[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13686-13689]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0383]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
requirement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 17 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with

ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0383 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 17 individuals listed
in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the
diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate
the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the
statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Alvin Acevedo

    Mr. Acevedo, 33, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Acevedo understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Acevedo meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.

Jerry D. Baughn

    Mr. Baughn, 58, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Baughn understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Baughn meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Kansas.

Bobby D. Bennett

    Mr. Bennett, 33, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bennett understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bennett meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.

Mark S. Clemence

    Mr. Clemence, 50, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Clemence understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Clemence meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.

Larry G. Foley

    Mr. Foley, 56, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Foley understands

diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Foley meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from West Virginia.

Elwood F. Gorom

    Mr. Gorom, 72, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gorom understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gorom meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Washington.

Larry A. Grizzel

    Mr. Grizzel, 65, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Grizzel understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Grizzel meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.

Mike W. Holland

    Mr. Holland, 57, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Holland understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holland meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.

Steven M. Lewis, Sr.

    Mr. Lewis, 48, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lewis understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lewis meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class C operator's license from North Carolina.

Dan M. McAllister

    Mr. McAllister, 40, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McAllister understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McAllister meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class B operator's license from Wisconsin.

Meredith M. McCabe

    Ms. McCabe, 55, has had ITDM since 2006. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2011 and certified that she has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. McCabe that she understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. McCabe meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist
examined her in 2011 and certified that she does not have diabetic
retinopathy. She holds a Class C operator's license from Georgia.

Paul F. Rivers

    Mr. Rivers, 54, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rivers understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rivers meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Marcus V. Romo

    Mr. Romo, 37, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Romo understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Romo meets the vision requirements
of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from Idaho.

Gary L. Siverson

    Mr. Siverson, 69, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in

the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Siverson
understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Siverson meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota.

Wayne L. Snyder

    Mr. Snyder, 54, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Snyder understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Snyder meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Ohio.

William F. Watkins, Jr.

    Mr. Watkins, 68, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Watkins understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Watkins meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Pennsylvania.

Justin K. Zimmerschied

    Mr. Zimmerschied, 21, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Zimmerschied understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Zimmerschied
meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary.
    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: February 28, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-5518 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 31122-31126]
[DOCID:fr05jn07-77]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55830, File No. SR-MSRB-2006-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
Relating to MSRB Rule G-21, on Advertising, and MSRB Rule G-27, on
Supervision

May 30, 2007.
    On November 21, 2006, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change consisting of (i) Amendments to Rule G-21, on
advertising, and Rule G-27, on supervision, and (ii) an interpretation
(the ``proposed interpretive notice'') on general advertising
disclosures, blind advertisements and annual reports relating to
municipal fund securities. The MSRB amended the proposed rule change on
February 12, 2007 (``Amendment No. 1''). The proposed rule change and
Amendment No. 1 thereto were published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 23, 2007.\3\ The Commission received one comment
letter regarding the proposal.\4\ On May 14, 2007, the MSRB filed a
response to the comment letter.\5\ This order approves the proposed
rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55302 (February 15,
2007), 72 FR 8222 (February 23, 2007) (``Commission's Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Jacqueline T. Williams, Chair, College
Savings Plans Network, dated March 16, 2007.
    \5\ See letter from Ernesto A. Lanza, Senior Associate General
Counsel, MSRB, to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Commission, dated May
14, 2007 (``MSRB's Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change consists of (i) Amendments to Rule G-21,
on advertising, and Rule G-27, on supervision, and (ii) an
interpretation (the ``proposed interpretive notice'') on general
advertising disclosures, blind advertisements and annual reports
relating to municipal fund securities. In 2005, the MSRB adopted new
section (e) of Rule G-21 that established specific standards for
advertisements by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers of
municipal fund securities, including interests in 529 college savings
plans.\6\ This section of the rule was modeled in part on Rule 482
adopted by the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
also codified previous MSRB interpretive guidance on advertisements of
municipal fund securities. On May 12, 2006, the MSRB published
interpretive guidance on certain elements of amended Rule G-21 as they
apply to advertisements of 529 plans.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Municipal fund securities are defined in Rule D-12. 529
college savings plans are established by states under Section
529(b)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code as ``qualified tuition
programs'' through which individuals make investments for the
purpose of accumulating savings for qualifying higher education
costs of beneficiaries. Section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code
also permits the establishment of so-called prepaid tuition plans by
states and higher education institutions. All references to 529
plans are intended to encompass only 529 college savings plans
established under Section 529(b)(A)(ii).
    \7\ See Rule G-21 Interpretive Letter--529 College Savings Plan
Advertisements, MSRB Interpretation of May 12, 2006, published in
MSRB Notice 2006-13 (May 15, 2006) (the ``May 2006
Interpretation''). The proposed rule change supersedes this May 2006
Interpretation.

