. And I have a fairly 4 extensive statement to read, which doesn't seem 5 appropriate. It's so formal and there's so few of us 6 here but it is necessary for the record, so bare with 7 me. We only have two commenters, so if anybody wants 8 to add their name, fill out the blue form. It is my 9 responsibility to ensure that this hearing is run 10 properly and that anybody who chooses to provide 11 testimony this evening has the opportunity to do so.

12 I would like to introduce Marta 13 Charles, who is the court reporter for this evening's 14 hearing. It is important that Marta accurately record 15 the testimony being given, so if you're providing 16 testimony this evening, please speak slowly and 17 clearly and spell your last name for her, please.

18 This hearing is being held on 19 Wednesday, October 22nd  or it's the 3rd, right?

20 The 23rd  2003 in the  Where are we? The 21 library in Eugene, Oregon. The purpose of the 22 hearing is to receive public comments on EPA's 23 proposed federal water quality standards for Oregon.

24 Public notice of this hearing was published in the 25 Federal Register on October 10, 2003. Public comment 5 1 period began on October 10th and runs until November 2 10, 2003.

3 Before we begin, I will describe 4 the process and procedures to be followed this evening 5 and let you know how your comments will be handled.

6 This public hearing has been called with two goals in 7 mind. We would like to give all interested parties 8 an opportunity to express their views on the proposed 9 water quality rules. Oregon and we are interested in 10 obtaining as much relevant information as possible to 11 assist in affirming or modifying the rule as currently 12 proposed.

13 EPA will respond to all comments 14 received today in the Written Response to Comments 15 document that will accompany the final rule. Copies 16 of the October 10, 2003, proposal and a fact sheet 17 are available from EPA. This information is also 18 information available on the Internet. In addition,

19 copies of the Federal Register notice and fact sheet 20 are available at the registration table this evening.

21 If we've run out of materials and you want a copy,

22 please speak to Judy Smith, the EPA representative

23 It's actually Alan Henning right now, sitting at the 24 registration table.

25 As Judy stated earlier, if you wish 6 1 to provide testimony this afternoon, please sign up at 2 the registration table. Speakers will be called in 3 the order that the cards are turned in. The only 4 exceptions to this are for elected public officials,

5 who will be allowed to speak first, and government 6 representatives, who will speak second. If you want 7 to be on the mailing list to receive information 8 about the final action taken on this rule, please 9 sign up at the appropriate sign in sheet located at 10 the registration table. You do not need to provide 11 testimony this afternoon in order to have your 12 concerns or perspectives considered. Written comments 13 are given equal consideration in our decision making.

14 So, if you have the option  You have the option of 15 providing oral testimony, written comments, or both.

16 If you choose to provide written 17 comments, you need to mail them to EPA at the address 18 shown in the Federal Register. If you are providing 19 written comments, they must be postmarked no later 20 than November 10, 2003, in order to be considered.

21 If you would like to provide written comments this 22 afternoon, sign the blue cards, as already stated.

23 We will now begin taking public 24 testimony. I would like to re emphasize that the 25 purpose of the public hearing is to receive input on 7 1 the proposed federal water quality standards. If 2 there's anyone who wishes to testify, but hasn't 3 filled out a blue sheet, please sign up now at the 4 registration table.

5 I will call each speaker up to the 6 microphone. Since there are only two, we don't have 7 to get in line or  And we don't have to limit your 8 comments. So I think we can get started now. And 9 the first commenter is Nancy Nichols.

10 MS. NICHOLS: Okay. I'm Nancy 11 Nichols and it's spelled N I C H O L S. Like many 12 people, I've wondered why the Environmental Protection 13 Agency doesn't do all it can to protect the 14 environment. However, I've never quite known how to 15 make my concerns known. So when I heard about this 16 I thought, " Well, I'll just come down."

17 I own a house built before 1978 18 that I rent out. Every time I get a new tenant, by 19 law, I need to give them a form about the danger of 20 the possible lead in the paint. Also, I can't buy 21 that paint  the lead based paint  to use in the 22 house. All new layers of paint in the past 25 years 23 are lead free.

