[Federal Register: November 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 215)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57612-57615]
[DOCID:fr09no09-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0042; FRL-8902-6]

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa
County Air Quality Department and Maricopa County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Maricopa County Air Quality Department (MCAQD) portion of the Arizona
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern PM-10
emissions from open outdoor fires and indoor fireplaces at commercial
and institutional establishments, primary and secondary MCAQD ambient
air quality standards, and residential woodburning devices. We are
approving local rules under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA
or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on January 8, 2010 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 9, 2009. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0042, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alfred Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendation to further improve a rule.
    E. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that the
rules were amended by the local air agencies and submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Revised or
         Local agency               Ordinance or rule No.             Rule title          adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD.........................  Rule 314.....................  Open Outdoor Fires and      03/12/08     07/10/08
                                                                Indoor Fireplaces at        Revised
                                                                Commercial and
                                                                Institutional
                                                                Establishments.
MCAQD.........................  Rule 510.....................  Air Quality Standards..     11/01/06     06/07/07
                                                                                Adopted
MC............................  Ordinance P-26...............  Residential Woodburning     03/26/08     07/10/08
                                                                Restriction Ordinance.      Revised
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 11, 2009, the submittal of MCAQD Rule 314 and MC
Ordinance P-26 was determined by operation of law to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review. On December 6, 2007, the submittal of MCAQD
Rule 510 was determined by operation of law to meet the completeness
criteria.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There is no previous version of MC Ordinance P-26 submitted or in
the SIP.
    A version of MCAQD Rule 314 was approved into the SIP on May 8,
2007 (72 FR 25973). Obsolete versions of the SIP Rules 50, 51, 52, and
53 were approved into the SIP on July 27, 1972 (37 FR 15081) and should
be removed from the SIP.
    A version of MCAQD Rule 510 on which we have not acted, was adopted
on July 13, 1988 and submitted on January 4, 1990. While we can act
only on the most recent version, we have considered the contents of the
previous submittal.

C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule revisions?

    Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit
regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of local air
districts' programs to control these pollutants.
    The purposes of revisions to MCAQD Rule 314 are as follows:

     314.202: Area A is defined (generally the highly-populated
area of Maricopa County (MC)).
     314.302.1: A list of fires prohibited during restricted-
burn periods in MC, but allowed from May 1 through September 30 in Area
A, is revised.
     314.302.2: A list of fires prohibited during restricted-
burn periods in MC and also prohibited from May 1 to September 30 in
Area A is revised.
     314.303.1: A list of fires allowed any time of the year in
MC or Area A is revised.
     314.303.2: A list of fires prohibited during restricted-
burn periods in MC is revised.
     314.303.3: A list of fires prohibited during restricted-
burn periods in MC and also prohibited from May 1 through September 30
in Area A is revised. Woodburning chimineas and fire pits are added to
the applicability of the rule.
     314.302.1 and 314.302.2: A list of fires that require burn
permits from the MCAQD is revised. A list of other fires prohibited
during restricted-burn periods, but that may be set after a person
verifies with the MCAQD that a restricted-burn period is not in effect,
is revised.
     314.304: Air curtain destructor burning requires a Title V
permit from the ADEQ and a site-specific burn plan. Procedures for the
air curtain destructor in Rule 314.appendix are revised.
     314.306: The burning is prohibited in indoor fireplaces at
commercial and institutional establishments during a restricted-burn
period, except for gaseous fuels.

    The purposes of MCAQD Rule 510 are as follows:

     The rule establishes maximum limiting levels of ambient
air pollutants for protection of human health and public welfare.
     The rule requires public notification on ambient air
quality through an Annual Air Quality Monitoring Report and a Daily Air
Quality Index Report.

    The purposes of revisions to MC Ordinance P-16 are as follows:

     P-26.(overall): Various definitions are added or revised.
Civil penalties are added for failure to curtail burning as required on
restricted burn days.
     P-26.1.B: Barbecue devices and mesquite grills are removed
from the applicability of the ordinance.
     P-26.2.G: The moisture content of appropriate fuels is
reduced to 20% from 30%.
     P-26.2: Standards for curtailment of burning are added for
PM-2.5 and ozone in addition to the existing standard for PM-10. The
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter are added
for the new PM-2.5 standard in addition to the existing standard for
PM-10. The requirement that County Buildings Codes supersede the
requirements of Ordinance P-26 is added.
     P-26.3.A: Restricted-burn periods declarations are
expanded to every day of the year.
     P-26.3.B: There is added the prohibition to operate
outdoor fire pits, woodburning chimineas, or similar outdoor devices
during a restricted-burn period such that there are visible smoke
emissions. Such devices must be installed per the manufacturer's
instructions and operated with manufacturer's recommended fuel.
     P-26.3.C: There is clarified that during a restricted-burn
period, a person may operate a residential woodburning device if
exempted by the Control Officer or if it meets the standards of MCAQD
Rule 318 and there is no visible smoke emission. There is added that
during a restricted-burn period, a person may operate a residential
woodburning device, outdoor fire pit, chiminea, or similar outdoor fire
if operated exclusively with natural gas or propane.
     P-26.3.D: The possibility of exceeding the ozone standard
is added as a criterion for declaring a restricted-burn period.

    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). SIP rules in serious PM-10 nonattainment areas must require for
significant sources best available control measures (BACM), including
best available control technology (BACT) (see section 189(b)). MCAQD
regulates a serious PM-10 nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so
MCAQD Rule 314 must fulfill the requirements of BACM/BACT. MCAQD Rule
510 is an administrative rule with no specific BACM/BACT requirements.

    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate rules
consistently include the following:

     PM-10 Guideline Document (EPA-452/R-93-008).
     Technical Information Document for Residential Wood
Combustion Best Available Control Measures, (EPA-450/2-92-002).
     Minimum BACM/RACM Control Measures for Residential Wood
Combustion Rules, EPA Region IX (September 16, 2008).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe that MC Rules 314 and 510 and MC Ordinance P-26 are
consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding
enforceability, BACM/BACT, and SIP relaxations and should be given full
approval. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA recommendation to further improve a rule

    The TSD describes an additional rule revision that does not affect
EPA's current action but is recommended for the next time the local
agency modifies MCAQD Rule 510.