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

    The proposed rule change further harmonizes the MSRB's advertising
rule with the rules of the SEC and NASD relating to investment company
advertising. The proposed rule change also provides certain
clarifications of and exceptions to existing standards that the MSRB
believes more closely tailor the provisions of the rule to the specific
characteristics of the municipal fund securities market without
reducing the investor protections afforded by the rule. Although most
of the amendments effected by the proposed rule change relate
specifically to advertisements of municipal fund securities, certain
provisions apply to advertisements of all types of municipal
securities, including bonds and notes. The MSRB proposed an effective
date for the proposed rule change of April 1, 2007 to coincide with the
effective date of NASD Rule 2210(d)(3). A full description of the
proposal is contained in the Commission's Notice.
    The College Savings Plans Network (``CSPN'') stated in its comment
letter that, in general, they believe that the proposed rule change may
be feasibly implemented. However, CSPN stated that they believe several
provisions and interpretive statements in the proposed rule change
remain unclear, would be unduly costly to implement or would overly
restrict their ability to make college savings information available to
specific populations, such as existing account owners or potential
account owners who have responded to a blind advertisement. CSPN also
requested a delay in the effective date of the proposed rule change.

Transaction Confirmations and Periodic Statements

    CSPN asked for clarification of the definition of ``form letter''
that would be added as new subsection (ii) to Section (a) of Rule G-21
to establish that transaction confirmations and periodic statements
sent to account owners (along with any messages printed thereon,
enclosed therewith or attached thereto) constitute ``form letters'' for
purposes of Rule G-21. The MSRB stated in its Response Letter that
``Provisions relating to transaction confirmations and periodic
statements in lieu of such confirmations are set forth in MSRB Rule G-
15(a). Information provided to customers in connection with
transactions in municipal fund securities in satisfaction of the
requirements of Rule G-15(a), or as reasonably contemplated thereunder
to be included in a confirmation or periodic statement, is treated for
purposes of MSRB rules in the same manner as confirmations sent to
customers in connection with transactions in any other type of
municipal security, such as municipal bonds or notes. A determination
of the status of information provided to customers beyond such items of
information required under or reasonably contemplated by Rule G-15(a)
(whether such information is physically attached to or otherwise
included within a traditional confirmation or periodic statement, or is
included in a separate writing or data file), such as whether such
additional information would be treated as a form letter under proposed
Rule G-21(a)(ii), generally should be based on a consideration of the
specific nature of such additional information and any other relevant
facts and circumstances.'' The Commission agrees that whether any
additional information not reasonably contemplated to be included in a
confirmation or periodic statement by Rule G-15(a) should be treated as
a form letter under proposed Rule G-21(a)(ii) should be based on the
specific nature of such additional information and any other relevant
facts and circumstances.

Form Letters Regarding Related Municipal Fund Securities

    CSPN also asked for clarification regarding the intended operation
of proposed Rule G-21(e)(i)(B)(3) concerning certain form letters to
existing customers. Proposed Rule G-21(e)(i)(B)(3) provides, in part,
that a form letter relating to municipal fund securities that is
distributed by a dealer solely to its existing customers to whom the
dealer has previously provided an official statement for any municipal
fund securities issued by the same issuer as the issuer of the
municipal funds securities that are the subject of the form letter is
not required to include certain disclosures under Rule G-21(e)(i)(A).
CSPN stated that the MSRB's discussion of this provision in the
Commission's Notice and in the MSRB's Notice \8\ may be interpreted in
an unduly restrictive manner because of the use of the term ``related''
without further definition. The MSRB stated in its Response Letter that
the descriptive information in the Commission's Notice and the MSRB
Notice summarized the universe of municipal fund securities issued by
such issuer as, in general terms, ``the same or related municipal fund
securities.'' The MSRB also stated that the general descriptive
language does not limit or modify the plain language of the proposed
rule itself, which the MSRB believes is clear. The Commission finds
that the language of the rule itself is clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ MSRB Notice 2006-32 (November 21, 2006) (``MSRB Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure of Loads and Annual Operating Expense Ratio