24 Clearly, we've known for many years 25 that lead is dangerous, that we  Yet, we allow 8 1 fishermen to throw tons of lead into our river every 2 year in the form of lost fishing weights. This is a 3 particular danger in the Sius Law, as it has very 4 soft water, which can dissolve lead.

5 It seems obvious to me that we 6 should be   not be tossing lead into our rivers.

7 However, it isn't obvious to everyone. Perhaps we 8 could, at least, do some testing to establish the 9 extent of the problem. How much lead is in the 10 water? What creatures are affected by lead? Lead is 11 known to reduce IQ. Are, perhaps, salmon not doing 12 so well because they aren't as smart as they used to 13 be?

14 Please put water testing for lead 15 on the Sius Law in your work plan. I know I'm a 16 little bit off topic. But, on the topic, please make 17 sure you have the watershed assessment for the Sius 18 Law Watershed. You can call 541 268 3044 to get a 19 copy from the Sius Law Watershed Council, if you 20 don't already have one. Thank you.

21 MR. FOX: Next speaker is Katherine 22 Koehn.

23 MS. KOHEN: Hello. My name is 24 Kathy or Katherine Koehn, K O E H N. It looks like 25 Coon. And, I'm sorry, I haven't had a chance to 9 1 review the maps thoroughly, but I appreciate all of 2 your guy's work and for letting us make public 3 comment. I will be making formal written comment 4 after I take a look at the maps and look at your 5 docket.

6 But I would like to encourage EPA 7 to always be as protective as possible of both human 8 health and fish health. And I hope that you can 9 appreciate the benefit that the dwindling fish stocks 10 have, in as much as offering us some type of a 11 parameter to show that there are problems. And I 12 hope that as you are addressing these things that you 13 look at not how much the fish or the river can 14 stand, but rather, what would be closest to natural 15 conditions. And, as an example, thermal plume studies 16  I have been to some of the meetings up at the 17 Willamette Watershed Council. And, in looking at what 18 the DEQ is positing  If I understand it properly

19 I have a lot of problems with the size and the shape 20 and the impacts that they assess that could accrue 21 from different types of thermal shock, especially 22 versus  chronic versus a long term type of impacts.

23 But I heard a young man giving a 24 dissertation at OSU about the impacts  the cellular 25 impacts of heat. And, basically, it sounded to me 10 1 like a fish or  fish is what I was concerned with 2  but other things in the water too can be gravely 3 affected by thermal shock. And, basically, it causes 4 a shutdown on a cellular level, such that the fish or 5 whatever type of life form could basically freeze in 6 place and allow itself to be eaten or to have other 7 biologic type of impacts. So, I'm not in complete 8 agreement with what they say will be the thermal 9 impacts. And I guess it will depend on how large an 10 area of the river or what type of temperature and all 11 the factors that go into those things.

12 But, that brings up one more 13 restraint that I think that you're laboring under,

14 which is to the extent that you can use models.

15 Because, as far as I'm concerned, all of this should 16 have been done about 20 years ago and everybody 17 started bellyaching and it became apparent the fish 18 were going belly up themselves. But now we have to 19 rely on models. And so I hope that you're using 20 really good models. I think they're a work in 21 progress.

22 And also about your  Somebody 23 made a comment about there being no use attainment 24 for the functionality of dams per se, right now.

25 And, from what I can see, it looks like you're mainly 11 1 emphasizing on hydraulic modifications, such as 2 ladders, I suppose. But I think that the use of a 3 river is more than a set of dams, which we have so 4 many of in the Willamette Valley. So, I think the 5 cumulative use of so many of these things that don't 6 have any particular attainment, being set for them is 7 very troubling.

8 I also find that there are no

9 very few specific places  Although your maps are 10 wonderful and they do represent a quantum leap ahead 11 of nothing, which the State was doing previous to 12 this, as far as I can see. But anyhow, you still 13 are emphasizing watershed scales. And the problem 14 with the watershed scale is the same problem that the 15 State legislature was trying to grapple with for the 16 last year about how do you require farmers to report 17 in particular parts of the watershed. And the 18 farmers all would like to do it on a watershed scale,

19 and the environmentalists all want to do it on a 20 10 foot reach type of thing.

