[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37831-37834]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0617; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-354-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -
900, and -900ER series airplanes. That NPRM proposed to require
repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. That NPRM was
prompted by a report of an in-service occurrence of total loss of boost
pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system
suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the
engine. This action revises that NPRM by proposing to require
repetitive operational tests, and other related testing and corrective
action if necessary. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to detect
and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel
system, which in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps could
result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and
consequent forced landing of the airplane.
    Since these actions impose an additional burden over that proposed
in the previous NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the
public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by August 9,
2012.

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 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
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<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-2008-0617;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-354-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://www.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

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that
would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. That NPRM published in the
Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32255). That NPRM proposed to
require repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of
the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary.

Actions Since Previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008) Was Issued

    Since we issued the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008), we
have received comments from operators indicating a high level of
difficulty performing the actions in the previous NPRM during
maintenance operations.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D626A001-CMR, Revision
August 2011, of the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Maintenance
Planning Data (MPD) Document. Among other things, Section 9 describes
AWL No. 28-AWL-101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of
Section E., AWLS--Fuel Systems, which provides procedures for
performing repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed
of the fuel system.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM
(73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008). The following presents the comments
received on the previous NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Change Approved Method of Compliance for Operational Test

    Continental Airlines (CAL), Airlines for America (A4A) on behalf of
its member American Airlines (AAL), and Sun Country Airlines asked that
the approved method of compliance specified in paragraph (f) of the
previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008) be changed to refer to the
airplane maintenance manual (AMM) instead of requiring the repetitive
tasks.
    CAL and AAL recommended that certain language in paragraph (f) of
the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008) be changed to require
incorporation of the operational test into the operator's maintenance
program in the same manner as the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness (ICA).
    AAL stated that since there is no modification or terminating
action for the actions specified in the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255,
June 6, 2008), the AD need not mandate the task itself. AAL noted that
operators should be required to incorporate into their respective
maintenance programs a mandatory task, as specified in CMRs, AWLs, or
airworthiness limitation items. AAL stated that this approach would be
consistent with the processes utilized by operators for the SFAR 88 (66
FR 23086, May 7, 2001) requirements.
    We agree with the requests to refer to the AMM. AWL No. 28-AWL-101
refers to the AMM. We have replaced paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM
(73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008), with a new paragraph (g) in this
supplemental NPRM that would require the operational tests as specified
in the MPD.
    Sun Country Airlines stated that related AMM tasks are equivalent
procedures for performing the operational test referred to in paragraph
(f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008). This commenter
stated that clarification should be provided as to whether using the
procedures specified in AMM Task 28-22-00-710-801 meets the intent of
paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM. This commenter also noted that,
because the AMM task is already contained in Task Card 28-050-00-01,
and has a repetitive interval identified in the MPD, the repetitive
action should be removed from the previous NPRM and addressed as a CMR.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. The manifold test (Task
28-22-00-710-801) is not equivalent to the operational test (Task 28-
22-00-710-802) for the purposes of this proposed action. The positive
internal fuel line pressure applied during the manifold test does not
simulate the same conditions encountered during fuel suction feed
(i.e., vacuum), and may mask a failure. We have not changed the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Requests To Clarify if Engine Fuel Suction Feed Test Is Allowed in Lieu
of the Operational Test

    KLM, A4A on behalf of its member DAL, and Sun Country Airlines
asked that we clarify the engine fuel suction feed test procedure in
the AMM as an option to performing the operational test. KLM suggested
that we consider the test procedure done per AMM Task 28-22-15-710-801
as an alternative test. KLM added that this alternative test is allowed
by MPD 28-050-00, and is mentioned in Task Card 28-050-00-01. KLM noted
that the advantage of this alternative test is that it can be performed
without fuel in the tank; therefore, if the tanks are still open during
the test and the test fails, easy access is gained to the damaged area.
DAL stated that the intention of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June
6, 2008) seems to be performing an engine fuel suction feed test, so
paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM should be clarified to include that
test as an option. The commenters stated that the engine fuel suction
feed test in the AMM and the operational test in the previous NPRM are
equivalent tests and are allowed per Task Card 28-050-00-01.
    We agree to provide clarification. As noted previously, the
manifold test (Task 28-22-00-710-801) is not equivalent to the
operational test (Task 28-22-00-710-802) for the purposes of this
proposed action. The positive internal fuel line pressure applied
during the manifold test does not simulate the same conditions
encountered during fuel suction feed (i.e., vacuum), and may mask a
failure. Therefore, we have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this
regard.