    CSPN also asked for clarification that the cost information
required to be disclosed by the proposed amendments to section
(e)(i)(A)(3) of Rule G-21 and new subsection (i)(A)(4)(a)(iii) to be
added to Section (e) of Rule G-21 is solely the cost information that
is actually applicable to the municipal fund securities, rather than
other information that may be generally applicable to any underlying
investment. CSPN further stated: ``For example, the actual cost of
investing in a tuition savings program that only assesses a single,
unitary, fixed fee for investment in any program investment option
could be extremely unclear to a potential investor if the advertisement
must list the expense ratio for the mutual fund in which the option
invests. In such a scenario, a potential investor could draw the
erroneous conclusion that he or she would be required to pay both the
fixed fee and the underlying fund expense. * * * If an investment
portfolio within a tuition savings program invests in multiple mutual
funds similar to a fund of funds, it should not be necessary to
identify in a performance advertisement about such investment portfolio
each separate expense charge applicable to each separate mutual fund
included in the investment portfolio. Rather, it should suffice to set
forth a single blended expense charge that is calculated by combining
the appropriately weighted expense charges of all of the underlying
mutual funds in the portfolio. * * * Moreover, a tuition savings
program's costs may reflect discounts from those generally applicable
to one or more of the underlying investments or may be uniform across
all investment alternatives offered, in which case reference to
specific underlying fund expense charges could divert the investor's
attention away from a positive fee scenario and obfuscate the actual
expense charges directly applicable to the investor.''
    The MSRB responded that ``In understanding how this provision is
intended to be implemented, two basic principles apply: (i) As the MSRB
seeks to maximize the degree to which the public will be assured of
receiving information that is comparable across both the municipal fund
securities and investment company securities markets, the MSRB believes
that the specific fee and expense information required to be disclosed
under proposed Rule G-

21(e)(i)(A)(3) generally should match such information required to be
disclosed under NASD Rule 2210(d)(3) and Securities Act Rule 482; and
(ii) as the MSRB seeks to maximize the understandability of information
received by the public about potential investments and the actual costs
that an investment may entail, the MSRB believes that the specific fee
and expense information required to be disclosed under proposed Rule G-
21(e)(i)(A)(3) generally should be the fees and expenses that an
investor would actually incur rather than a collection of the
components used to determine such actual fees and expenses. Each
advertisement or correspondence \9\ that includes performance data must
be examined in light of these basic principles as applied in the
context of the specific facts and circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Proposed Rule G-21(e)(vii) provides that all correspondence
with the public that includes performance data relating to municipal
fund securities must comply with the requirements of the rule
regarding such performance data as if such correspondence were a
product advertisement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, for example, if an advertisement includes performance data
for a single investment option offered under a 529 college savings plan
that consists of a portfolio of securities of several underlying
registered investment companies, the requirements of this provision
generally could be met with the inclusion of a single fee and expense
figure if such figure accurately reflects the total fees and expenses
that an investor would actually incur in connection with an investment
in such option, taking into consideration any program level fees and
expenses as well as any fees and expenses that may be attributable to
the underlying securities in the portfolio or that are otherwise
payable in connection with such investment. If such advertisement
includes separate performance data for more than one investment option
offered under a 529 college savings plan, the requirements of this
provision generally could be met with the inclusion of a single fee and
expense figure for each investment option for which performance data is
shown if each such figure accurately reflects the total fees and
expenses that an investor would actually incur in connection with an
investment in each such option, taking into consideration any program
level fees and expenses as well as any fees and expenses that may be
attributable to the underlying securities in the option or that are
otherwise payable in connection with such investment.'' The Commission
believes the MSRB has provided sufficient clarification of the cost
information required to be disclosed under the proposed rule change.
The Commission would expect the MSRB to provide additional guidance on
specific situations if needed.

Currentness of Total Annual Operating Expense Ratios

    CSPN also requested clarification on how frequently updates must be
made to the total annual operating expense ratios that will be reported
in advertisements containing performance data for municipal fund
securities. CSPN said that they presume that any advertisements
containing performance data, including performance tables on a
program's Web site, need only disclose the total annual operating
expense ratios as reported in the most recent official statement for
the program.
    The MSRB responded that ``Proposed Rule G-21(e)(ii)(C) provides
that the total annual operating expense ratio that appears in
advertisements and correspondence that include performance data shall
be calculated as of the most recent practicable date considering the
type of municipal fund securities and the media through which data will
be conveyed. NASD Rule 2210(d)(3) provides that the total annual
operating expenses to be disclosed in investment company performance
advertisements should be as stated in the fee table of the investment
company's prospectus current as of the date of submission of an
advertisement for publication or as of the date of distribution of
other communications with the public. Recognizing that the MSRB cannot
mandate that such information be included in the issuer's official
statement for municipal fund securities, proposed Rule G-21(e)(ii)(A)
provides that, to the extent that information necessary to calculate
performance data or to determine loads, fees and expenses is not
available from a registration statement or prospectus, the dealer is to
use information derived from the issuer's official statement, otherwise
made available by the issuer or its agents or derived from such other
sources which the dealer reasonably believes are reliable. The
inclusion in an advertisement or correspondence of the total annual
operating expense ratio obtained from the official statement, where the
official statement is subject to periodic updating by the issuer and
such ratio is from the most recent official statement as of the date of
submission of the advertisement for publication or as of the date of
distribution to the public, generally would be viewed as meeting the
currentness standard under proposed Rule G-21(e)(ii)(C).'' The
Commission believes the MSRB has provided sufficient clarification
regarding how frequently updates must be made to the total annual
operating expense ratios in performance advertisements.

