[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50637-50642]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20622]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 594

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0080; Notice 2]
RIN 2127-AL09

Schedule of Fees Authorized

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts fees for Fiscal Year 2013 and until
further notice, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30141, relating to the
registration of importers and the importation of motor vehicles not
certified as conforming to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards
(FMVSS). These fees are needed to maintain the registered importer (RI)
program.
    We are increasing the fees for the registration of a new RI from
$795 to $805 and the annual fee for renewing an existing registration
from $670 to $676. The fee to reimburse Customs for conformance bond
processing costs will decrease from $9.93 to $9.09 per bond. The fee
for the review, processing, handling, and disbursement of cash deposits
that are submitted in lieu of a conformance bond will decrease from
$514 to $495. We are decreasing the fees for the importation of a
vehicle covered by an import eligibility decision made on an individual
model and model year basis. For vehicles determined eligible based on
their substantial similarity to a U.S. certified vehicle, the fee will
decrease from $158 to $101. For vehicles determined eligible based on
their capability of being modified to comply with all applicable FMVSS,
the fee will also decrease from $158 to $101. The fee for the
inspection of a vehicle will remain $827. The fee for processing a
conformity package will decrease from $17 to $12. If the vehicle has
been entered electronically with Customs through the Automated Broker
Interface (ABI) and the RI has an email address, the fee for processing
the conformity package will continue to be $6, provided the fee is paid
by credit card. If NHTSA finds that the information in the entry or the
conformity package is incorrect, the processing fee will remain $57,
representing the fee that is currently charged when there are one or
more errors in the ABI entry or omissions in the statement of
conformity.

DATES: The amendments established by this final rule will become
effective on October 1, 2012. Petitions for reconsideration must be
received by NHTSA not later than October 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule should
refer to the docket and notice numbers identified above and be
submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590. It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies of the
petition be submitted. The petition must be received not later than 45
days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
Petitions filed after that time will be considered petitions filed by
interested persons to initiate rulemaking pursuant to 49 U.S.C. chapter
301.

    The petition must contain a brief statement of the complaint and an
explanation as to why compliance with the final rule is not
practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest. Unless
otherwise specified in the final rule, the statement and explanation
together may not exceed 15 pages in length, but necessary attachments
may be appended to the submission without regard to the 15-page limit.
If it is requested that additional facts be considered, the petitioner
must state the reason why they were not presented to the Administrator
within the prescribed time. The Administrator does not consider
repetitious petitions and unless the Administrator otherwise provides,
the filing of a petition does not stay the effectiveness of the final
rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clint Lindsay, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, you may call
Nicholas Englund, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    This rule was preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that NHTSA published on June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35338).
    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended by
the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, and recodified at
49 U.S.C. 30141-30147 (``the Act''), provides for fees to cover the
costs of the importer registration program, the cost of making import
eligibility decisions, and the cost of processing the bonds furnished
to Customs. Certain fees became effective on January 31, 1990, and have
been in effect, with modifications, since then. On June 24, 1996, we
published a notice in the Federal Register at 61 FR 32411 that
discussed the rulemaking history of 49 CFR Part 594 and the fees
authorized by the Act. The reader is referred to that notice for
background information relating to this rulemaking action.
    We are required to review and make appropriate adjustments at least
every two years in the fees established for the administration of the
RI program. See 49 U.S.C. 30141(e). The fees applicable in any fiscal
year (FY) are to be established before the beginning of such year. Id.
We last amended the fee schedule in 2010. See final rule published on
August 11, 2010 at 75 FR 48608. Those fees apply to Fiscal Years 2011
and 2012.
    The fees adopted in this final rule are based on time expenditures
and costs associated with the tasks for which the fees are assessed.
The fees adopted in this notice reflect the freeze in General Schedule
salary rates since January 2010 and the slight increases in indirect
costs attributed to the agency's overhead costs since the fees were
last adjusted.

Comments

    There were no comments in response to the notice of proposed
rulemaking.