21 So, the point being, that you're 22 not going to have very much useful data if you're 23 doing it on a watershed scale and, in this instance,

24 where fish only have another decade, if that, to live 25 through. I think that it  That's why I would 12 1 encourage you to be as protective as possible and 2 error on the side of protecting biologic and human 3 life.

4 And an example of this would be 5 the problem with cold water refugia, because if you're 6 relying on the DEQ to set where  or the ODFW

7 and to set where these particular refugia are going 8 to be, I don't have very much faith in that being 9 successful because of the problems they've had not 10 addressing toxics per se. And I think these cold

11 water refugia are very important.

12 For instance, I live in a small 13 creek called Little Fall Creek. And we have, I 14 believe, one of the last remaining healthy streams in 15 the entire Willamette as far as I can tell by fish 16 surveys that the ODFW have done. And yet there's no 17 particular protection afforded to my stream, even 18 though a qualitative and  quantitative and 19 qualitative setting, our stream is better than any of 20 the other streams that ODFW has been looking at for 21 fish populations. And I volunteered as part of a 22 group to check on that. So I know that our stream 23 is very important. Yet, what I consider as one of 24 the last best streams in the entire watershed as 25 regards to purity of water and healthy fish 13 1 populations, it doesn't give any  Oh. I forget

2 I don't expect EPA to do this  But there's some 3 sort of State mandate to have  I forget what it's 4 called, but it's special designated uses. That means 5 it's a very important area and the DEQ is supposed to 6 have said  Ten places that they said were important 7 and they couldn't agree on much other than a normal 8 lake, I think. So, the more specific you can make 9 these type of things, then the better chance you'd 10 have of actually improving things. And, also, you 11 need a specific implementation plan with schedules and 12 results as to what will happen if these schedules 13 aren't kept, because EPA is now proving water quality 14 standards, for instance, for Oregon. And we're like 15 15 years behind. And only by a Court order of being 16 forced are we on to any sort of schedule. So we 17 should  as the public, would like to be able to 18 find out, well, who is responsible for implementing 19 these things and how is it going to be done and 20 where's the money and by what date?

21 And an example of a problem that 22 is inherent in this policy is the TMDLs that have 23 been put together are not addressing toxics in any 24 depth. And, since that's one of the number one

25 Water quality is one of the number one things 14 1 affecting fish populations, I think even though that 2 isn't exactly pertinent to this topic, it's an example 3 of how basically, when agencies are dealing with other 4 agencies, how do we, as the public, know that these 5  the final result of this paper shuffling is 6 actually going to be an improvement on a biologic 7 sense.

8 And, for instance, since toxics can 9 affect both the  all of the reproductive breeding 10 and migratory and rearing of salmonids, I think that 11 the factors that you're addressing, like thermal 12 plumes and things like so, need to be looked at in a 13 cumulative sense because you're not even beginning to 14 address some of the most pertinent points.

15 And one of my last things I wanted 16 to say is that  You talk about the tribes. Now,

17 you're not dealing with tribes, here, specifically,

18 but we all live downstream. And the Columbia River 19 tribes are the only people that have any comprehensive 20 data, that the EPA people were nice enough to put 21 together over the next ten years  And it finally 22 popped up last year and shows that Indian children 23 are  I don't know  ten times more likely to be 24 affected by cancer  some staggering statistic

25 because of their predominance of eating fish. And 15 1 so, what it's saying is, human health can be impacted 2 by these chemicals as well as fish. So the fish are 3 acting like a canary in the coal mine. But we have 4 responsibility nation to nation with the tribes. And,

5 basically, we should not be putting water quality 6 problems on them and we should not accept any water 7 quality problems from the tribes.

8 So, thank you very much for 9 accepting my comment. And I'll be turning in full 10 written comments during your time period. Thank you.

11 MR. FOX: Does anyone else wish to 12 make a comment? I guess the comment period is 13 closed, at least temporarily until someone else shows 14 up.

15 ( Whereupon, the public hearing was 16 concluded at 6: 00 P. M.)

17 .

18 .

19 .

20 .

21 .

22 .

23 .

24 .