D. Public comment and final action

    Because EPA believes that submitted MCAQD Rules 314 and 510 and MC
Ordinance P-26 fulfill all relevant requirements, we are proposing to
fully approve them as described in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA. We
will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30
days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment
period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will
incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 8, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 12, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Editorial Note: This document was received by the Office of the
Federal Register on November 3, 2009.

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

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(140)(i)(B) and
(141) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (140) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
    (1) Rule 510, ``Air Quality Standards,'' excluding Appendix G to
the Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations, adopted on July
13, 1988 and revised on November 1, 2006.
* * * * *
    (141) The following amended rules were submitted on July 10, 2008,
by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Maricopa County.
    (1) Ordinance P-26, ``Residential Woodburning Restriction
Ordinance,'' adopted on October 5, 1994 and revised on March 26, 2008.
    (B) Maricopa County Air Quality Department.
    (1) Rule 314, ``Open Outdoor Fires and Indoor Fireplaces at
Commercial and Institutional Establishments,'' adopted on July 13, 1988
and revised on March 12, 2008.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-26861 Filed 11-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 112)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33159-33162]
[DOCID:fr11jn10-1]

========================================================================
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.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0071; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-27-AD;
Amendment 39-16291; AD 2010-10-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model
222, 222B, 222U, 230, and 430 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) for the specified Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC)
helicopters, that currently requires certain checks and inspections of
the tail rotor blades. If a crack is found, the existing AD requires
replacing the tail rotor blade (blade) with an airworthy blade before
further flight. This amendment requires the same checks and inspections
of the blades until they are required to be replaced and removes
certain serial numbered and specifically coded blades from the
applicability of the AD. This amendment is prompted by the approved
rework of certain blades and two newly redesigned blades, which, if
installed, constitute terminating action for the inspection
requirements. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect a
crack in a blade, and to prevent loss of a blade and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

DATES: Effective July 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may get the service information identified in this AD
from Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://
www.bellcustomer.com/files/.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains this
AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov, or at the Docket Operations office, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DOT/FAA Southwest Region, Sharon
Miles, ASW-111, Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate,
Regulations and Guidance Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas
76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 10, 2005, we issued AD 2005-04-
09, Amendment 39-13981 (70 FR 8021, February 17, 2005), that superseded
AD 2004-26-11, Amendment 39-13923 (70 FR 7, January 3, 2005), to
require certain checks and inspections of the blades. Both AD 2004-26-
11 and 2005-04-09 also require replacing any cracked blade before
further flight. AD 2004-26-11 was prompted by reports of cracked blades
and required certain checks, inspections, and replacements, if
necessary. AD 2005-04-09 required the same checks and inspections as AD
2004-26-11 but also added two serial numbers to the applicability and
corrected some typographical errors.
    Since issuing AD 2005-04-09, the manufacturer has introduced a
rework procedure for the affected blades and two newly redesigned
blades, which, if installed, constitute terminating action for the
inspection requirements. Therefore, a proposal to amend 14 CFR part 39
by superseding AD 2005-04-09 for the specified BHTC model helicopters
was published as a Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register on July 28, 2008 (73 FR 43648, July 28, 2008). That NPRM
proposed the same checks, inspections, and replacements of the blades.
The NPRM also proposed to remove certain serial numbered and
specifically coded blades from the applicability of the AD. The NPRM
was prompted by the approved rework of certain blades and two newly
redesigned blades, which, if installed, constitutes terminating action
for the inspection requirements.
    Transport Canada, the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified
the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on the specified BHTC model
helicopters. Transport Canada advises of the discovery of cracked
blades during scheduled inspections on three occasions. Two cracks
originated from the outboard feathering bearing bore underneath the
flanged sleeves. The third crack started from the inboard feathering
bearing bore. Investigation found that the cracks originated from
either a machining burr or a corrosion site in the bearing bore
underneath the flanged sleeves.
    BHTC has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 222-04-100,
Revision B, for Model 222 and 222B helicopters; ASB No. 222U-04-71,
Revision B, for Model 222U helicopters; ASB No. 230-04-31, Revision B,
for Model 230 helicopters; and ASB No. 430-04-31, Revision C, for Model
430 helicopters, all dated March 31, 2008. The ASBs specify a visual
inspection of the blade root end around the feathering bearings for a
crack, not later than at the next scheduled inspection, and thereafter
at every 3 flight hours maximum. Further, they describe a visual
inspection for a crack, to include removing the blade from the
helicopter if a crack is found in the paint, within the next 50 flight
hours, and thereafter at every 50 flight hours. In addition, the ASBs
state that, on or before December 31, 2008, each blade should be
reworked by Rotor Blades, Inc., or exchanged if the blade has less than
4,000 hours TIS or if the blade has 4,000 or more hours TIS, the blade
should continue to be repetitively inspected or a replacement blade
should be ordered. Transport Canada classified these service bulletins
as mandatory and issued AD CF-2004-21R3, dated April 23, 2008, to
ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in Canada.
    This AD differs from the ASB in that it requires, on or before 90
days after the effective date of the AD, replacing all affected blades
with airworthy blades that are not subject to the inspection
requirements, without differentiating between blades based on hours
TIS. Additionally, this AD does not require operators to send their
blades to Rotor Blades, Inc. for rework.
    These helicopter models are manufactured in Canada and are type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral

agreement. Pursuant to the applicable bilateral agreement, Transport
Canada has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The
FAA has examined the findings of Transport Canada, reviewed all
available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for
products of these type designs that are certificated for operation in
the United States.
    Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA
has determined that air safety and the public interest require the
adoption of the rule as proposed. However, we have inserted the Joint
Aircraft System/Component Code into this AD for informational purposes.
We have determined that this change will neither increase the economic
burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.
    We estimate that this AD will affect 156 helicopters of U.S.
registry, and the required actions will take:
     About 0.25 work hour for a pilot check, and 2 work hours
for a maintenance inspection, at an average labor rate of $80 per work
hour, and
     About 6 work hours to remove and replace the blade.
Required parts will cost about $13,410 per blade, assuming one blade
per helicopter is replaced each year. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators is $3,090,360, assuming
each helicopter requires 200 pilot checks and 12 maintenance
inspections prior to replacing a blade on or before the compliance date
for all affected helicopters.