Request To Include Corrective Action

    Boeing and CAL asked that corrective action be included in the
proposed requirements of the previous NPRM (73

FR 32255, June 6, 2008). CAL recommended that paragraph (f) of the
previous NPRM be changed to also ``correct any discrepancy identified
as necessary, before further flight. Refer to 737NG FIM 28-22 task
819.'' CAL noted that the fault isolation manual (FIM) should be
considered as an ICA that is an approved method by the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Boeing stated that the
requirement in the preamble of the previous NPRM (FAA's Conclusions)
for additional testing would be better described as performing
corrective action in case the engine suction feed operational test is
not successful.
    We agree with the requests to include corrective action for this
supplemental NPRM. Since the current revision of the AWL does not
include the corrective action, paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM
specifies that corrective action for findings from the operational
tests be done in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO, FAA.

Requests To Revise Repetitive Interval

    CAL, Qantas Airways Ltd (Qantas), and Boeing asked that we revise
the compliance time for the repetitive operational test proposed by
paragraph (f) of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008).
    CAL asked that the interval be extended from 7,500 flight hours to
2C-check or 12,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first. As
justification for extending the repetitive interval, CAL stated that
fleet history revealed no reported engine flameout events or related
operational discrepancies.
    Qantas and Boeing asked that the repetitive interval be changed to
7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first. Qantas and
Boeing stated that, for low-utilization airplanes, it would take more
than 10 years of operation before an operational test would be
necessary.
    We agree to revise the compliance times. We have added new
paragraph (g) to this supplemental NPRM to include an initial test
within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first after
the maintenance program is revised. We have also included a repetitive
interval of 7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first.

Request To Include Warning Information

    CAL suggested that the Boeing service manuals include a critical
design configuration control limitations (CDCCL) warning identification
statement to alert maintenance personnel of the importance of
regulatory compliance, as well as the configuration control requirement
of the task. CAL did not include any justification for this request.
    We agree that a CDCCL warning statement would serve as direct
communication to maintenance personnel that there is an AD associated
with certain maintenance actions, but do not find this additional
measure necessary to adequately address the unsafe condition. We have
made no change to the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Reason for the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing asked that we clarify the unsafe condition identified in the
previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008) by specifying that the AD
results from a report of an in-service occurrence of total loss of
pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system
suction feed capability on one engine.
    We agree to clarify the unsafe condition. We have revised the
Summary section and paragraph (e) of this supplemental NPRM
accordingly.

Request To Revise Costs of Compliance Section

    A4A, on behalf of its member DAL, asked that the cost estimate be
changed. DAL stated that the cost estimate specified in the previous
NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008) is too low, and asked that it be
changed. DAL noted that $80 per product based on 1 work hour per
product does not include the cost of fuel. DAL estimated that the cost
of fuel alone would be $83 per test occurrence; for the 71 airplanes in
its fleet, this translates to a cost of $5,893 per test cycle.
    We do not agree that the cost estimate should be changed. ADs,
which require specific actions to address specific unsafe conditions,
appear to impose costs that would not otherwise be borne by operators.
However, because of the general obligation of operators to maintain and
operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, this appearance is
deceptive. Attributing those fuel costs solely to the issuance of this
AD is unrealistic because, in the interest of maintaining and operating
safe airplanes, prudent operators would accomplish the required actions
even if they were not required to do so by the AD. In any case, we have
determined that direct and incidental costs are still outweighed by the
safety benefits of the AD. Except for updating the hourly labor rate to
$85, we have made no further change to the cost estimates provided in
this supplemental NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the
original NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008). As a result, we have
determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this supplemental
NPRM.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This supplemental NPRM revises the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June
6, 2008); by proposing to require repetitive operational tests of the
engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and would require other
related testing and corrective action if necessary.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the previous NPRM (73 FR 32255, June 6, 2008), we
have increased the labor rate used in the Costs of Compliance from $80
per work-hour to $85 per work-hour. The Costs of Compliance
information, below, reflects this increase in the specified labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,080 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this
proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                    Action                                Labor cost                product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test.............................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =                $85          $91,800
                                                $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions or the optional
terminating action specified in this AD.