25 .


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30791-30793]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0450; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-010-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co.
Segelflugzeugbau Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau Models AS-K13, Ka2B,
Ka 6, Ka 6 B, Ka 6 BR, Ka 6 C, Ka 6 CR, K7, K8, and K 8 B sailplanes
that would supersede an existing AD. This proposed AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as misalignment of the automatic elevator control connection.
We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co Segelflugzeugbau, Stra[szlig]e 1 D--
36163 Poppenhausen, Germany; phone: ++49 (0) 6658/89-0; fax: ++49 (0)
6658/89-40; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0450;
Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-010-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On March 5, 1964, we issued AD 64-07-05, Amendment 701 (29 FR 3227,
March 11, 1964). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe
condition on some of the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 64-07-05, Amendment 701 (29 FR 3227, March 11,
1964) the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued a new AD to add additional sailplane models to the applicability
and to add additional inspections of the elevator control connection.
Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau has also issued
revised service information to address the unsafe condition.
    The EASA has issued AD No. 2013-0091, dated April 12, 2013
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

A recent report has been received concerning a problem with the
elevator control during take-off of an ASK 13 sailplane. The results
of the technical investigation revealed a misalignment in the
automatic elevator control connection, presumably caused by an
incorrect repair or damage at the tail-plane-area. In addition,
similar elevator connection failure during early 1960's which led to
the issuance of LBA LTM 4/62. However, LTM, 4/62 did not apply to
ASK 13 and ASK 18 sailplanes coming later into production.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure
of the automatic elevator control connection, possibly resulting in
loss of control of the sailplane.

To address this unsafe condition, Alexander Schleicher GmbH issued a
Technical Note (TN) (Ka 6 TN-Nr. 26; K 7 TN-Nr. 24; K 8 TN-Nr. 30;
ASK 13 TN-Nr. 19; ASK 18 TN-Nr. 9) providing instructions for
elevator control inspection and replacement and EASA issued AD 2012-
0246 to require accomplishment of those instructions.

Since that AD was issued, Alexander Schleicher GmbH issued a
revision of TN (Ka 6 TN-Nr. 26; K 7 TN-Nr. 24; K 8 TN-Nr. 30; ASK 13
TN-Nr. 19, ASK 18 TN-Nr. 9), dated 08 January 2013 to re-introduce a
pushrod support modification for K 7 and K 8 sailplanes, previously
required by LBA LTM 4/62, but no longer required by EASA AD 2012-
0246, which superseded the LBA LTM.

For the reasons described above, this AD retains the requirements of
EASA AD 2012-0246, which is superseded, and additionally requires,
for K 7 and K 8 sailplanes, verification of embodiment of pushrod
support modification, and depending on finding, pushrod support
modification.

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

Relevant Service Information

    Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau has issued
Technical Note for Ka 2 and Ka 2b--TM-Nr. 13, Ka 6--TM-Nr. 26, K 7--TM-
Nr. 24, K 8--TM-Nr. 30, ASK 13--TM-Nr. 19, ASK 18--TM-Nr. 9, Revision
1, dated January 8, 2013. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.
    The service information issued by Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co.
Segelflugzeugbau referenced above contains German to English
translation. On the document we received it cites the use of ``TM,''
which is an abbreviation for Technische Mitteilung. The English
translation for Technische Mitteilung is Technical Note. EASA used the
English translation in referencing the document from Alexander
Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau, as stated in the Discussion
section above.
    For enforceability purposes, we will cite references to the
Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau service information as
it appears on the document.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 127 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per
product to comply with the new inspection requirements of this proposed
AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the initial
inspection proposed in this AD on U.S. operators to be $5,397.50, or
$42.50 per product.
    We have no way of determining the number of repetitive inspections
an owner/operator will incur over the life of the sailplane.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $119, for a cost of
$204 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products
that may need these actions.
    We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product
to comply with actions retained from AD 64-07-05, Amendment 701 (29 FR
3227, March 11, 1964) for Models Ka2B, Ka 6, Ka 6 B, Ka 6 BR, Ka 6 C,
Ka 6 CR, K7, K8, and K 8 B sailplanes in this proposed AD, which
affects 112 products of U.S. registry, and may require parts costing
$103, for a cost of $273 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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 removing Amendment 701 (29 FR 3227,
March 11, 1964), and adding the following new AD:

Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Segelflugzeugbau: Docket No. FAA-
2013-0450; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-010-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 8, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 64-07-05, Amendment 701 (29 FR 3227; March
11, 1964).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co.
Segelflugzeugbau Models AS -K13, Ka2B, Ka 6, Ka 6 B, Ka 6 BR, Ka 6
C, Ka 6 CR, K7, K8, and K 8 B sailplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as misalignment of
the automatic elevator control connection. The European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) has issued a new AD to add additional sailplane
models to the applicability and to add additional inspections of the
elevator control connection. Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co.
Segelflugzeugbau has also issued revised service information to
address the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the automatic elevator control connection, which could
result in loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance Retained From AD 64-07-05, Amendment 701 (29
FR 3227, March 1, 1964)

    Unless already done, do the following actions specified in
paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(3) of this AD.

    (1) For Models Ka2B, Ka 6, Ka 6 B, Ka 6 BR, Ka 6 C, Ka 6 CR, K7,
K8, and K 8 B: Unless already done, within the next 10 hours time-
in-service (TIS) after April 13, 1964 (the effective date retained
from AD 64-07-05, Amendment 701 (29 FR 3227, March 1, 1964)),
inspect the automatic elevator control rod for conformity following
Alexander Schleicher Automatic Elevator Connection document, dated
December 5, 1961.
    (2) For Models Ka2B, Ka 6, Ka 6 B, Ka 6 BR, Ka 6 C, Ka 6 CR, K7,
K8, and K 8 B: If any discrepancy is found during the inspection
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, make
any necessary repairs or modification following Civil Aeronautics
Manual (CAM) 18, dated February 11, 1936, which can be found at the
following Web site: http://ntl1.specialcollection.net/scripts/ws.dll?websearch&site=dot_cams.
    (3) For Models Ka2B, K7, K8 and K 8 B: Unless already done,
within the next 10 hours TIS after April 13, 1964 (the effective
date retained from AD 64-07-05, Amendment 701 (29 FR 3227, March 1,
1964)), install an additional push pull rod support. For Models
Ka2B, follow Alexander Schleicher Modification No. 7, dated July 4,
1962. For Models K7, follow Alexander Schleicher Modification No. 8,
dated November 23, 1961. For Models K8, follow Alexander Schleicher
Modification No. 7, dated November 24, 1961.

(g) New Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For all models: Within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12
months, inspect the elevator control rod in the tailplane following
the Action section in Alexander Schleicher Technical Note for Ka 2
and Ka 2b-TM-Nr. 13, Ka 6-TM-Nr. 26, K 7-TM-Nr. 24, K 8-TM-Nr. 30,
ASK 13-TM-Nr. 19, ASK 18-TM-Nr. 9, Revision 1, dated January 8,
2013.
    (2) For all models: During any inspection required in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD, if any bend and/or misaligned elevator control
connection is detected, before further flight after the inspection,
replace the elevator control connection with a serviceable part. Do
the replacement following the Action section in Alexander Schleicher
Technical Note for Ka 2 and Ka 2b-TM-Nr. 13, Ka 6-TM-Nr. 26, K 7-TM-
Nr. 24, K 8-TM-Nr. 30, ASK 13-TM-Nr. 19, ASK 18-TM-Nr. 9, Revision
1, dated January 8, 2013.