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 the 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); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation.

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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-13981 (70 FR 8021,
February 17, 2005), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD),
Amendment 39-16291, to read as follows:

2010-10-12 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada: Amendment 39-16291.
Docket No. FAA-2008-0071; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-27-AD.
Supersedes AD 2005-04-09, Amendment 39-13981, Docket No. FAA-2005-
20107.

    Applicability: The following helicopter models, with a listed
helicopter serial number (S/N) and a listed part-numbered tail rotor
blade (blade) installed, that does not have an excepted S/N or code,
certificated in any category.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Helicopter model                     Helicopter S/N                   Blade Part No. (P/N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
222.....................................  47006 through 47089........  222-016-001-123, -123M, -127, [dash]127M,
                                                                        -131, -135, -139M, -141M, except those P/
                                                                        Ns with S/Ns listed in Exceptions 1 and
                                                                        2 or the ``R'' code described in
                                                                        Exception 3.
222B....................................  47131 through 47156........  222-016-001-123, -123M, -127, [dash]127M,
                                                                        -131, -135, -139M, -141M, except those P/
                                                                        Ns with S/Ns listed in Exceptions 1 and
                                                                        2 or the ``R'' code described in
                                                                        Exception 3.
222U....................................  47501 through 47574........  222-016-001-123, -123M, -131, -139M,
                                                                        except those P/Ns with a S/N listed in
                                                                        Exception 2 or the ``R'' code described
                                                                        in Exception 3.
230.....................................  23001 through 23038........  222-016-001-123, -123M, -131, -139M,
                                                                        except those P/Ns with a S/N listed in
                                                                        Exception 2 or the ``R'' code described
                                                                        in Exception 3.
430.....................................  49001 through 49107........  222-016-001-123, -123M, -131, -139M,
                                                                        except those P/Ns with a S/N listed in
                                                                        Exception 2 or the ``R'' code described
                                                                        in Exception 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exception 1: Blade, P/N 222-016-001-135 or -141M, S/N A-1502, A-
1503, A-1504, A-1505, A-1507, A-1508, A-1509, A-1510, A-1556, A-1557,
A-1558, A-1560, A-1561, A-1574, A-1635, A-1636, A-1828, A-1829, and S/
Ns with a prefix of ``A'' and a number greater than 1829 have the
intent of this proposal accomplished prior to delivery and no further
action is required by this AD.
    Exception 2: Blade, P/N 222-016-001-131 and -139M, S/N A-2049, A-
2055, A-2060, A-2070, A-2071, A-2085, and S/Ns with a prefix of ``A''
and a number greater than 2085 have the intent of this proposal
accomplished prior to delivery and no further action is required by
this AD.
    Exception 3: Blades identified with an ``R'' code in the square
block below the P/N field of the Data Plate have already been modified
and no further actions are required by this AD.

    Note 1: New blades, P/N 222-016-001-139 and -141, with no letter
on the Data Plate after the P/N, are not subject to the requirements
of this AD.

    Compliance: Required as indicated.
    To detect a crack in a blade, and to prevent loss of the blade and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
    (a) Within 3 hours time-in-service (TIS), unless accomplished
previously, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3 hours TIS,
clean and visually check both sides of each blade for a crack in the
paint in the areas shown in Figure 1 of this AD. An owner/operator
(pilot), holding at least a private pilot certificate, may perform this
visual check and must enter compliance with this paragraph into the
helicopter maintenance records by following 14 CFR 43.11 and
91.417(a)(2)(v).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR11JN10.002

    Note 2: Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
222-04-100, Revision B, for Model 222 and 222B helicopters; ASB No.
222U-04-71, Revision B, for Model 222U helicopters; ASB No. 230-04-
31, Revision B, for Model 230 helicopters; and ASB No. 430-04-31,
Revision C, for Model 430 helicopters, all dated March 31, 2008,
contain guidance on the subject of this AD.

    (b) If the visual check required by paragraph (a) of this AD
reveals a crack in the paint, before further flight, remove the blade
and follow the requirements in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(3)(ii) of
this AD.
    (c) Within the next 50 hours TIS, unless accomplished previously,
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, clean the blade
by wiping down both surfaces of each blade in the inspection area
depicted in Figure 1 of this AD using aliphatic naphtha (C-305) or
detergent (C-318) or an equivalent. Using a 10X or higher power
magnifying glass, visually inspect both sides of the blade in the areas
depicted in Figure 1 of this AD.
    (1) If a crack is found, even if only in the paint, before further
flight, remove the blade from the helicopter and proceed with the
following:
    (2) Remove the paint on the blade down to the bare metal in the
area of the suspected crack by using plastic media blasting (PMB) or a
nylon web abrasive pad. Abrade the blade surface in a span-wise
direction only.

    Note 3: PMB may cause damage to helicopter parts if untrained
personnel perform the paint removal. BHT-ALL-SPM, chapter 3,
paragraph 3-24, contains guidance on the subject of this AD.

    (3) Using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect the blade
for a crack.
    (i) If a crack is found, replace the blade with an airworthy blade
before further flight.
    (ii) If no crack is found in the blade surface, refinish the blade
by applying one coat of epoxy polyamide primer, MIL-P-23377 or MIL-P-
85582, so that the primer overlaps the existing coats just beyond the
abraded area. Let the area dry for 30 minutes to 1 hour. Then, apply
one sealer coat of polyurethane, MILC85285 TYI CL2, color number 27925
(semi-gloss white). Reinstall the blade.