Blind Advertisements

    CSPN asked for clarification of language in the proposed
interpretive notice regarding proposed Rule G-21(e)(i)(B)(2)(b)
concerning certain blind advertisements. CSPN stated that there is no
need for a requirement that a ``distinct barrier between the providing
of information and the seeking of orders'' be maintained. CSPN further
stated that it is doubtful that such a requirement would meaningfully
protect potential investors who have evidenced an interest in
initiating an order, and that the requirement may discourage persons
from actually establishing accounts.
    The MSRB responded that ``Proposed Rule G-21(e)(i)(B)(2) provides,
in part, that an advertisement is not required to include certain
disclosures under Rule G-21(e)(i)(A) and (B) if it does not identify a
dealer or its affiliates and if it includes only one or more of the
following: The issuer's name, contact information to obtain the
official statement or other information, the issuer's logo or an issuer
mark or slogan that does not constitute a call to invest in municipal
fund securities. Clause (b) of this provision provides that, if contact
information is provided for a dealer acting as the issuer's agent in
making the official statement or other information available, then no
orders for municipal fund securities may be accepted through such
source unless initiated by the customer. The proposed interpretive
notice states, `If a potential customer initiates an order through the
source identified in the advertisement, a distinct barrier between the
providing of information and the seeking of orders must be maintained
to qualify as a blind advertisement.' The proposed interpretive notice
also provides certain illustrative examples of this requirement.
    The MSRB notes that the blind advertisement provision in proposed
Rule G-21(e)(i)(B)(2) is somewhat unique within the structure of the
federal securities laws and was created in part as a result of the
public-private partnerships that most 529 college savings plans
represent and that are not typically seen in other sectors of the
securities markets. This provision was intended to permit dealers to
partner with the state plans in providing to the public basic
information regarding the states' public purpose goals without

promoting the sales activities of the dealers. As such, the MSRB views
the requirement of a distinct barrier as an appropriately measured step
to help ensure that the result of such blind advertisements is more
information to the public rather than merely more opportunities for
dealers to make sales. The MSRB also noted that to that end, any delays
in the ability of an investor to invest as a result of the proposed
barrier between the provision of information and sales activity could
be viewed, if anything, as providing the potential customer with a
greater opportunity to review the information he or she has received
and to make an investment decision in a less hurried environment.
Dealers seeking more direct promotion of potential investment
opportunities may do so using materials that are subject to other
provisions of Rule G-21.'' The Commission believes that the proposed
barrier between the provision of information and sales activity is a
measured step that is not inconsistent with the Act.