Requirements of the Fee Regulation

Section 594.6--Annual Fee for Administration of the Importer
Registration Program

    Section 30141(a)(3) of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that RIs must
pay the annual fees established ``to pay for the costs of carrying out
the registration program for importers * * *.'' This fee is payable
both by new applicants and by existing RIs. To maintain its
registration, each RI, at the time it submits its annual fee, must also
file a statement affirming that the information it furnished in its
registration application (or in later submissions amending that
information) remains correct. 49 CFR 592.5(f).
    To comply with the statutory directive, we reviewed the existing
fees and their bases in an attempt to establish fees that would be
sufficient to recover the costs of carrying out the registration
program for importers for at least the next two fiscal years. The
initial component of the Registration Program Fee is the fee
attributable to processing and acting upon registration applications.
We will increase this fee from $320 to $330 for new applications. We
have also determined that the fee for the review of the annual
statement submitted by existing RIs who wish to renew their
registrations will be increased from $195 to $201. These fee
adjustments reflect our time expenditures in reviewing both new
applications and annual statements with accompanying documentation, and
the small increases in indirect costs attributed to the agency's
overhead costs in the two years since the fees were last adjusted.
    We must also recover costs attributable to maintenance of the
registration program that arise from the need for us to review a
registrant's annual statement and to verify the continuing validity of
information already submitted. These costs also include anticipated
costs attributable to the possible revocation or suspension of
registrations and reflect the amount of time that we have devoted to
those matters in the past two years.
    Based upon our review of these costs, the portion of the fee
attributable to the maintenance of the registration program is
approximately $475 for each RI. When this $475 is added to the $330
representing the registration application component, the cost to an
applicant for RI status comes to $805, which is the fee we are
adopting. This represents an increase of $10 over the existing fee.
When the $475 is added to the $201 representing the annual statement
component, the total cost to an RI for renewing its registration comes
to $676, which represents an increase of $6.
    Section 594.6(h) enumerates indirect costs associated with
processing the annual renewal of RI registrations. The provision states
that these costs represent a pro rata allocation of the average salary
and benefits of employees who process the annual statements and perform
related functions, and ``a pro rata allocation of the costs
attributable to maintaining the office space, and the computer or word
processor.'' For the purpose of establishing the fees that are
currently in existence, indirect costs are $20.67 per man-hour. We are
increasing this figure by $0.99, to $21.66. This increase is based on
the difference between enacted budgetary costs within the Department of
Transportation for the last two fiscal years, which were higher than
the estimates used when the fee schedule was last amended, and takes
into account other projected increases over the next two fiscal years.

Sections 594.7, 594.8--Fees To Cover Agency Costs in Making Importation
Eligibility Decisions

    Section 30141(a)(3)(B) also requires registered importers to pay
other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the
costs of ``making the decisions under this subchapter.'' This includes
decisions on whether the vehicle sought to be imported is substantially
similar to a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for
importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its
original manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and
whether the vehicle is capable of being readily altered to meet those
standards. Alternatively, where there is no substantially similar U.S.-
certified motor vehicle, the decision is whether the safety features of
the vehicle comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply
with, the FMVSS based on destructive test information or such other
evidence that NHTSA deems to be adequate. These decisions are made in
response to petitions submitted by RIs or manufacturers, or on the
Administrator's own initiative.

    The fee for a vehicle imported under an eligibility decision made
in response to a petition is payable in part by the petitioner and in
part by other importers. The fee to be charged for each vehicle is the
estimated pro rata share of the costs in making all the eligibility
decisions in a fiscal year. The agency's direct and indirect costs must
be taken into account in the computation of these costs.
    Since we last amended the fee schedule, the overall number of
vehicle imports by RIs has increased, while the number of petitions has
remained approximately the same. The total number of vehicles that RIs
imported each year from 2009 to 2011 more than doubled from
approximately 10,000 to 23,000, respectively. Over the same period, the
number of vehicles imported under an import eligibility petition that
was submitted by an RI (as opposed to an import eligibility decision
initiated by the agency) increased from 485 in 2009 to 514 in 2010.
That number subsequently decreased to 404 in 2011. Because the number
of petitions has remained level over the past two years--averaging 12
per year--the agency has devoted approximately the same amount of staff
time reviewing and processing import eligibility petitions.
    Based on these trends, the pro rata share of petition costs
assessed against the importer of each vehicle covered by the
eligibility decision will decrease. We project that for FY 2013 and
2014, the agency's annual costs for processing these 12 petitions will
be $45,591. The petitioners will pay $4,600 of that amount in the
processing fees that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving
the remaining $40,991 to be recovered from the importers of the
approximately 404 vehicles projected to be imported under petition-
based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $40,991 by 404 yields a
pro rata fee of $101 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility
decision that results from the granting of a petition. We are therefore
decreasing the pro rata share of petition costs that are to be assessed
against the importer of each vehicle from $158 to $101, which
represents a decrease of $57. The same $101 fee would be paid
regardless of whether the vehicle was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(a),
based on the substantial similarity of the vehicle to a U.S.-certified
model, or was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(b), based on the safety
features of the vehicle complying with, or being capable of being
modified to comply with, all applicable FMVSS.
    We are not increasing the current fee of $175 that covers the
initial processing of a ``substantially similar'' petition. Likewise,
we are also maintaining the existing fee of $800 to cover the initial
costs for processing petitions for vehicles that have no substantially
similar U.S.-certified counterpart. In the event that a petitioner
requests an inspection of a vehicle, the fee for such an inspection
will remain $827 for vehicles that are the subject of either type of
petition.
    The importation fee varies depending upon the basis on which the
vehicle is determined to be eligible. For vehicles covered by an
eligibility decision on the agency's own initiative (other than
vehicles imported from Canada that are covered by import eligibility
numbers VSA-80 through 83, for which no eligibility decision fee is
assessed), the fee remains $125. NHTSA determined that the costs
associated with previous eligibility determinations on the agency's own
initiative would be fully recovered by October 1, 2012. We will apply
the fee of $125 per vehicle only to vehicles covered by determinations
made by the agency on its own initiative on or after October 1, 2012.