    Note 4: BHT-ALL-SPM, chapter 4, contains guidance on painting
the blade.

    (d) On or before 90 days after the effective date of this AD,
replace any affected serial-numbered blade with an airworthy blade that
has a S/N that is not subject to, or has been excepted from, the
requirements of this AD. Installing an airworthy blade that is not
subject to the requirements of this AD, or has been excepted from the
requirements of this AD, including those blades with an ``R'' code in
the square block below the part number field of the Data Plate,
constitute a terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
    (e) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Sharon Miles,
Aviation Safety Engineer,

FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817)
222-5961, for information about previously approved alternative methods
of compliance.
    (f) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is 6410: Tail
Rotor Blades.
    (g) This amendment becomes effective on July 16, 2010.

    Note 5: The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada
(Canada) AD CF-2004-21R3, dated April 23, 2008.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 28, 2010.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-11071 Filed 6-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23524]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09150]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0083; FRL-9804-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Particulate Matter Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a request submitted by the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management on January 30, 2013, to revise
the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) for particulate matter
under the Clean Air Act. This submission contains the 24-hour fine
particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated by
EPA in 2006, and removes the annual coarse particle NAAQS that EPA has
previously revoked. The submission also asks EPA to approve into the
SIP certain Federally regulated criteria pollutant definitions and
abbreviations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2013-0083, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Final
Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how
to submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If we do not receive any adverse comments in response to this
rule, we do not contemplate taking any further action. If EPA receives
adverse comments, we will withdraw the direct final rule, and will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule, which is located in
the Final Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 4, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-09150 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4582-4585]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01623]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0720]

Request for Public Comment on Waiver Revisions for Certain
Medications and Suggestions for Risk Evaluation

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy clarification and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is seeking public comment on the policy
clarification proposed in this Notice regarding the criteria for
granting medical waivers to mariners who require the use of potentially
impairing prescription medications. The Coast Guard is also seeking
input regarding effective methods of risk evaluation of such mariners.
Current Coast Guard guidance states that the ``use of certain
medications is considered disqualifying for the issuance of
credentials,'' and that ``the underlying cause or need for use of these
medications and potential side effects may result in denial of a
credential application or require a waiver.'' Current guidance
specifically identifies that use of benzodiazepine medications, opioid
and opiate medications, non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotic
medications, and barbiturate medications require a waiver, but does not
specify the factors that the Coast Guard will consider in making its
determination on whether the risks associated with use of these
medications are low enough to warrant consideration for a waiver.
    The Coast Guard is proposing additions to the current medication
policy that will clarify the circumstances that the Coast Guard will
consider when determining whether to grant a medical waiver for use of
these medications. Additionally, the Coast Guard is proposing to
include a safety warning to mariners advising them to refrain from use
of impairing medications while operating under the authority of their
credential. The Coast Guard is seeking comments from the public on
whether the proposed policy adequately addresses safety concerns
regarding merchant mariners whose medical conditions require the use of
medications that have the potential to impair cognitive ability,
judgment or reaction time.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before March 30,
2015 or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2014-0720 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or email Lieutenant Ashley Holm, Mariner Credentialing
Program Policy Division (CG-CVC-4), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-
372-2357, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
material in the docket, call Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation

    You may submit comments and related material regarding whether the
policy clarifications proposed in this Notice should be incorporated
into a final policy on issuing medical waivers to mariners whose
medical conditions require use of benzodiazepine medications, opioid
and opiate medications, non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotic
medications, or barbiturate medications. All comments received will be
posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (USCG-2014-0720) and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. We
recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we
can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2014-0720) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this notice.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    Viewing the comments: To view comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2014-0720) in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Open Docket Folder'' on
the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use their Docket Management Facility.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a
Privacy Act system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR 10.302 contain the medical
standards that merchant mariners must meet prior to being issued a
merchant mariner credential (MMC). In cases where the mariner does not
meet the medical standards in 46 CFR 10.302, waivers may be granted
when extenuating circumstances exist that warrant special
consideration. 46 CFR 10.303. Additionally, 46 CFR 10.304 specifies