Required Annual Reports

    The proposed interpretive notice provides guidance to the effect
that, in circumstances where a dealer may be required by state law or
rules and regulations to prepare or distribute an annual financial
report or other similar information regarding a municipal fund
securities program, such report or information will not be treated as
an advertisement so long as the dealer provides such report or
information solely in the manner required by such state law or rules
and regulations. CSPN stated that while this guidance is generally
helpful, it is too narrow to the extent that it recognizes only actual
state laws or formal administrative rulemaking as the means by which a
dealer may be required to prepare or distribute information. CSPN
stated that ``This limitation is unnecessary to protect the investing
public as a whole to the extent that such requirements typically
address the distribution of information to existing customers. It is
also both arbitrary and unnecessarily intrusive upon state discretion
in administering their tuition savings programs in that it provides
relief only in connection with programs operated under statutes that
include disclosure requirements or administered by public entities that
are authorized to adopt administrative rules or regulations and that
choose to address their customer's need for such information by
exercising this authority. Some programs, however, are administered by
public entities, such as trusts, that lack this authority or that
choose to require dealers to prepare and provide such information as a
contractual matter.''
    The MSRB stated that ``This interpretive guidance is intended to be
consistent with similar guidance provided by NASD with respect to its
Rule 2210 as applied to certain performance information and
hypothetical illustrations required by state laws to be provided by
dealers in connection with retirement investments and variable annuity
contracts. The MSRB recognizes that there is considerable variability
from state to state in the methods they may use to adopt binding
requirements of general applicability. Therefore, the MSRB would not
view the expression `rules and regulations adopted by the state or an
instrumentality thereof governing a particular 529 plan or other
municipal fund security program' as limiting the types of requirements
to which the interpretation is applicable solely to those promulgated
pursuant to a specific formal administrative rulemaking process.
Instead, the MSRB generally views the interpretation as applicable
where the state or instrumentality thereof establishes a mandate of
general applicability to, and binding upon, any equally situated person
or entity. However, a negotiated contractual provision would not
satisfy this requirement as this would permit dealers to avoid the
appropriate application of Rule G-21 to promotional materials through
narrowly tailored contractual arrangements.'' The Commission believes
that this guidance is not inconsistent with the Act because it provides
relief to dealers providing certain information required by state law
and is intended to be consistent with similar guidance provided by
NASD.

Effective Dates

    With one exception, CSPN requested that the proposed rule change be
made effective immediately upon publication of the Commission's
approval order, rather than the MSRB's previously requested April 1,
2007 effective date. CSPN requested that the revisions to proposed Rule
G-21(e)(i)(A)(3) and proposed new Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(4)(a)(iii),
relating to disclosures of maximum sales loads and total annual
operating expense ratio, instead be made effective sixty days after the
publication of such approval order, and that dealers not be required to
implement such provisions until 15 days after the end of the calendar
quarter following such effectiveness.
    The MSRB agrees with CSPN that the proposed rule change should be
made effective immediately upon approval, provided that dealers should
not be required to implement the new provisions of Rule G-
21(e)(i)(A)(3) and (4)(a)(iii) relating to disclosure of maximum sales
load and total annual operating expense ratio (as well as the related
provisions of Rule G-21(e)(ii)(A), G-21 (e)(vii) and G-27(d)(ii)) for
any advertisement submitted or caused to be submitted for publication,
or any advertisement or correspondence otherwise distributed to the
public, prior to July 15, 2007. Nonetheless, the MSRB urges dealers to
implement these provisions as soon as practicable. In response to these
comments and in recognition of potential production, publication and
related technical issues that may exist in some cases in implementing
the proposed rule change, the Commission finds that the implementation
period proposed by the MSRB will provide dealers adequate time to make
any necessary changes.
    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the MSRB \10\ and, in particular, the
requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \11\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder. Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires, among
other things, that the MSRB's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market in municipal securities, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.\12\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change will further investor
protection by raising the standards for advertisements of municipal
fund securities and by making information provided in such
advertisements comparable for different municipal fund securities
investments and more comparable to registered mutual funds. The
proposal will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register,
except that dealers will not be required to implement the new
provisions of

Rule G-21(e)(i)(A)(3) and (4)(a)(iii) relating to disclosure of maximum
sales load and total annual operating expense ratio (as well as the
related provisions of Rule G-21(e)(ii)(A), G-21(e)(vii) and G-
27(d)(ii)) for any advertisement submitted or caused to be submitted
for publication, or any advertisement or correspondence otherwise
distributed to the public, prior to July 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this rule the Commission notes that it has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2006-09), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-10767 Filed 6-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9926-9928]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03170]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0048; FRL-10020-32-OAR]

Access by EPA Contractors to Information Claimed as Confidential
Business Information

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Contractor/Subcontractor Access to Data and Request
for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to authorize
various contractors to access information that is submitted to EPA and
which may be claimed as, or may be determined to be, confidential
business information (CBI). The information is related to EPA's fuel
quality programs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0048, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Submit your comments at
https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method). Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: Email your comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0048 in the subject line of the
message.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Air & Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal
Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this notice. Comments received may be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on this action, see the ``Public Participation'' heading of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an
abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA
Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with limited
exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket
Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments
via https://www.regulations.gov or email, as there may be a delay in
processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received
by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket
Center services and the current status, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne-Marie Pastorkovich, Environmental
Protection Agency, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this notice apply to me?