Section 594.9--Fee for Reimbursement of Bond Processing Costs and Costs
for Processing Offers of Cash Deposits or Obligations of the United
States in Lieu of Sureties on Bonds

    Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a registered importer to pay any
other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes ``to pay for the
costs of--(A) processing bonds provided to the Secretary of the
Treasury * * *'' upon the importation of a nonconforming vehicle to
ensure that the vehicle would be brought into compliance within a
reasonable time, or if it is not brought into compliance within such
time, that it be exported, without cost to the United States, or
abandoned to the United States.
    The Department of Homeland Security (Customs) exercises the
functions associated with the processing of these bonds. To carry out
the statute, we make a reasonable determination of the costs that
Department incurs in processing the bonds. In essence, the cost to
Customs is based upon an estimate of the time that a GS-9, Step 5
employee spends on each entry, which Customs has judged to be 20
minutes.
    When the fee schedule was last amended, we projected General
Schedule salary raises to be effective in January 2011 and 2012. Based
on our projections over the next two fiscal years, we are decreasing
the processing fee by $0.84, from $9.93 per bond to $9.09. This
decrease reflects the fact that GS-9 salaries have been frozen since we
last amended the fee schedule in 2010. The $9.09 fee will more closely
reflect the direct and indirect costs that are actually associated with
processing the bonds.
    In lieu of sureties on a DOT conformance bond, an importer may
offer United States money, United States bonds (except for savings
bonds), United States certificates of indebtedness, Treasury notes, or
Treasury bills (collectively referred to as ``cash deposits'') in an
amount equal to the amount of the bond. 49 CFR 591.10(a). The receipt,
processing, handling, and disbursement of the cash deposits that have
been tendered by RIs cause the agency to consume a considerable amount
of staff time and material resources. NHTSA has concluded that the
expense incurred by the agency to receive, process, handle, and
disburse cash deposits may be treated as part of the bond processing
cost, which NHTSA is authorized to set a fee under 49 U.S.C.
30141(a)(3)(A). We first established a fee of $459 for each vehicle
imported on and after October 1, 2008, for which cash deposits or
obligations of the United States are furnished in lieu of a conformance
bond. See the Final Rule published on July 11, 2008 at 73 FR 39890.
    The agency considered its direct and indirect costs in calculating
the fee for the review, processing, handling, and disbursement of cash
deposits submitted by importers and RIs in lieu of sureties on a DOT
conformance bond. We are decreasing the fee from $514 to $495. The
factors that the agency has taken into account in proposing the fee
include time expended by agency personnel, the slight increase in
overhead costs, and the reduction in projected salary costs based on
the General Schedule salary freeze since January 2010.