the scope of the general medical exam required for receiving an MMC and
directs that ``this exam must also document any condition requiring
medication that impairs cognitive ability, judgment, or reaction
time.''
    On September 8, 2008, the Coast Guard issued Navigation and Vessel
Inspection Circular (NVIC) 04-08, ``Medical and Physical Evaluation
Guidelines for Merchant Mariner Credentials'' (NVIC 04-08). In
Enclosure (4) of NVIC 04-08, the Coast Guard identifies medications
that may be disqualifying or may require a medical waiver. (NVIC 04-08
is available on the Internet at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/2008/NVIC%2004-08%20CH%201%20with%20Enclosures%2020130607.pdf.)
    The medications identified have a documented potential to impair
cognitive ability, judgment and/or reaction time. In many instances,
the medication labels also warn against driving or operating heavy
machinery while under the influence of these medications. Because of
the documented potential for impairment associated with these
medications, the Coast Guard considers the use of these medications to
be generally disqualifying. In some cases, waivers are granted to allow
for limited use of the medication; while in other cases, the mariner is
denied medical certification. When waivers are granted for use of these
potentially impairing medications, the conditions of the waiver usually
stipulate that the mariner must refrain from use of the medication for
a specified time period, in order to decrease the likelihood that the
mariner will be under the influence of the medication while working.
However, such waiver stipulations cannot be applied to mariners who are
medically required to take their potentially impairing medications
prior to, and while working. As a result, mariners in this situation
often have to change their medical treatment plan or risk denial of
medical certification.
    Enclosure (4) to NVIC 04-08 lists benzodiazepine medications,
opioid and opiate medications, non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotic
medications, and barbiturate medications as requiring a waiver. Since
the issuance of NVIC 04-08, there have been several instances where
mariners sought waivers for use of these specific medications. However,
NVIC 04-08 does not provide any guidance on the circumstances that will
warrant consideration for a medical waiver. Published guidance on the
circumstances that will be considered in determining whether the use of
these medications warrant consideration for a medical waiver will
support Coast Guard efforts to consistently evaluate merchant mariners
whose medical condition requires the use of these medications and to
assess whether an applicant's use of one of these medications warrants
a medical waiver under 46 CFR 10.303.
    The proposed policy changes seek to clarify the extenuating
circumstances related to use of potentially impairing medications that
the Coast Guard weighs in evaluating risk to public and maritime safety
and in determining suitability for a medical waiver. Additionally, the
policy would allow for consideration of the treating physician's formal
assessment of impairment in determining whether the risk associated
with the mariner's medication use is acceptable for a safety sensitive
position.
    The Coast Guard recognizes that there are instances when a mariner
may take a medication or start a prescription for a medication outside
of the timeframe of the MMC application process, and thus the
medication use has not been included in the Coast Guard's review of the
mariner's MMC application. Because a number of prescription medications
and over-the-counter medications have effects that may impair cognitive
ability, judgment and reaction time, it is critical that each mariner
consider the effects of his or her medication before deciding to
operate under the authority of his or her credential. Between 1987 and
2000, the National Transportation Safety Board investigated a
significant number of accidents across all modes of passenger
transportation that involved the use of potentially impairing
prescription and over-the-counter medications, and their analysis
determined that ``prescription and over-the-counter medications
continue to be factors in transportation accidents and incidents.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Transportation Safety Board Safety Recommendation
I-00-5, January 13, 2000. http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2000/I00_5.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current Coast Guard guidance advises mariners that certain
medications may be considered disqualifying for the issuance of
credentials, but the policy does not provide guidance on whether it is
appropriate to operate under the authority of the credential while
under the effects of a potentially impairing medication. As such, one
of the proposed changes to the medication policy includes a safety
warning to mariners advising them to refrain from operating under the
authority of the credential when they are under the influence of any
medication that can cause drowsiness, or impair cognitive abilility,
judgment or reaction time. The Coast Guard is proposing to include
these policy changes in a replacement to Enclosure (4) to NVIC 04-08.
    In addition to seeking comments from the public about whether the
proposed policy adequately addresses safety concerns regarding merchant
mariners whose medical conditions require use of potentially impairing
medication, the Coast Guard is also seeking public input on five
specific questions relating to the medical waivers for the use of such
medications.

Questions for the Public

    1. What factors, if any, should the Coast Guard consider in
determining whether to grant a waiver for mariners whose conditions
require them to use (or be under the effects of) a potentially
impairing medication while operating under the authority of the
merchant mariner credential?
    2. What methods of objective evaluation are available to reliably
assure that a mariner is free of any impairing medication effects,
specifically effects that would interfere with the safe operation of
the vessel?
    3. Should the treating physician's opinion that the mariner has no
medication impairment be considered sufficient to mitigate risk to
public and maritime safety?
    4. Should formal neuropsychological/neurocognitive evaluation be
required of all mariners who require chronic use of potentially
impairing medications, or use of potentially impairing medications
while operating under the authority of the credential? If so, what
functions should be measured/evaluated, and what would be the
appropriate standard for a test's outcome?
    5. Under what circumstances, if any, should the Coast Guard
consider granting waivers for mariners whose conditions require use of
opioid maintenance therapy (for example, methadone or buprenorphine)?

The Proposed Policy

    The proposed replacement to Enclosure (4) to NVIC 04-08, provided
below, outlines more specific guidance for each class of medication
discussed above. Additionally, the guidance advises mariners to
carefully consider manufacturers' warnings for any medication(s) they
may be taking, whether prescription or over-the-counter, before acting
under the authority of the credential. The proposed replacement for
Enclosure (4) to NVIC 04-08 follows:

Medications

Definitions

    A. Acting under the authority of the credential. The definition
of ``acting under the authority of a credential'' is found in 46 CFR
5.57. It states that
    (a) A person employed in the service of a vessel is considered
to be acting under the authority of a credential or endorsement when
the holding of such credential or endorsement is:
    (1) Required by law or regulation; or
    (2) Required by an employer as a condition for employment.
    (b) A person is considered to be acting under the authority of
the credential or endorsement while engaged in official matters
regarding the credential or endorsement. This includes, but is not
limited to, such acts as applying for renewal, taking examinations
for raises of grade, requesting duplicate or replacement
credentials, or when appearing at a hearing under this part.
    (c) A person does not cease to act under the authority of a
credential or endorsement while on authorized or unauthorized shore
leave from the vessel.
    B. Alcohol means any form or derivative of ethyl alcohol
(ethanol). See 33 CFR 95.010.
    C. Controlled substance has the same meaning assigned by 21
U.S.C. 802 and includes all substances listed on Schedules I through
V as they may be revised from time to time (21 CFR part 1308). See
33 CFR 95.010.
    D. Dangerous drug means a narcotic drug, a controlled substance,
or a controlled-substance analog (as defined in section 102 of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 802)).
See 46 CFR 16.105.
    E. Drug means any substance (other than alcohol) that has known
mind or function-altering effects on a person, specifically
including any psychoactive substance, and including, but not limited
to, controlled substances. See 33 CFR 95.010.
    F. Intoxicant means any form of alcohol, drug or combination
thereof. See 33 CFR 95.010.

Prohibitions

    A. Illegal Substances: Use of illegal or illegally obtained
substances, including all illegal or illegally obtained dangerous
drugs (as defined in 46 CFR 16.105), is incompatible with maritime
service and is not waiverable under any circumstances.
    B. Intoxicants: Operation of vessels while under the influence
of drugs or alcohol is regulated under 33 CFR part 95. Issuance of a
credential does not authorize a mariner to operate a vessel in
contravention of 33 CFR part 95. See also 46 U.S.C. 2302.