    This action is directed to the general public. However, this action
may be of particular interest to parties who submit information to EPA
regarding various fuel standards, such as the standards for
reformulated and conventional gasoline, regulated blendstocks, diesel
fuel, and detergent under 40 CFR part 1090, and for which a final rule
was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2020.\1\ Parties
who may be interested in this action include fuel manufacturers (such
as refiners and importers), manufacturers of fuel additives, parties in
the fuel distribution chain, and all those who submit 40 CFR part 1090
registrations or reports to EPA via any method or system. Such systems
include the EPA Central Data Exchange (CDX), DCFUEL, OTAQReg, and the
EPA Moderated Transaction System (EMTS). (Please note that EPA recently
published a similar notice to this one, announcing the release of
information to contractors and relative to various fuels programs under
40 CFR parts 79 and 80.

That notice, published on October 26, 2020, is unaffected by today's
notice.\2\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Fuels Regulatory Streamlining''--Final Rule, 85 FR
78412 (December 4, 2020).
    \2\ See ``Access by EPA Contractors to Information Claimed as
Confidential Business Information (CBI) Submitted Under Title II of
the Clean Air Act and Related Regulations,''--Notice, 85 FR 67738
(October 26, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Federal Register notice may be of relevance to parties that
submit data under the above-listed programs or systems. Since other
parties may also be interested, we have not attempted to describe all
the specific parties that may be affected by this action. If you have
further questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
party, please contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

II. Public Participation

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0048 at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's
docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to
be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    As mentioned above, EPA is suspending its Docket Center and Reading
Room for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to
provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We
encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov
as there may be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries
or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only. For further
information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

III. Description of Programs and Potential Disclosure of Information
Claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) to Contractors

    EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has
responsibility for protecting public health and the environment by
regulating air pollution from motor vehicles, engines, and the fuels
used to operate them, and by encouraging travel choices that minimize
emissions. In order to implement various Clean Air Act (CAA) programs,
and to permit regulated entities flexibility in meeting regulatory
requirements (e.g., compliance on average), we collect compliance
reports and other information from them. Parties may claim the
submitted information as CBI. Information submitted under such a claim
is handled in accordance with EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B and in accordance with EPA procedures, including
comprehensive system security planning. When EPA has determined that
disclosure of information claimed as CBI to contractors is necessary,
the corresponding contract must address the appropriate use and
handling of the information by the contractor and the contractor must
require its personnel who require access to information claimed as CBI
to sign written non-disclosure agreements before they are granted
access to data.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.301(h), we have determined that the
contractors, subcontractors, and grantees (collectively referred to as
``contractors'') listed below require access to CBI submitted to us
under the CAA and in connection with various programs related to the
regulation of fuels under 40 CFR part 1090. OTAQ collects this data in
order to monitor compliance with CAA programs and, in many cases, to
permit regulated parties flexibility in meeting regulatory
requirements. Certain programs under 40 CFR part 1090 are designed to
permit regulated parties an opportunity to comply on average, or to
engage in transactions using various types of credits. For example,
parties that participate in programs that utilize credits (e.g. the
gasoline sulfur and gasoline benzene program) submit information
related to credit transactions. Data submitted under 40 CFR part 1090
includes information related to reformulated and conventional gasoline,
diesel fuel, detergents, and regulated blendstocks. Fuels program data
is reviewed and assessed to determine the success of the programs or to
plan for regulatory improvements. We are issuing this notice to inform
all affected submitters of information that we plan to grant access to
material that may be claimed as CBI to the contractors identified below
on a need-to-know basis.
    Under EPA Contract Number EP-C-16-012, General Dynamics Information
Technology (GDIT) (located at 650 Peter Jefferson Parkway, Suite 300,
Charlottesville, VA 22911) provides report processing, program support,
technical support and analysis and information technology services that
involve access to information claimed as CBI related to 40 CFR part
1090. The following subcontractors of GDIT continue to provide work
under this contract:
     CGI Federal, Inc., 12601 Fair Lakes Circle, Fairfax, VA
22033-4902;
     Powersolv, Inc., 1801 Robert Fulton Drive, Suite 550,
Reston, VA 20191;
     Premier ITech, Inc., 8869 Grand Ave., Beulah, CO 81023 (a
subcontractor of Powersolv, Inc.)
     Potomac Economics, LTD, 9990 Fairfax Blvd., Suite 560,
Fairfax, VA 22030
    Access to data by GDIT and its subcontractors will begin March 1,
2021 and will continue until June 30, 2021. If the contract is
extended, this access will continue for the remainder of the contract
without further notice. If the contract expires prior to June 30, 2021,
the access will cease at that time. If GDIT employs additional
subcontractors to support EPA on a regular basis or on a limited or
one-time basis under the above-listed contract, and those
subcontractors require access to CBI, EPA will notify interested
parties of the contemplated disclosure and provide them with an
opportunity to comment by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.
    Under Contract Number EP-C-16-020, ICF Incorporated, LLC (located
at 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031) provides technical support and
data analysis services that may involve access to information claimed
as CBI related to 40 CFR part 1090. Access to data will begin March 1,
2021 and will continue until September 30, 2021. If the contract is
extended, this access will continue for the remainder of the contract
without further notice. If the contract expires prior to September 30,
2021, the access will cease at that time. If ICF employs subcontractors
to