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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2008-0617; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-354-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 9, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, with a date of issuance of the original airworthiness
certificate or the date of issuance of the original export
certificate of airworthiness before March 22, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an in-service occurrence of
total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed
by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and
in-flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the
fuel system, which in the event of total loss of the fuel boost
pumps could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the
engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Initial/Repetitive Operational Tests

    Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do the initial operational test
identified in AWL No. 28-AWL-101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed
Operational Test, of Section E., AWLS--Fuel Systems of Section 9,
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D626A001-CMR, Revision August 2011, of Boeing
737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
Document. Repeat the test thereafter at intervals not to exceed
7,500 flight hours or 36 months, whichever is earlier. If the test
is not considered successful, as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-101,
before further flight, perform all related testing and corrective
actions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD. Thereafter, except as
provided in paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative procedure or
repeat test intervals will be allowed.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 18, 2012.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-15469 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33224-33225]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13463]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension: Rule 18f-3;
    SEC File No. 270-385, OMB Control No. 3235-0441.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``Paperwork Reduction Act''), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting
comments on the collection of information summarized below. The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 18f-3 (17 CFR 270.18f-3) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) exempts from section 18(f)(1) a fund
that issues multiple classes of shares representing interests in the
same portfolio of securities (a ``multiple class fund'') if the fund
satisfies the conditions of the rule. In general, each class must
differ in its arrangement for shareholder services or distribution or
both, and must pay the related expenses of that different arrangement.
The rule includes one requirement for the collection of information. A
multiple class fund must prepare, and fund directors must approve, a
written plan setting forth the separate arrangement and expense
allocation of each class, and any related conversion features or
exchange privileges (``rule 18f-3 plan''). Approval of the plan must
occur before the fund issues any shares of multiple classes and
whenever the fund materially amends the plan. In approving the plan,

the fund board, including a majority of the independent directors, must
determine that the plan is in the best interests of each class and the
fund as a whole.
    The requirement that the fund prepare and directors approve a
written rule 18f-3 plan is intended to ensure that the fund compiles
information relevant to the fairness of the separate arrangement and
expense allocation for each class, and that directors review and
approve the information. Without a blueprint that highlights material
differences among classes, directors might not perceive potential
conflicts of interests when they determine whether the plan is in the
best interests of each class and the fund. In addition, the plan may be
useful to Commission staff in reviewing the fund's compliance with the
rule.
    Based on an analysis of fund filings, the Commission estimates that
there are approximately 5,831 multiple class funds offered by 969
registrants. The Commission estimates that each of the 969 registrants
will make an average of 0.5 responses annually to prepare and approve a
written 18f-3 plan.\1\ The Commission estimates each response will take
6 hours, requiring a total of 3 hours per registrant per year.\2\ Thus
the total annual hour burden associated with these requirements of the
rule is approximately 2,907 hours.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission estimates that each registrant prepares and
approves a rule 18f-3 plan every two years when issuing a new fund
or new class or amending a plan (or that 484.5 of all 969
registrants prepare and approve a plan each year).
    \2\ 0.5 responses per registrant x 6 hours per response = 3
hours per registrant.
    \3\ 3 hours per registrant per year x 969 registrants = 2,907
hours per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive
or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission
rules and forms. The collection of information under rule 18f-3 is
mandatory. The information provided under rule 18f-3 will not be 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 OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, 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_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 4, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13463 Filed 6-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8098-8099]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3437]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1872-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Arkansas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1872-DR), dated February 4,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 4, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated

February 4, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Arkansas resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of December 23, 2009, to January 2, 2010, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Arkansas.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Direct
Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent with the requirement
that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided
under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin L. Hannes, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Arkansas have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Bradley, Calhoun, Clark, Clay, Cleveland, Craighead, Dallas,
Drew, Grant, Greene, Hempstead, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette,
Lincoln, Lonoke, Miller, Monroe, Nevada, Ouachita, Poinsett,
Prairie, White, and Woodruff Counties for Public Assistance. Direct
Federal assistance is authorized. All counties within the State of
Arkansas are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-3437 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: April 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18235-18236]
[DOCID:fr11ap07-77]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0038; FRL-8123-3]

Computer Science Corporation, Yoh IT and Apex System; Transfer of
Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to Computer Science Corporation
and its subcontractor, Yoh IT and Apex Systems in accordance with 40
CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2). Computer Science Corporation and its
subcontractor, Yoh IT and Apex System, have been awarded a contract to
perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable
Computer Science Corporation and its subcontractor, Yoh IT and Apex
System, to fulfill the obligations of the contract.