Important Safety Warning

    Certain medications, whether prescription or over-the-counter,
have known impairing effects and their labels warn about risk of
drowsiness and caution against use while driving or operating
hazardous machinery.
    The nature of shipboard life and shipboard operations is such
that mariners may be subject to unexpected or emergency response
duties associated with vessel or crew safety, prevention of
pollution, and maritime security at any time while aboard a vessel.
    In the interest of safety of life and property at sea, the Coast
Guard views shipboard life and the attendant shipboard duties that
can arise without warning, as safety sensitive duties that are
analogous to operating hazardous machinery. As such:
    A. Mariners are advised to discuss all medication use with their
treating providers and to inform them of the safety sensitive nature
of their credential; and
    B. Mariners are cautioned against acting under the authority of
their merchant mariner credential while under the influence of
medications that:
    (a) Can cause drowsiness, or
    (b) can impair cognitive ability, judgment or reaction time, or
    (c) carry warnings that caution against driving or operating
heavy machinery.
    C. Mariners are advised that they are considered to be acting
under the authority of the credential anytime they are aboard a
vessel in a situation to which 46 CFR 5.57(a) applies, even when
off-watch or while asleep.

Prescription and Over-the-Counter Medications

    Credential applicants who are required to complete a general
medical exam should disclose on the Merchant Mariner Credential
Medical Evaluation Report, CG-719K, all prescription and over the
counter medications, filled or refilled and/or taken within 30 days
prior to the date that the applicant submits the CG-719K to the
Coast Guard. 46 CFR 10.302(a) and 10.304(a).
    In addition, credential applicants who are required to complete
a general medical exam should disclose on the CG-719K all
prescription medications and over-the-counter medications, including
dietary supplements and vitamins, that were used for a period of 30
days or more within the 90 days prior to the date the applicant
submits the CG-719K to the Coast Guard. 46 CFR 10.302(a) and
10.304(a).
    Medications which may impair cognitive ability, judgment or
reaction time are considered disqualifying for issuance of
credentials. Additionally, the underlying condition requiring use of
the potentially impairing medication and/or the possible side-
effects of these medications may result in denial of a credential
application. Mariners who require the use of disqualifying
medications may seek consideration for a waiver in accordance with
46 CFR 10.303.
    The following is a non-exhaustive list of medications that may
be deemed disqualifying due to risk of impaired cognitive ability,
judgment or reaction time. Mariners on these medications are subject
to further medical review, in accordance with enclosure (6) of NVIC
04-08, to determine whether the applicant's use of the medication is
disqualifying. If the applicant's medication use is deemed
disqualifying by the Coast Guard, then the Coast Guard will
determine whether the mariner qualifies for a waiver under 46 CFR
10.303. Please refer to the section on Medication Waivers that
follows.
    A. Anti-Depressants:
    (1) Conditions which require Selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitors (SSRI), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors
(SNRIs), or Wellbutrin (bupropion) do not require a waiver unless
the underlying condition is deemed disqualifying.
    (2) Conditions which require the use of other anti-depressants
will be evaluated for stability of the underlying condition and the
absence of impairing medication side-effects.
    (3) A waiver is not required when used as a smoking cessation
aid and with Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD).
    B. Anti-Motion Sickness Agents: Use is approved and a waiver is
not required when used in accordance with manufacturers' warnings
and directions.
    C. Anti-Psychotics: The medication and the underlying condition
will be reviewed to determine whether the mariner qualifies for a
waiver under 46 CFR 10.303.
    D. Anti-Convulsives: The medication and the underlying condition
will be reviewed to determine whether the mariner qualifies for a
waiver under 46 CFR 10.303. See enclosure (8) for guidance on
evaluating waivers of underlying conditions that may require anti-
convulsives.
    E. Anti-Histamines:
    (1) Non-sedating medications, such as loratadine (Claritin),
fexofenadine (Allegra) and desloratadine (Clarinex), are acceptable
when used in accordance with manufacturers' warnings and directions.
    (2) Sedating medications--The medication and the underlying
condition will be reviewed to determine whether the mariner
qualifies for a waiver under 46 CFR 10.303.
    F. Barbiturate Medications: Due to the risk of impaired
cognitive ability, judgment, and reaction time, use of barbiturate
medications is disqualifying. The medication and the underlying
condition will be reviewed to determine whether the mariner
qualifies for a waiver under 46 CFR 10.303. Waivers for use within
48 hours prior to, or while acting under the authority of the
credential will only be approved on a case-by-case basis if the
Coast Guard determines that there are exceptional circumstances that
mitigate risk to public safety. See medication waiver discussion
below.
    G. Benzodiazepines: Due to the risk of impaired cognitive
ability, judgment, and reaction time, use of benzodiazepine
medications is disqualifying. The medication and the underlying
condition will be reviewed to determine whether the mariner
qualifies for a waiver under 46 CFR 10.303. Waivers for use within
48 hours prior to, or while acting under the authority of the
credential will only be approved on a case-by-case basis if the
Coast Guard determines that there are exceptional circumstances that
mitigate risk to public safety. See Medication Waivers discussion
below.
    H. Cough Preparations with Dextromethorphan, Codeine, or other
Codeine-Related Analogs:
    (1) Use of over-the-counter medications is approved when used in
accordance with manufacturers' warnings and directions.
    (2) For prescription medications containing opioid or opiate
ingredients, see section K, Legally Prescribed Controlled
Substances.
    I. Diet Aids (e.g. Dexatrim, Metabolife, etc.) and Stimulants
(e.g. modafinil, amphetamines, etc.):