support EPA on a regular basis or on a limited or one-time basis under
the above-listed contract, and those subcontractors require access to
CBI, EPA will notify interested parties of the contemplated disclosure
and provide them with an opportunity to comment by publishing a notice
in the Federal Register.
    Under Contract Number 68HERD20A0004, Research Triangle Institute
(RTI) (PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194) and its
subcontractors, Dr. Ruiqing Miao (Auburn University, Auburn, AL) and
Dr. Madhu Khanna (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana,
IL), provide technical support and data analysis services that may
involve access to information claimed as CBI related to 40 CFR part
1090. Access to data will begin March 1, 2021 and will continue until
July 19, 2021. If the contract is extended, this access will continue
for the remainder of the contract without further notice. If the
contract expires prior to July 19, 2021, the access will cease at that
time. If RTI employs additional subcontractors to support EPA on a
regular basis or on a limited or one-time basis under the above-listed
contract, and those subcontractors require access to CBI, EPA will
notify interested parties of the contemplated disclosure and provide
them with an opportunity to comment by publishing a notice in the
Federal Register.
    EPA uses the services of Senior Environmental Employees (SEEs)
whose involve access to information claimed as CBI related to 40 CFR
part 1090. These SEEs are provided under the following two grants:
     National Association for Hispanic Elderly (NAHE) (Grant
Number 8399701), 234 E Colorado Boulevard, Suite 300, Pasadena, CA
91101; and
     Senior Service America, Inc. (Grant Number 839480001--
Washington, DC; and Grant Number 83967201--Ann Arbor, MI); 8403
Colesville Road, Suite 200, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
    Parties who want further information about this notice or about
OTAQ's disclosure of information claimed as CBI to contactors may
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: February 10, 2021.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation & Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2021-03170 Filed 2-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46803-46804]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0095, Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming
2005 Chevrolet Suburban Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles are Eligible
for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2005 Chevrolet Suburban multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPV) that
were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), are eligible for importation
into the United States because they are substantially similar to
vehicles that were originally manufactured for sale in the United
States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with
the safety standards (the U.S.-certified version of the 2005 Chevrolet
Suburban MPV) and they are capable of being readily altered to conform
to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is September 5,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Stevens, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United
States, certified under 49 U.S.C. Sec.  30115, and of the same model
year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable
of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR Part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    Skytop Rover, Co., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Skytop)
(Registered Importer 06-343,) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
nonconforming 2005 Chevrolet Suburban MPVs are eligible for importation
into the United States. The vehicles which Skytop believes are
substantially similar are 2005 Chevrolet Suburban MPVs that were
manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by their
manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it compared non-U.S. certified 2005
Chevrolet Suburban MPVs to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found
the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance
with most FMVSS.
    Skytop submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2005 Chevrolet Suburban MPVs, as
originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the same manner as
their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily
altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the petitioner
claims that non-U.S. certified 2005 Chevrolet Suburban MPVs are
identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to
compliance with Standard Nos. 101 Controls Telltales, and Indicators,
102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and
Transmission Braking Effect, 103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging
Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 106 Brake Hoses,
108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, 111 Rearview
Mirrors, 113 Hood Latch System, 114 Theft Protection, 116 Motor Vehicle
Brake Fluids, Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window, Partition, and
Roof Panel Systems, 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than
passenger Cars, 124 Accelerator Control Systems, 135 Light Vehicle
Brake Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head
Restraints, 203 Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering
Control System, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing
Materials, 206 Door Locks and