DATES: Computer Science Corporation and its subcontractor, Yoh IT and
Apex System, will be given access to this information on or before
April 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Croom, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0038 Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. GS00T99ALD0204-Task Order T0002AJM039, Computer
Science Corporation and its subcontractor, Yoh IT and Apex System, will
provide operational and management support for the EPA Wide Area
Network, web and application hosting, enterprise server, email and
Lotus Notes applications, distributed systems, and workload reporting.
CSC will also supply security and security incident response reporting
for EPA.
    The OPP has determined that access by Computer Science Corporation
and its subcontractor, Yoh IT and Apex System, to information on all
pesticide chemicals may be necessary for the performance of this
contract.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7
of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2), the
contract with Computer Science Corporation and its subcontractor, Yoh
IT and Apex System prohibits use of the information for any purpose not
specified in the contract; prohibits disclosure of the information to a
third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and
requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an
agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to
handle it in accordance with the FIFRA Information Security Manual. In
addition, Computer Science Corporation and its subcontractor, Yoh IT
and Apex System, are required to submit for EPA approval a security
plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against
unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to
Computer Science Corporation and its subcontractor, Yoh IT and Apex
System Staff, until the requirements in this document have been fully
satisfied. Records of information provided to Computer Science
Corporation and its subcontractor, Yoh IT and Apex System Staff, will
be maintained by EPA Project Officers for this contract. All
information supplied to Computer Science Corporation and its
subcontractor, Yoh IT and Apex System Staff, by EPA for use in
connection with this contract will be returned to EPA when Computer
Science Corporation and its subcontractor, Yoh IT and Apex System
Staff, have completed their work.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government
contracts, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: April 3, 2007.
 Robert Forrest,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E7-6725 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61825-61826]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket ID PHMSA-2012-0244]

Pipeline Safety: Notice of Public Meeting on Pipeline Data

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA and the National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives (NAPSR) are sponsoring this public meeting to discuss
how pipeline data is currently used by stakeholders and identify
potential improvements in pipeline safety performance measures. PHMSA
pipeline safety regulations require integrity management program
performance measures for gas distribution, gas transmission, and
hazardous liquids pipelines. The National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) and the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of the
Inspector General have recommended that PHMSA improve pipeline safety
performance measures and generate meaningful metrics. This meeting
provides an opportunity for pipeline safety stakeholders to suggest
improvements to existing performance measures and new measures
representing meaningful pipeline safety metrics. The meeting will
include breakout sessions on voluntary reporting, data discrepancies,
data collected but not needed, and performance measures.

DATES: The public meeting on pipeline data will be held on Monday,
October 29, 2012, from 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Tuesday, October 30,
2012, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Name badge pickup and onsite registration
will be available starting at 12:30 p.m. on October 29 and 7:30 a.m. on
October 30.
    Registration: Please register at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=81. Please note that the meeting will be
webcast, including the voluntary reporting breakout on October 30. The
webcast link will be posted on the registration Web page prior to the
event.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency
Washington on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20001, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please contact the Hyatt Regency before
October 16, 2012, to reserve a room in the ``US DOT'' room block by
phone or at https://resweb.

passkey.com/Resweb.do?mode=welcome--gi--new&groupID=16450837. Please
contact the Hyatt Regency for information on facilities or services for
individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance during
these public meetings. The meeting room will be posted at the hotel on
the days of the workshop.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Keener at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    PHMSA will be holding this public meeting to provide an open forum
for exchanging information about how pipeline data is used by
stakeholders and how performance measures could be improved. The NTSB
and the DOT Office of the Inspector General have recommended that PHMSA
improve pipeline safety performance measures and generate meaningful
metrics. Various stakeholders, including Federal and state regulatory
agencies, industry, advocacy groups and the media often use data
collected by PHMSA and made publicly available to describe the
reliability of the pipeline infrastructure, portray safety trends, or
identify emerging safety concerns. Further, this data is often used as
part of evaluating the safety performance of individual companies, the
industry as a whole, and the effectiveness of the regulatory process.
    PHMSA regulations require integrity management program performance
measures for gas distribution pipelines (49 CFR 192.1007(e)), gas
transmission pipelines (49 CFR 192.945) and hazardous liquids pipelines
(49 CFR 195.452(k)). The information exchanged at this public meeting
will help inform PHMSA as rulemakings or information collections are
considered to improve integrity management performance measures and
establish new performance measures for aspects of pipeline safety other
than integrity management programs.
    The keynote speaker will be NTSB member Mr. Mark Rosekind.
Presenters will include PHMSA, NAPSR, the Pipeline Safety Trust, and
representatives from the pipeline industry. As speakers are identified
by name, the agenda on the registration Web page will be updated. PHMSA
invites all stakeholders to actively participate in the meeting and
specifically engage in thoughtful input and discussion during the topic
specific breakout session.
    The overall objectives of the meeting are to:
    1. Determine how stakeholders, including PHMSA, industry, and the
public use the data.
    2. Determine how industry and PHMSA currently measure performance,
how performance measures could be improved, and what additional data is
needed to do so.
    3. Determine the best method(s) for collecting, analyzing, and
ensuring transparency of additional data needed to improve performance
measures.
    4. Summarize the data PHMSA currently collects, who we collect it
from, and why we collect it.
    5. Discuss data quality improvement including past efforts and
future opportunities as well as universally understood definitions.
    PHMSA is preparing a document summarizing the pipeline data
currently collected by PHMSA. This document will be available on the
registration Web page by October 22, 2012. All presentations made
during the meeting will be available on the registration Web page a few
days after the meeting ends.

Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-24976 Filed 10-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 162 (Thursday, August 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51548-51550]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18216]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2020-0004]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Notice and Request for
Comment; Petitions for Exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a reinstatement of a
previously-approved information collection.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
invites public comments about our intention to request approval from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reinstate a previously-
approved information collection. Before a Federal agency can collect
certain information from the public, it must receive approval from OMB.
Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public
comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions
and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This document
describes one collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek
OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket No. DOT-
NHTSA-2020-0004 through any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please
identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB
Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following: (i)
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; (iv) how to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including the
use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses. In
compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on
the following proposed collection of information for which the agency
is seeking approval from OMB.
    Title: Petitions for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR part 543).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0542.
    Type of Request: Request for approval of a reinstatement of a
previously-approved information collection.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Length of Approval Requested: Three years.
    Affected Public: Motor vehicle manufacturers.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval
date.
    Summary of Information Collection: 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331 requires
the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate a theft prevention
standard to provide for the identification of certain motor vehicles
and their major replacement parts (parts-marking) to impede motor
vehicle theft. Under 49 U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers may petition the
Secretary of Transportation (NHTSA by delegation) for an exemption from
the parts-marking requirement for a line of passenger motor vehicles
equipped with an anti-theft device as standard equipment that the
Secretary (NHTSA by delegation) decides is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. In accordance with the statute, NHTSA
promulgated 49 CFR part 543 to provide a process through which
manufacturers may seek an exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard.
Under these regulations, each manufacturer may request an exemption for
one vehicle line per model year.
    Under the current part 543, manufacturers choose how they wish to
demonstrate to the agency that the anti-theft device they are
installing in a vehicle line meets the requirements for exemption: by
either the factors listed in Sec.  543.6 (specific content
requirements: detailed lists, data, and explanations) or by the
criteria listed in Sec.  543.7 (performance criteria). Section 543.6
requires manufacturer to submit: (1) A statement that an antitheft
device will be installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the
line for which an exemption is sought; (2) a list naming each component
in the antitheft system, and a diagram showing the location of each of
those components within the vehicle; (3) a discussion that explains the
means and process by which the device is activated and functions,
including any aspect of the device designed to facilitate or encourage
its activation by motorists, attract attention to the efforts of an
unauthorized person to enter or move the vehicle by means other than a
key, prevent defeating or circumventing the device by an unauthorized
person attempting to enter a vehicle by means other than a key, prevent
the operation of a vehicle which an unauthorized person has entered
using means other than a key, and ensure the reliability and durability
of the device; (4) the reasons for the