    (1) Use of over-the-counter medications is approved when used in
accordance with manufacturers' warnings and directions.
    (2) Prescription medications--The medication and the underlying
condition will be reviewed to determine whether the mariner
qualifies for a waiver under 46 CFR 10.303.
    J. Non-benzodiazepine Sedative Hypnotic Medications: Due to the
risk of impaired cognitive ability, judgment, and reaction time, use
of non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotic medications is
disqualifying. The medication and the underlying condition will be
reviewed to determine whether the mariner qualifies for a waiver
under 46 CFR 10.303. Waivers for use within 12 hours prior to, or
while acting under the authority of the credential will only be
approved on a case-by-case basis if the Coast Guard determines that
there are exceptional circumstances that mitigate risk to public
safety. See medication waiver discussion below.
    K. Legally Prescribed Controlled Substances (including legally
prescribed narcotics, opiates, opioids and legally prescribed
medications which contain narcotics or opioids such as Tylenol with
codeine): Due to the risk of impaired cognitive ability, judgment,
and reaction time, use of legally prescribed controlled substances
is disqualifying. The medication and the underlying condition will
be reviewed to determine whether the mariner qualifies for a waiver
under 46 CFR 10.303. Waivers for use within 12 hours prior to, or
while acting under the authority of the credential will only be
approved on a case-by-case basis if the Coast Guard determines that
there are exceptional circumstances that mitigate risk to public
safety. See medication waiver discussion below.
    L. Medical Use of Hallucinogens (e.g. medical marijuana, peyote
or ecstasy): Even if legalized by a state, is disqualifying and not
waiverable under any circumstances.
    M. Muscle Relaxants: Centrally acting (e.g. carisoprodol,
meprobamate, cyclobenzaprine, methocarbamol, orphenadrine citrate,
anti-muscarinics and phenyltoloxamine, etc.): The medication and the
underlying condition will be reviewed to determine whether the
mariner qualifies for a waiver under 46 CFR 10.303. Waivers for use
within 12 hours prior to, or while acting under the authority of the
credential will only be approved on a case-by-case basis if the
Coast Guard determines that there are exceptional circumstances that
mitigate risk to public safety. See medication waiver discussion
below.

Medication Waivers

    A. As stated previously, medications which may impair cognitive
ability, judgment or reaction time are considered disqualifying for
issuance of credentials. The underlying condition, as well as the
effects of the medications, may lead to denial of a credential
application or may result in issuance of a waiver.
    B. Due to the documented risks of impaired cognition, judgment
and reaction time associated with the use of centrally acting
opioid/opiate medications, benzodiazepine medications, non-
benzodiazepine sedative hypnotic medications, and barbiturate
medications, the Coast Guard has determined that use of these
medications while acting under the authority of the credential is
generally not waiverable. However, waivers may be considered, on a
case-by-case basis, if the Coast Guard determines that there are
exceptional circumstances that warrant consideration for a waiver.
    C. The Coast Guard retains final authority for the issuance of
waivers.
    D. Waivers may include restrictions and/or limitations on the
credential.
    E. Applicants seeking consideration for waivers for the use of
medications that may impair cognitive ability, judgment, or reaction
time should submit the additional information detailed below, for
each medication:
    (1) A letter from the prescribing and/or treating physician that
includes the following:
    a. Whether the physician has familiarized him/herself with the
detailed guidelines on medical conditions and medications contained
in Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 04-08.
    b. Whether the physician understands the public-safety sensitive
nature of the merchant mariner credential.
    c. A detailed discussion of the condition which requires use of
the potentially impairing medication.
    d. A description of any known complications experienced by the
mariner from the use of a particular medication, level of current
stability and prognosis of the underlying condition. The physician
should also provide his or her professional opinion on whether the
condition is suitable for safety-sensitive work.
    e. A description of the dosage and frequency of use of the
medication (this description should be very specific; ``as needed''
is not sufficient information). The description should also reflect
that the physician has reviewed the mariner's pharmacy records for
documentation of the number of pills dispensed for use each month
and documentation of the length of time that mariner has been on the
medication.
    f. A detailed statement about whether the mariner is taking the
medication as directed and if there are any concerns of misuse or
overuse of the medication.
    g. A statement about whether the mariner is compliant with
therapy and follow-up appointments.
    h. A statement about whether the mariner requires use of this
medication while at work, or while aboard the vessel. If the mariner
requires use of the potentially impairing medication while at work
or while aboard the vessel, the physician should provide a detailed
explanation and rationale for the use.
    i. A statement about whether the physician has advised the
mariner of the risks of impairment related to the medication. The
physician should also discuss any risks advised, as well as any
instructions discussed with the mariner for mitigating risk.
    j. A statement about whether the mariner's other medications,
medical conditions, and work/sleep conditions might compound the
impairing effects of this medication. This discussion should reflect
that the physician has knowledge of the specifics of the mariner's
medications, medical conditions and work/sleep schedule.
    k. A statement about whether the physician has formally
evaluated the mariner for the presence of any impairing medication
effects. This discussion should include a description of the method
of evaluation utilized, as well as the findings.
    l. A medical opinion of whether the mariner has any medication
effects that would impede safe operation of a vessel or interfere
with work in a safety sensitive position. This discussion should
include the rationale for the physician's opinion.
    m. A statement whether the physician has advised the mariner
that it is safe to operate a vessel, operate hazardous machinery and
perform safety sensitive functions while under the influence of this
medication.
    (2) When requested, additional amplifying information, to
include formal neuropsychological/neurocognitive evaluation.
    a. In particular, mariners seeking waivers to use or be under
the influence of potentially impairing opioid/opiate,
benzodiazepine, sedative hypnotic, and/or barbiturate medications,
while acting under the authority of the credential, may be asked to
submit the results of a formal neuropsychological/neurocognitive
evaluation.
    b. When formal neuropsychologic or neurocognitive evaluation is
requested, the assessment should include objective evaluation of the
following functions, at a minimum: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Kay, GG and Logan BK, (2011). Drugged Driving Expert Panel
report: A consensus protocol for assessing the potential of drugs to
impair driving. (DOT HS 811 438). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Alertness, arousal and vigilance
    ii. Attention (focused, shifting and divided), processing
speed,and working memory
    iii. Reaction time (choice and complex), psychomotor function,
upper motor speed and coordination
    iv. Sensory perceptual function
    v. Executive function: Mental flexibility, adaptive problem
solving, abstract reasoning, impulse control, risk taking/risk
assessment, organizational ability (including visual spatial
organization), and planning

Authority

    Ths notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 46
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.