(h) Credit for Actions Done Following Previous Service Information

    This AD provides credit for the initial inspection required in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD and any necessary replacement required
in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD if already done before the effective
date of this AD following the Action sections in Alexander
Schleicher Technical Note for Ka 2 and Ka 2b-TM-Nr. 13, Ka 6-TM-Nr.
26, K 7-TM-Nr. 24, K 8-TM-Nr. 30, ASK 13-TM-Nr. 19, ASK 18-TM-Nr. 9,
dated August 30, 2012.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
sailplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2013-0091, dated April 12, 2013; Alexander Schleicher Automatic
Elevator Connection document, dated December 5, 1961; Civil
Aeronautics Manual (CAM) 18, dated February 11, 1936; Alexander
Schleicher Modification No. 7 Glider Ka 2 and Ka 2B, L-140 and L-
203, dated July 4, 1962; Alexander Schleicher Modification No. 8
Glider K 7 L-211 (US 7G3), dated November 23, 1961; Alexander
Schleicher Modification No. 7 Glider K 8 L-216 (US 7G4), dated
November 24, 1961; Alexander Schleicher Technische Mitteilungt
f[uuml]r Technical Note for Ka 2 and Ka 2b-TM-Nr. 13, Ka 6-TM-Nr.
26, K 7-TM-Nr. 24, K 8-TM-Nr. 30, ASK 13-TM-Nr. 19, ASK 18-TM-Nr. 9,
dated August 30, 2012; and Alexander Schleicher Technische
Mitteilungt f[uuml]r Technical Note for Ka 2 and Ka 2b-TM-Nr. 13, Ka
6-TM-Nr. 26, K 7-TM-Nr. 24, K 8-TM-Nr. 30, ASK 13-TM-Nr. 19, ASK 18-
TM-Nr. 9, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2013, for related
information. For service information related to this AD, contact
Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co Segelflugzeugbau, Stra[szlig]e 1 D-
36163 Poppenhausen, Germany; phone: ++49 (0) 6658/89-0, fax: +49 (0)
6658/89-40, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.alexander-schleicher.de. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 17, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-12308 Filed 5-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52338-52339]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24486]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form N-54C; SEC File No. 270-184, OMB Control No. 3235-0236

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Certain investment companies can elect to be regulated as business
development companies, as defined in section 2(a)(48) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act''), under sections 55
through 65 of the Investment Company Act. Under section 54(a) of the
Investment Company Act,\1\ any company defined in section 2(a)(48)(A)
and (B) of the Investment Company Act may, if it meets certain
enumerated eligibility requirements, elect to be subject to the
provisions of Sections 55 through 65 of the Investment Company Act by
filing with the Commission a notification of election. Under section
54(c) of the Investment Company Act,\2\ any business development
company may voluntarily withdraw its election under section 54(a) of
the Investment Company Act by filing a notice of withdrawal of election
with the Commission. The Commission has adopted Form N-54C as the form
for the notification of withdrawal of election to be subject to
Sections 55 through 65 of the Investment Company Act. The purpose of
Form N-54C is to notify the Commission that the business development
company withdraws its election to be subject to Sections 55 through 65
of the Investment Company Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-53(a).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-53(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that on average approximately four
business development companies file notifications on Form N-54C each
year. Each of those business development companies need only make a
single filing of Form N-54C. The Commission further estimates that this
information collection imposes a burden of one hour, resulting in a
total annual burden of four hours. Based on the estimated wage rate,
the total cost to the business development company industry of the hour
burden for complying with Form N-54C would be approximately $1,380.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The industry burden is calculated by multiplying the total
annual hour burden to prepare Form N-54C (four) by the estimated
hourly wage rate of $345 for a compliance attorney or other business
development company employee with similar duties and
responsibilities. The estimated wage figure is based on published
rates for compliance attorneys from the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association's Report on Management & Professional
Earnings in the Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission
staff to account for an 1800 hour work-year and inflation, and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead, yielding an effective hourly rate of $1,380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information under Form N-54C is mandatory. The
information provided by the form is not kept confidential. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the

Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email
to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to: [email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: November 7, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24486 Filed 11-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 22423-22424]
[DOCID:fr25ap08-99]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0030] (formerly Docket No. 2004D-0466)

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Draft Guidance for
Industry: Substantiation for Dietary Supplement Claims Made Under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

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.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 27,
2008.

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,
``Draft Guidance for Industry: Substantiation for Dietary Supplement
Claims Made Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' Also
include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief
Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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.