Section 594.10--Fee for Review and Processing of Conformity Certificate

    Each RI is currently required to pay $17 per vehicle to cover the
costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We
have found that these costs have decreased from $17 to an average of
$12 per vehicle. Although our overhead costs increased, the salary and
benefit costs are less than our previous projections based on the
General Schedule salary freeze. The number of certificates of
conformity submitted for agency review has increased. This has
decreased the agency's cost attributed to the review of each
certificate of conformity. Based on these costs, we are decreasing the
fee charged for vehicles for which a paper entry and fee payment is
made, from $17 to $12, a difference

of $5 per vehicle. However, if an RI enters a vehicle through the
Automated Broker Interface (ABI) system, has an email address to
receive communications from NHTSA, and pays the fee by credit card, the
cost savings that we realize allow us to significantly reduce the fee
to $6. We are maintaining the fee of $6 per vehicle if all the
information in the ABI entry is correct.
    Errors in ABI entries not only eliminate any time savings, but also
require additional staff time to be expended in reconciling the
erroneous ABI entry information to the conformity data that is
ultimately submitted. Our experience with these errors has shown that
staff members must examine records, make time-consuming long distance
telephone calls, and often consult supervisory personnel to resolve the
conflicts in the data. We have calculated this staff and supervisory
time, as well as the telephone charges, to amount to approximately $57
for each erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the $6 fee for the review
of conformity packages on automated entries yields a total of $63,
representing no increase in the fee that is currently charged when
there are one or more errors in the ABI entry or in the statement of
conformity.

Statutory Basis for the Final Rule and Effective Date

    NHTSA is required under 49 U.S.C. 30141(e) to ``review and make
appropriate adjustments at least every 2 years in the amounts of the
fees'' relating to the registration of importers, the processing of
bonds, and making decisions concerning the importation of nonconforming
vehicles. The statute further requires the agency to ``establish the
fees for each fiscal year before the beginning of that year.'' This
final rule implements the statutory provisions. In the NPRM, we
proposed to make this rule effective October 1, 2012, and did not
receive any comments on this issue. Accordingly, the effective date of
this final rule is October 1, 2012.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not significant.
Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this
rulemaking document under Executive Order 12886. Further, NHTSA has
determined that the rulemaking is not significant under Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. Based on the level
of the fees and the volume of affected vehicles, NHTSA currently
anticipates that the costs of the final rule would be so minimal as not
to warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. The action does
not involve any substantial public interest or controversy. The rule
will have no substantial effect upon State and local governments. There
will be no substantial impacts upon a major transportation safety
program. A regulatory evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the
final rule establishing the registered importer program, adopted on
September 29, 1989, was prepared, and is available for review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    The agency has considered the effects of this rulemaking under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that the rules being adopted
will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number
of small entities.
    The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The adopted amendments will
primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles
and that are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that
these companies would be unable to pay the fees proposed by this
action. In most instances, these fees would not be changed or be only
modestly increased (and in some instances decreased) from the fees now
being paid by these entities. Moreover, consistent with prevailing
industry practices, these fees should be passed through to the ultimate
purchasers of the vehicles that are altered and, in most instances,
sold by the affected registered importers. The cost to owners or
purchasers of nonconforming vehicles that are altered to conform to the
FMVSS may be expected to increase (or decrease) to the extent necessary
to reimburse the registered importer for the fees payable to the agency
for the cost of carrying out the registration program and making
eligibility decisions, and to compensate Customs for its bond
processing costs.
    Governmental jurisdictions will not be affected at all since they
are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor
vehicles.
C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded
that the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant either consultation with State and local officials or
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The rule

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 the responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the issue of
preemption in connection with today's final rule. The issue of
preemption can arise in connection with NHTSA rules in two ways.
    First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains
an express preemption provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to
the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory
command that unavoidably preempts State legislative and administrative
law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation is unnecessary.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied
preemption: In some instances, State requirements imposed on motor
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law,
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of some of
the NHTSA safety standards. When such a conflict is discerned, the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861
(2000).
    NHTSA has considered the nature (e.g., the language and structure
of the regulatory text) and purpose of today's final rule and does not
foresee any potential State requirements that might conflict with it.
Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of
state law, including state tort law.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
    NHTSA has analyzed this action for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The action will not have a significant effect
upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual volume
of motor vehicles imported through registered importers will not vary
significantly from that existing before promulgation of the rule.
E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 ``Civil Justice Reform,'' the
agency has considered whether the amendments adopted in this final rule
will have any retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that those amendments
will not have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of the rule may
be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require
that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial
review.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year
of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is
needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, Section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation
why that alternative was not adopted. Because this final rule will not
require the expenditure of resources beyond $100 million annually, this
action is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Part 594 includes
collections of information for which NHTSA has obtained OMB Clearance
No. 2127-0002, a consolidated collection of information for
``Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards,'' approved
through January 31, 2014. This final rule will not affect the burden
hours associated with Clearance No. 2127-0002 because we are only
adjusting the fees associated with participating in the registered
importer program. The new fees that we are adopting will not impose new
collection of information requirements or otherwise affect the scope of
the program.
H. Executive Order 13045
    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us. This rulemaking is not
economically significant and does not concern an environmental, health,
or safety risk.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the
agency to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress,
through the OMB, explanations when it decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    In this final rule, we are adjusting the fees associated with the
registered importer program. We are making no substantive changes to
the program nor did we adopt any technical standards. For these
reasons, Section 12(d) of the NTTAA does not apply.
J. Privacy Act
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment or petition (or signing the comment or petition,
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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN that appears in the heading on the first page of this
document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 594 is amended as
follows:

PART 594--SCHEDULE OF FEES AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. 30141

0
1. The authority citation for part 594 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141, 31 U.S.C. 9701; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Amend Sec.  594.6 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising in paragraph (d) the first sentence;
0
d. Revising the second sentence of paragraph (h); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  594.6  Annual fee for administration of the registration program.

    (a) Each person filing an application to be granted the status of a
Registered Importer pursuant to part 592 of this chapter on or after
October 1, 2012, must pay an annual fee of $805, as calculated below,
based upon the direct and indirect costs attributable to:
* * * * *
    (b) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the
processing of the application for applications filed on and after
October 1, 2012, is $330. The sum of $330, representing this portion,
shall not be refundable if the application is denied or withdrawn.
* * * * *
    (d) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the
remaining activities of administering the registration program on and
after October 1, 2012, is set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. *
* *
* * * * *
    (h) * * * This cost is $21.66 per man-hour for the period beginning
October 1, 2012.
    (i) Based upon the elements and indirect costs of paragraphs (f),
(g), and (h) of this section, the component of the initial annual fee
attributable to administration of the registration program, covering
the period beginning October 1, 2012, is $475. When added to the costs
of registration of $330, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section,
the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are
$805. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning
October 1, 2012, is $676.

0
3. Amend Sec.  594.7 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) to
read as follows:

Sec.  594.7  Fee for filing petitions for a determination whether a
vehicle is eligible for importation.

* * * * *
    (e) For petitions filed on and after October 1, 2012, the fee
payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section is $175. * * *
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  594.8 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)
and the first sentence of paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  594.8  Fee for importing a vehicle pursuant to a determination by
the Administrator.

* * * * *
    (b) If a determination has been made pursuant to a petition, the
fee for each vehicle is $101. * * *
    (c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2012,
pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is
$125. * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  594.9 by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  594.9  Fee for reimbursement of bond processing costs and costs
for processing offers of cash deposits or obligations of the United
States in lieu of sureties on bonds.

* * * * *
    (c) The bond processing fee for each vehicle imported on and after
October 1, 2012, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is
$9.09.
* * * * *
    (e) The fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2012,
for which cash deposits or obligations of the United States are
furnished in lieu of a conformance bond, is $495.
    6. Amend Sec.  594.10 by revising the first sentence of paragraph
(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  594.10  Fee for review and processing of conformity certificate.

* * * * *
    (d) The review and processing fee for each certificate of
conformity submitted on and after October 1, 2012 is $12. * * *

    Issued on: August 16, 2012.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-20622 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 6893]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02377]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13287-004-NY]

City of New York; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for an original license for the proposed
14.08-megawatt (MW) Cannonsville Hydroelectric Project, to be located
on the City of New York's existing Cannonsville Dam, which impounds its
Cannonsville Water Supply Reservoir. The dam and reservoir are located
on the West Branch of the Delaware River, near the Township of Deposit,
in Delaware County, New York. Commission staff prepared a final
Environmental Assessment (final EA) which analyzes the potential
environmental effects of construction and operation of the project and
concludes that issuing a new license for the project, with appropriate
environmental measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is on file with the Commission and is
available for public inspection. The final EA may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Mudre at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 28, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02377 Filed 2-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


"Richard Hornung"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 02/11/2008 10:00 AM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jee-Young Kim/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Ross/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Svendsgaard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: Request for additional information on Lanphear et al. (2005)

Young

I am including the statistics that you requested for concurrent blood Pb. They are as follows:

                N        mean      5%        50%         95%

<7.5       103       3.24     1.30      3.00         6.00

>=7.5    1230   12.92      3.50    10.05       34.00

<10         244     4.30      1.40      4.15        8.00

>=10     1089   13.93     4.30     11.03      35.40

Let me know if this satisfies your needs.