    Dated: January, 16, 2015.
J.C. Burton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections & Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-01623 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72745-72746]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23291]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER24-102-000]

Caden Energix Endless Caverns LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Caden Energix Endless Caverns LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 6, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help

members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice
communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available
information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and
assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or
requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at
(202) 502-6595 or [email protected].

    Dated: October 16, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23291 Filed 10-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29273-29274]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13282]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-127, OMB Control No. 3235-0108]

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:
    Rule 14f-1

    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.
    Under Exchange Act Rule 14f-1 (17 CFR 240.14f-1), if a person or
persons have acquired securities of an issuer in a transaction subject
to Sections 13(d) or 14(d) of the Exchange Act, and changes a majority
of the directors of the issuer otherwise than at a meeting of security
holders, then the issuer must file with the Commission and transmit to
security holders information related to the change in directors within
10 days prior to the date the new majority takes office as directors.
We estimate that it takes approximately 18 burden hours to provide the
information required under Rule 14f-1 and that the information is filed
by approximately 64 respondents for a total annual burden of 1,152
hours (18 hours per response x 64 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 website, 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)
Charles Riddle, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities
and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace Kenner, 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: June 18, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-13282 Filed 6-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 39739-39740]
[DOCID:fr10jy08-103]

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

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 17f-7; SEC File No. 270-470; OMB Control No. 3235-0529.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17f-7 (17 CFR 270.17f-7) permits funds to maintain their
assets in foreign securities depositories based on conditions that
reflect the operations and role of these depositories.\1\ Rule 17f-7
contains some ``collection of information'' requirements. An eligible
securities depository has to meet minimum standards for a depository.
The fund or its investment adviser generally determines whether the
depository complies with those requirements based on information
provided by the fund's primary custodian (a bank that acts as global
custodian). The depository custody arrangement has to meet certain risk
limiting requirements. The fund can obtain indemnification or insurance
arrangements that adequately protect the fund against custody risks.
The fund or its investment adviser generally determines whether
indemnification or insurance provisions are adequate. If the fund does
not rely on indemnification or insurance, the fund's contract with its
primary custodian is required to state that the custodian will provide
to the fund or its investment adviser a custody risk analysis of each
depository, monitor risks on a continuous basis, and promptly notify
the fund or its adviser of material changes in risks. The primary
custodian and other custodians also are required to agree to exercise
reasonable care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Custody of Investment Company Assets Outside the United
States, Investment Company Act Release No. 23815 (April 29, 1999)
(64 FR 24489 (May 6, 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information requirements in rule 17f-7 are
intended to provide workable standards that protect funds from the
risks of using securities depositories while assigning appropriate
responsibilities to the fund's primary custodian and investment adviser
based on their capabilities. The requirement that the depository meet
specified minimum standards is intended to ensure that the depository
is subject to basic safeguards deemed appropriate for all depositories.
The requirement that the custody contract state that the fund's primary
custodian will provide an analysis of the custody risks of depository
arrangements, monitor the risks, and report on material changes is
intended to provide essential information about custody risks to the
fund's investment adviser as necessary for it to approve the continued
use of the depository. The requirement that the primary custodian agree
to exercise reasonable care is intended to provide assurances that its
services and the information it provides will meet an appropriate
standard of care. The alternative requirement that the funds obtain
adequate indemnification or insurance against the custody risks of
depository arrangements is intended to provide another, potentially
less burdensome means to protect assets held in depository
arrangements.
    The staff estimates that each of approximately 828 investment
advisers \2\ would make an average of 7 responses annually under the
rule to address depository compliance with minimum requirements, any
indemnification or insurance arrangements, and reviews of risk analyses
or notifications. The staff estimates each response would take 5.5
hours, requiring a total of approximately 38.5 hours for each adviser.
The total annual burden associated with these requirements of the rule
would be approximately 31,878 hours (828 advisers x 38.5 hours per
adviser). The staff further estimates that during each year, each of
approximately 15 global custodians would make an average of 4 responses
to analyze custody risks and

provide notice of any material changes to custody risk under the rule.
The staff estimates that each response would take 250.25 hours,
requiring approximately 1001 hours annually per custodian.\3\ The total
annual burden associated with these requirements of the new rule would
be approximately 15,015 hours (15 custodians x 1001 hours). Therefore,
the staff estimates that the total annual burden associated with all
collection of information requirements of the rule would be 46,893
hours (31,878 + 15,015). The total annual cost of burden hours is
estimated to be $10,081,302 (31,878 x $239 for a portfolio manager,
plus 15,015 hours x $164/hour for a trust administrator's time).\4\ The
estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of
information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit
of relying on the rule's permission for funds to maintain their assets
in foreign custodians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ At the start of 2008, there were more than 9300 open-end
(including ETFs) portfolios and closed-end funds. These entities
were managed or sponsored by more 828 investment advisers.
    \3\ These estimates are based on conversations with
representatives of the fund industry and global custodians.
    \4\ The salaries for a portfolio manager and a trust
administrator are from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in
the Securities Industry 2007, modified to account for an 1800-hour
work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is 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 burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection 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 Lewis W. Walker, Acting
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 2, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-15643 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21113]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8432]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17g-1 and Form NRSRO, SEC File No. 270-563, OMB Control No.
3235-0625.

    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 a request for approval of extension of the previously approved
collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-1, Form NRSRO and
Instructions to Form NRSRO, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 17 CFR 240.17g-1 and 17 CFR 249b.300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17g-1, Form NRSRO and the Instructions to Form NRSRO contain
certain recordkeeping and disclosure requirements for NRSROs.
Currently, there are nine credit rating agencies registered as NRSROs
with the Commission. The Commission estimates that the total burden for
respondents to comply with Rule 17g-1 and Form NRSRO is 838 hours,
which includes one-time reporting burdens for new registration
applications, registration for additional categories of credit ratings,
withdrawals of NRSRO applications, and withdrawals of NRSRO
registration.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be
viewed at the following Web site, http://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) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: April 3, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8432 Filed 4-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P