Door Retention Components, 207 Seating Systems, 208 Occupant Crash
Protection, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly
Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting, 214 Side Impact Protection, 216
Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 225 Child
Restraint Anchorage Systems, 301 Fuel System Integrity, and 302
Flammability of Interior Materials.
    The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being
readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated:
    Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles other than
Passenger Cars: installation of a tire and rim information placard.
    The petitioner states that each vehicle will be inspected prior to
importation for compliance with the Theft Prevention Standard in 49 CFR
part 541 and that anti-theft devices will be installed on all vehicles
not already so equipped.
    The petitioner additionally states that a vehicle identification
plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post to
meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 565 and that a certification label
must be affixed to the driver's door jamb to meet the requirements of
49 CFR part 567.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: July 30, 2012.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2012-19122 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24397-24399]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11171]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0025; Product Identifier 2017-NM-101-AD; Amendment
39-19294; AD 2018-11-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a design approval holder (DAH)
evaluation indicating that the outer wing lower junction is subject to
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires modifying the
fastener holes at certain locations, which includes related
investigative actions and applicable corrective actions. We are issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 3, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 3,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected];
internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2018-0025.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0025; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone:
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A310-203,
-221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on February 8, 2018 (83 FR 5584) (``the NPRM'').
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0122, dated July 18, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304, -308,
-322, -324, and -325 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    In response to the FAA Part 26 rule, wing structural items of
the Airbus A310 design were assessed regarding Widespread Fatigue
Damage (WFD) phenomenon. One outcome was that the outer wing lower
junction is prone to WFD at level of the first fasteners row, close
to Rib 1 between Frame (FR) 40 and FR 47.
    This condition, if not corrected, could reduce the structural
integrity of the wing.
    Prompted by the conclusion of WFD analysis, Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A310-57-2105 to provide modification
instructions. The accomplishment of this modification at the
specified time will recondition/renovate/extend the life of the
fasteners holes at Rib 1, in order to reach the Limit Of Validity.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires cold
working of the affected holes at Rib 1, stiffeners 1 to 14, on both
outer wings between FR 40 and FR 47.

    Required actions include a modification of the fastener holes at
rib 1, stiffeners 1 to 14, on both outer wings between FR 40 and FR 47
by cold-working. The modification includes related investigative
actions and applicable corrective actions. The related investigative
actions include a rotating probe test of the fastener holes for cracks
and checking the hole diameter for certain diameters. The corrective
action is repair.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0025.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We considered the comment received. FedEx supported
the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-57-2105, Revision 00, dated
November 23, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a
modification of the fastener holes at rib 1, stiffeners 1 to 14, on
both outer wings between FR 40 and FR 47 by cold-working and includes
related investigative actions and corrective actions. This service
information is reasonably available because the

interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification, including related      66 work-hours x $85 per             $24,200         $29,810        $387,530
 investigative actions.               hour = $5,610.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repair that
will be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way
of determining the number of aircraft that might need this repair:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair.....................................  9 work-hours x $85 per hour = $765.            $254          $1,019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-11-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-19294; Docket No. FAA-2018-0025;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-101-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 3, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Model A310-203, -221, -222, -304,
-322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a design approval holder (DAH)
evaluation indicating that the outer wing lower junction is subject
to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to
prevent WFD at the outer wing lower junction, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Before exceeding the compliance time specified in figure 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable, or within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Modify the
fastener holes at rib 1, stiffeners 1 to 14, on both outer wings
between frame (FR) 40 and FR 47, including doing all related
investigative and applicable corrective actions, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2105, Revision 00, dated November 23, 2016, except as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all related investigative and
applicable corrective actions before further flight.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MY18.000

(h) Service Information Exception

    Where Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2105, Revision 00, dated
November 23, 2016, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate
action, and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for
Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this
AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, The
Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. 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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: If any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0122, dated July 18, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0025.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2105, Revision 00, dated
November 23, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected];
internet: http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 17, 2018.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-11171 Filed 5-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 181 (Friday, September 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 56507]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23467]

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

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:
    Regulation 14C (Commission Rules 14c-1 through 14c-7 and
Schedule 14C) SEC File No. 270-057, OMB Control No. 3235-0057

    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 (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Section 14(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Exchange Act'') operates to require issuers that do not solicit
proxies or consents from any or all of the holders of record of a class
of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act and in
accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed under Section
14(a) in connection with a meeting of security holders (including
action by consent) to distribute to any holders that were not solicited
an information statement substantially equivalent to the information
that would be required to be transmitted if a proxy or consent
solicitation were made. Regulation 14C (Exchange Act Rules 14c-1
through 14c-7 and Schedule 14C) (17 CFR 240.14c-1 through 240.14c-7 and
240.14c-101) sets forth the requirements for the dissemination, content
and filing of the information statement. We estimate that Schedule 14C
takes approximately 130.95 hours per response and will be filed by
approximately 569 issuers annually. In addition, we estimate that 75%
of the 130.95 hours per response (98.21 hours) is prepared by the
issuer for an annual reporting burden of 55,881 hours (98.21 hours per
response x 569 responses).
    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_ADDRESS>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_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: September 15, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23467 Filed 9-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P