Rick

Professor of Environmental Health

Director, Biostatistics & Data Management Core

Div. of Gen. & Community Pediatrics

CCHMC

3333 Burnet Ave

Mail Location 7035

Cincinnati OH 45229-3039

513-636-1948

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

>>><EMAIL_ADDRESS>2/7/2008 4:49:49 PM >>>

Dear Drs. Dietrich and Hornung,

As a follow-up to my conversation with Dr. Dietrich, here is the e-mail

specifying the additional information we would like to request from

Lanphear et al. (2005).  The paper states that the concurrent median

blood lead concentration for the study population was 9.7 ug/dL

(5th-95th:  2.5-33.2).  Would you please provide us with the concurrent

median (5th-95th percentile range) blood lead concentrations for the

subsets <10 ug/dL and <7.5 ug/dL as well?

As you are aware, the Pb NAAQS review is on a very tight court-ordered

deadline.  We would greatly appreciate your prompt response.

Many thanks,

Young

Jee Young Kim, Sc.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Center for Environmental Assessment

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52258-52259]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16921]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: August 10, 2023, 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern time.

PLACE: This meeting will be accessible via conference call and via Zoom
Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-205-
6099 (US Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (US Toll), Meeting ID: 924 5715 1021,
to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to participate
via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYpcu6pqzoqGNWu5SfY2GD3KSx9l6qe1PRL.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Audit
Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'') will continue its work in
developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and
Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Call to Order--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair

    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will welcome attendees, call the
meeting to order, call roll for the Audit Subcommittee, confirm whether
a quorum is present, and facilitate self-introductions.

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify the publication of the
meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact
list via email followed by the subsequent publication of the notice in
the Federal Register.

III. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Agenda and Setting of Ground
Rules--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    The agenda will be reviewed, and the Subcommittee will consider
adoption.
Ground Rules
    Subcommittee action only to be taken in designated areas on the
agenda.

IV. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Minutes From the May 4, 2023
Meeting--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    Draft minutes from the May 4, 2023 Subcommittee meeting via
teleconference will be reviewed. The Subcommittee will consider action
to approve.

V. Discussion of Automatic Annual Renewal of UCR Registration--UCR
Executive Director and Seikosoft Representative

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    The UCR Executive Director and Seikosoft Representative will lead a
discussion on the issues involved in the voluntary, annual, and
automatic renewal of UCR registrations. The Subcommittee may take
action to recommend to the Board that Seikosoft design and implement a
system using business rules recommended by the Subcommittee that allow
for the voluntary, annual, and automatic renewal of UCR registrations.

VI. Discuss Options To Replace the Retreat Audit Program With a Program
That Relies on Roadside Inspection Data--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair,
UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair, DSL Transportation Representative,
and Seikosoft Representative

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair, UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-
Chair, DSL Transportation Representative and Seikosoft Representative
will lead a discussion on options to replace the Retreat Audit Program
currently utilized by the States with an automated roadside inspection
data driven audit for non-IRP and IRP-plated commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) and the motor carriers operating this type of registered
equipment. The Subcommittee may take action to recommend to the Board
that the current Retreat Audit Program be replaced with an automated
roadside inspection data driven audit for non-IRP and IRP-plated
commercial motor vehicles and the motor carriers operating this type of
registered equipment.

VII. Discuss Options To Perform a Review That Reflects a More Accurate
Number of Unregistered Motor Carriers of the UCR Universe in Shadow;
MCMIS--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair, UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair,
DSL Transportation Representative and Seikosoft Representative

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair, UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-
Chair, DSL Transportation Representative and Seikosoft Representative
will lead a discussion on options and necessary steps for the NRS and
State Auditors to review 2022/2023 unregistered motor carriers in
Shadow MCMIS. The Subcommittee may take action to recommend to the
Board that the UCR Plan perform a review that reflects a more accurate
number of unregistered motor carriers of the UCR Universe in Shadow
MCMIS.

VIII. Discuss Options To Add New Compliance Initiatives to the States'
Annual Audit Reporting Requirements--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair, UCR
Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair and UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-
Chair will lead a discussion on options to update the States' Annual
Audit Reporting Requirements beginning with the 2023 UCR Registration
Year. The Subcommittee may take action to recommend to the Board new
compliance initiatives to the States' Annual Audit Reporting
Requirements.

IX. General Discussion on the Direction of the Audit Subcommittee--UCR
Audit Subcommittee Chair and UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair

    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair and UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-
Chair will lead a general discussion on the current programs/projects
of the Audit Subcommittee.