Draft Guidance for Industry: Substantiation for Dietary Supplement
Claims Made Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act--(OMB
Control Number 0910-NEW)

    Section 403(r)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
act) (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6)) requires that a manufacturer of a dietary
supplement making a nutritional deficiency, structure/function, or
general well-being claim have substantiation that the statement is
truthful and not misleading. The draft guidance document entitled
``Guidance for Industry: Substantiation for Dietary Supplement Claims
Made Under Section 403(r)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act'' (November 9,

2004; 69 FR 64962) is intended to describe the amount, type, and
quality of evidence FDA recommends a dietary supplement manufacturer
have to substantiate a claim under section 403(r)(6) of the act. The
draft guidance does not discuss the types of claims that can be made
concerning the effect of a dietary supplement on the structure or
function of the body, nor does it discuss criteria to determine when a
statement about a dietary supplement is a disease claim. Persons with
access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at the following
Web site: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/guidance.html. A copy of the
draft guidance also is available for public examination in the Division
of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    In the Federal Register of January 28, 2008 (73 FR 4875), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information
collection provisions. No comments were received.

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours Per
                      Claim Type                           Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Widely known, established                                             667                     1                667                 44             29,348
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-existing, not widely established                                  667                     1                667                120             80,040
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Novel                                                                 667                     1                667                120             80,040
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                                189,428
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dietary supplement manufacturers will only need to collect
information to substantiate their product's nutritional deficiency,
structure/function, or general well-being claim if they chose to place
a claim on their product's label. Gathering evidence on their product's
claim is a one time burden; they collect the necessary substantiating
information for their product as required by section 403(r)(6) of the
act.
    The standard discussed in the draft guidance for substantiation of
a claim on the labeling of a dietary supplement is consistent with
standards set by the Federal Trade Commission for dietary supplements
and other health-related products that the claim be based on competent
and reliable scientific evidence. This evidence standard is broad
enough that some dietary supplement manufacturers may only need to
collect peer-reviewed scientific journal articles to substantiate their
claims; other dietary supplement manufacturers whose products have
properties that are less well documented may have to conduct studies to
build a body of evidence to support their claims. It is unlikely that a
dietary supplement manufacturer will attempt to make a claim when the
cost of obtaining the evidence to support the claim outweighs the
benefits of having the claim on the product's label. It is likely that
manufacturers will seek substantiation for their claims in the
scientific literature.
    The time it takes to assemble the necessary scientific information
to support their claims depends on the product and the claimed
benefits. If the product is one of several on the market making a
particular claim for which there is adequate publicly available and
widely established evidence supporting the claim, then the time to
gather supporting data will be minimal; if the product is the first of
its kind to make a particular claim or the evidence supporting the
claim is less publicly available or not widely established, then
gathering the appropriate scientific evidence to substantiate the claim
will be more time consuming.
    FDA assumes that it will take 44 hours to assemble information
needed to substantiate a claim on a particular dietary supplement when
the claim is widely known and established. We increased this estimated
burden from 1 hour per claim to 44 hours per claim based on information
received from industry, as noted in our June 7, 2007, document in
response to comment 1 (72 FR 31583 and 31584). FDA believes it will
take closer to 120 hours to assemble supporting scientific information
when the claim is novel or when the claim is pre-existing but the
scientific underpinnings of the claim are not widely established. These
are claims that may be based on emerging science, where conducting
literature searches and understanding the literature takes time. It is
also possible that references for claims made for some dietary
ingredients or dietary supplements may primarily be found in foreign
journals and in foreign languages or in the older, classical literature
where it is not available on computerized literature databases or in
the major scientific reference databases, such as the National Library
of Medicine's literature database, all of which increases the time of
obtaining substantiation.
    In the Federal Register of January 6, 2000, FDA published a final
rule on statements made for dietary supplements concerning the effect
of the product on the structure or function of the body (65 FR 1000).
FDA estimated that there were 29,000 dietary supplement products
marketed in the United States (65 FR 1000 at 1045). Assuming that the
flow of new products is 10 percent per year, then 2,900 new dietary
supplement products will come on the market each year. The structure/
function final rule estimated that about 69 percent of dietary
supplements have a claim on their labels, most probably a structure/
function claim (65 FR 1000 at 1046). Therefore, we assume that
supplement manufacturers will need time to assemble the evidence to
substantiate each of the 2,001 claims (2,900 x 69 percent) made each
year. If we assume that the 2,001 claims are equally likely to be pre-
existing widely established claims, novel claims, or pre-existing
claims that are not widely established, then we can expect 667 of each
of these types of claims to be substantiated per year. Table 1 of this
document shows that the annual burden hours associated with assembling
evidence for claims is 189,428 (the sum of 667 x 44 hours, 667 x 120
hours, and 667 x 120 hours).
    There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs
associated with this information collection.