petitioner's belief that the antitheft device will be effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft, including any theft data
and other data that are available to the petitioner and form the basis
for that belief; (5) the reasons for the petitioner's belief that the
agency should determine that the antitheft device is likely to be as
effective as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft, including any
statistical data that are available to the petitioner and form a basis
for petitioner's belief that a line of passenger motor vehicles
equipped with the antitheft device is likely to have a theft rate equal
to or less than that of passenger motor vehicles of the same, or
similar, line which have parts marked in compliance with part 541.
    Section 543.7 requires manufacturers to submit a statement that the
entire line of vehicles is equipped with an immobilizer, as standard
equipment, that meets one of the following: (1) The performance
criteria of (subsections 8 through 21) of C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft
Protection and Rollaway Prevention (in effect March 30, 2011), as
excerpted in appendix A of this part; (2) National Standard of Canada
CAN/ULC-S338-98, Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems:
Electronic Immobilization (May 1998); (3) United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97), Uniform
Provisions Concerning Approval of Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor
Vehicles with Regard to Their Alarm System (AS) in effect August 8,
2007; or (4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), Uniform Technical
Prescriptions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against
Unauthorized Use in effect on February 10, 2009. Manufacturers must
also submit documentation kept to demonstrate that the device conforms
with the performance criteria and a statement that the immobilizer
device is durable and reliable.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: NHTSA requires this information to make a determination of
whether an anti-theft device a manufacturer is installing in a vehicle
line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor
vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements and
therefore meets the requirements for the grant of an exemption from
Part 541 parts-marking.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 12.
    The universe of possible petitioners includes all vehicle
manufacturers that are required to comply with the Theft Prevention
Standard. There are approximately 23 vehicle manufacturers. NHTSA
received 32 petitions for exemption from the parts-marking requirements
for MYs 2017-2020, and 12 petitions in the most recent year: 9
respondents filing under Sec.  543.6 and 3 respondents filing under
Sec.  543.7. We anticipate that the number of petitions received in
each of the next three years will be the same as the number of
petitions received in the most recent year, with 9 petitions submitted
under Sec.  543.7 and 3 submitted under Sec.  543.6 for a total of 12
petitions. Because each manufacturer is limited to requesting an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year, NHTSA estimates that
each petition will be submitted by a different vehicle manufacturer.
Therefore, we estimate the total number of responses and respondents
will be 12.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,094.
    NHTSA estimates, based on information provided by manufacturers,
that 226 hours will be required for exemptions requested under Sec.
543.6, and 20 hours for exemptions requested under Sec.  543.7. The
agency expects that nine manufacturers will choose to file for an
exemption under Sec.  543.6 and three manufacturers will choose to file
for an exemption under Sec.  543.7. The estimated total annual burden
hours are shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average time
                                                                  Average number   per petition    Total annual
                                                                   of petitions      submittal         hours
                                                                     per year          (hrs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparation and Submittal of Petition for Exemption under Sec.                 9             226           2,034
 543.6..........................................................
Preparation and Submittal of Petition for Exemption under Sec.                 3              20              60
 543.7..........................................................
                                                                                ---------------
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:........................  ..............  ..............           2,094
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The labor cost associated with the burden hours for this collection
is derived by (1) applying appropriate average hourly labor rate for
``Compliance Officers,'' Occupation Code 13-1041, published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics,\1\ (2) dividing by 0.701 \2\ (70.1%) to
obtain the total compensation rate for private industry workers, and
(3) multiplying by the estimated labor hours for each exemption type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ May 2018 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates, United States. Business and Financial Operations
Occupations, Compliance Officers, Occupation Code 13-1041; Mean
Hourly Wage = $34.86. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
Accessed Mar. 9, 2020.
    \2\ See Table 1 at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Average time                      Estimated
                                   Hourly labor    per petition     Labor cost/      number of     Annual labor
                                       cost          submittal       petition     petitions/year       cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preparation and Submittal of              $49.73             226      $11,238.98               9        $101,151
 Petition for Exemption under
 Sec.   543.6...................
Preparation and Submittal of               49.73              20          994.60               3           2,984
 Petition for Exemption under
 Sec.   543.7...................
                                                                                ---------------
    Estimated Annual Labor Cost   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............         104,135
     for This Information
     Collection:................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs to Respondents or Recordkeepers: $0.
    NHTSA estimates that there will be no costs to respondents other
than costs associated with burden hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2020-18216 Filed 8-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: April 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 63)]
[Notices]
[Page 15876]
[DOCID:fr03ap07-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No 77-162]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

March 28, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC)
regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR
part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]), the Office of Energy
Project's staff (staff) reviewed a proposal to amend the license for
the Potter Valley Project, to allow a temporary variance in license
required flows for frost protection in Potter Valley for the period
March 15-April 14, 2007, and prepared an environmental assessment (EA)
for this proposed amendment. In this EA, staff analyzes the impacts of
the temporary change in flows on the environmental resources, including
fisheries resources of the project area and the protection against
economic loss to agricultural interests in Potter Valley. The EA
concludes that the proposed action will not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is attached to Commission order titled ``Order
Granting License Amendment, and Providing Notice and Opportunity to
Intervene and Comment'', issued March 21, 2007 and is available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, located at 888
First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or may be viewed on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-
free 1-866-209-3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call
(202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6103 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P