    Dated: April 17, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-8973 Filed 4-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: January 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 11)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2197-2198]
[DOCID:fr18ja07-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0797; FRL-8269-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects an error in the Incorporation by
Reference Section in a final rule pertaining to the May 17, 1999,
approval of the State of Wisconsin's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) rules. That rulemaking erroneously incorporated by
reference a section of the Wisconsin Administrative Code dealing with
the state's hazardous pollutants rule. That section of the rule was not
included in the state's request for SIP approval of its PSD rules. EPA,
therefore, is removing this provision from the SIP.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on January 18,
2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Siepkowski, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a document on May 27, 1999,
(64 FR 28745) approving Wisconsin's PSD rules into the SIP. In this
approval EPA erroneously incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52,
subpart YY (Sec.  52.2570(c)(98)(i)), Section NR 445m of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code. No provisions in Section NR 445 were requested for
SIP approval in Wisconsin's November 6, 1996, SIP submittal for
approval of its PSD program. Further, NR 445m is a typographical error,
as NR 445m does not exist in the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Therefore, the reference under Sec.  52.2570(c)(98)(i) to NR 445m, as
well as any implied reference to NR 445 is being removed.

Correction

    In the final rule published in the Federal Register on May 27, 1999
(64 FR 28745), on page 28747 in the third column, last paragraph, ``AM-
9-95 modifies Chapter NR, Sections 30.03, 30.04, 400 Note, 400.02,
400.03, 401.04, 404.06, 405.01, 405.02, 405.04, 405.05, 405.07, 405.08,
405.10, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 415, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422,
423, 424, 425, 426, 429, 436, 438, 439, 445m, 447 * * *'' is corrected
to read: ``AM-9-95 modifies Chapter NR, Sections 30.03, 30.04, 400
Note, 400.02, 400.03, 401.04, 404.06, 405.01, 405.02, 405.04, 405.05,
405.07, 405.08, 405.10, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 415, 417, 418, 419,
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 429, 436, 438, 439, 447 * * *''.
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. We have determined that
there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior
proposal and opportunity for comment because we are merely correcting
an incorrect citation in a previous action. Thus, notice and public
procedure are unnecessary. We find that this constitutes good cause
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is therefore
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'', 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). Because the
agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute as indicated in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section, above, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of UMRA. This rule also 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, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects 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
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    This technical correction action does not involve technical
standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630
(53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings'' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
    The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA had made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of January 18,
2007. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This correction to 40 CFR part 52 for
Wisconsin is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Dated: December 29, 2006.
Gary Gulezian,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

0
2. Section 52.2570 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(98) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (98) On November 6, 1996, the State of Wisconsin submitted rules
pertaining to requirements under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program. Wisconsin also submitted rule packages as
revisions to the state implementation plans for particulate matter and
revisions to the state implementation plans for clarification changes.
    (i) Incorporated by reference. The following sections of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code (WAC) are incorporated by reference. Both
rule packages, AM-27-94 and AM-9-95, were published in the (Wisconsin)
Register in April 1995, No. 472, and became effective May 1, 1995. AM-
27-94 modifies Chapter NR, Sections 400.02(39m), 404.05, 405.02,
405.07, 405.08, 405.10, 405.14, and 484.04 of the WAC. AM-9-95 modifies
Chapter NR, Sections 30.03, 30.04, 400 Note, 400.02, 400.03, 401.04,
404.06, 405.01, 405.02, 405.04, 405.05, 405.07, 405.08, 405.10, 406,
407, 408, 409, 411, 415, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425,
426, 429, 436, 438, 439, 447, 448, 449, 484, 485, 488, 493, and 499 of
the WAC.
* * * * *

 [FR Doc. E7-521 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P