X. Update on Monthly Question and Answer Session for State Auditors--
UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair, UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair, and
UCR Executive Director

    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair, UCR Audit Subcommittee Vice-Chair
and UCR Executive Director will lead discussion on the value and
continuation of a series of 60-minute virtual question and answer
sessions.

XI. Other Business--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair

    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will call for any other items
Subcommittee members would like to discuss.

XII. Adjournment--UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair

    The UCR Audit Subcommittee Chair will adjourn the meeting.
    The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
August 3, 2023 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2023-16921 Filed 8-3-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8231-8232]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Performance
and Handling Requirements for Rotorcraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The FAA requires that certain performance information be
provided in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual in order to show compliance to
the regulatory requirements. The flight manual, by regulation, must be
furnished with each aircraft.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by April 14, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number: 2120-0726.
    Title: Performance and Handling Requirements for Rotorcraft.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: In order to determine that a rotorcraft is a safe
vehicle, an applicant for a type certificate must show compliance to
specific minimum requirements. In order to show compliance, an
applicant must substantiate the type design through analysis, testing,
design limitations, and other acceptable means. This substantiation
requires that certain performance information for safe operation of the
rotorcraft be presented, in the form of tables, diagrams, or charts, in
the flight manual. FAA engineers and designated engineers review the
required data submittals to determine that the rotorcraft complies with
the applicable minimum safety requirements for rotorcraft performance
and that the rotorcraft has no unsafe features.
    Respondents: Approximately 4 normal or transport category
rotorcraft certification applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 5, 2014.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2014-02958 Filed 2-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20425-20426]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8585]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64196; File No. SR-NSCC-2010-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Establishing an Automated Service for the Processing of Transfers,
Replacements, and Exchanges of Insurance and Retirement Products

April 6, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On November 18, 2010, the National Securities Clearing Corporation
(``NSCC'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'').\1\ The proposed
rule change allows NSCC to add a new automated service to process
transfers, replacements, and exchanges of insurance and retirement
products through NSCC's Insurance and Retirement Processing Service
(``IPS''). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal

Register on November 30, 2010.\2\ No comment letters were received.
This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63368 (Nov. 23, 2010),
75 FR 74117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The proposed rule change will enable NSCC to offer a new automated
service for the transfer, replacement, or exchange (collectively
referred to as a ``Replacement'') of an existing insurance contract
that is eligible for NSCC's IPS. Specifically, NSCC will add new
Section 11 to Rule 57 (Insurance and Retirement Processing Services)
that will centralize and automate Replacement processing and will
decrease the administrative burden on and risk to NSCC Members,
Insurance Carrier/Retirement Service Members, Mutual Fund/Insurance
Services Members, and Data Services Only Members. Prior to this rule
change, the Replacement process was not conducted through a centralized
or automated process and requires extensive manual processing of paper
forms and other documents. The insurance industry utilized Transfer of
Assets forms, 1035 Exchange Forms, or other similar paperwork
(collectively referred to as ``TOA'') to document the request and the
authorization for a Replacement.
    Under the new service, an Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services
Member will be able to initiate a Replacement (``Receiving Carrier'')
by submitting an instruction to NSCC to process a Replacement
(``Request for Replacement''). NSCC will then transmit the Request for
Replacement to the designated Insurance Carrier/Retirement Services
Member (``Delivering Carrier''). The Delivery Member will have to
confirm, reject, or request modification to the Request for Replacement
in the format and by such time as established by NSCC. NSCC will delete
from the IPS Requests for Replacement that are not confirmed or
rejected. The IPS will also incorporate and will automate the
settlement of confirmed Replacements into NSCC's existing IPS
settlement process.
    Also under the new Section 11, the Delivering Carrier will waive
the obligation of the Receiving Carrier to submit a signed physical
copy of the TOA unless specifically required by state or local law. The
transfer of any physical documents related to Replacements that are
required under state law would continue to be transferred outside of
NSCC. It will be the sole obligation of the Insurance Carrier/
Retirement Services Members involved in the Replacement to confirm that
all legal requirements, including any requirement to obtain a signed
physical copy of the TOA imposed by applicable State or local law, are
satisfied prior to confirming a Request for Replacement. The
Replacement service will permit the transfer of documentation as an
attachment to the Request for Replacement but this will not be a
requirement to utilize the Replacement service. The waiver of the
obligation to submit signed physical documents is intended to improve
the orderly processing of Replacements.
    Finally, NSCC will update the Fee Schedule to incorporate the fees
associated with processing a Request for Replacement. The fee
associated with a Request for Replacement, including submitting
incremental replacement status messages and money settlement, will be
$5.00 per Request for Replacement. The cost will be divided between the
carriers associated with the transaction with the Receiving Carrier
responsible for $3.75 per transaction, which is three-fourths of the
cost of the Replacement service, and the Delivering Carrier responsible
for the remaining $1.25, which is one-fourth of the cost. The fee
associated with obtaining the status of a pending Request for
Replacement, including incremental statuses, will be $1.00 per pending
status request. The cost will be divided evenly between the Receiving
Carrier and the Distributor, each of which will be responsible for
paying a fee of $0.50.
    Members will be advised of the specific implementation date through
the issuance of an NSCC Important Notice.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules thereunder applicable to
NSCC. In particular, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\3\ which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a registered clearing agency are
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions. NSCC's new Replacement service is designed to
process Replacements in a more timely and efficient manner by reducing
manual errors, lowering costs, and providing a uniform platform for
Replacements processing. In addition, the new service should increase
the speed of processing Replacements through the use of automation,
which should also decrease NSCC's operational risk posed by processing
paper documentation. Accordingly, NSCC's proposal should promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 17A of the Act \4\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSCC-2010-15) be and
hereby is approved.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8585 Filed 4-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71731-71734]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29177]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1221; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-151-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid
contamination found in the strut forward dry bay. This proposed AD
would require repetitive general visual inspections of the strut
forward dry bay for the presence of hydraulic fluid, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing
this AD to detect and correct hydraulic fluid contamination of the
strut forward dry bay, which could result in hydrogen embrittlement of
the titanium forward engine mount bulkhead fittings, and consequent
inability of the fittings to carry engine loads, resulting in the loss
or departure of an engine. Hydraulic embrittlement could cause a
through-crack formation across the fittings through which an engine
fire could breach into the strut, resulting in an uncontained strut
fire.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 18,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1;

fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6501; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1221;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-151-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received reports of hydraulic fluid contamination in the strut
forward dry bay caused by the clogged and blocked forward strut drain
lines not allowing fluids (water, fuel, engine oil and hydraulic) to
drain properly, resulting in fluids backing up to the dry bay. The
presence of hydraulic fluid and temperatures above 270 degrees
Fahrenheit can cause hydrogen embrittlement of the titanium forward
engine mount bulkhead fittings. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in the inability of the forward engine mount bulkhead fittings
to carry engine loads, resulting in the loss or departure of an engine;
or cause a through-crack formation across the fittings through which an
engine fire could breach into the strut, resulting in an uncontained
strut fire.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028,
dated May 25, 2012. The service information describes procedures for
repetitive general visual inspections for hydraulic fluid contamination
of the strut forward dry bay, and related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary. Related investigative actions include a detailed
inspection for hydraulic fluid coking, heat discoloration, damage to
sealant and primer, damage to leveling compound, cracking, and etching
or pitting of the interior strut forward dry bay; a detailed and high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking, etching, or
pitting of the bulkhead upper and lower fittings of the strut forward
engine mount; and checking drain lines for blockage. Corrective actions
include cleaning and restoring sealant, primer, and leveling compound
of the detail parts in the strut forward dry bay; cleaning or replacing
drain lines; and contacting the manufacturer for repair instructions
and doing the repair.
    The compliance time for the initial inspection is within 600 flight
cycles or 12 months, whichever occurs first. The compliance times for
the related investigative actions are before further flight. The
compliance times for corrective actions vary between before further
flight, and within 25 flight cycles or 10 days, whichever occurs first
(depending on the condition). The repetitive inspection intervals do
not exceed 1,200 flight cycles.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Although the service bulletin specifies that operators may contact
the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair conditions, this
proposed AD would require operators to repair those conditions using a
method approved by the FAA.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                          Labor cost            Parts cost     Cost per product                  Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive general visual             5 work-hours x $85 per hour            $0  $425 per inspection     $23,375 per inspection cycle.
 inspections.                          = $425 per inspection cycle.               cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any actions that would be
required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no
way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
actions.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                    Labor cost                 Parts cost    product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed inspection...........................  8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680....           $0         $680

Check drain lines (including cleaning or        5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425....            0          425
 replacing).
Detailed inspection and high frequency eddy     8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680....            0          680
 current inspection.
Clean and restore sealant, primer and leveling  8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680....            0          680
 compound.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition repair specified in this proposed
AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2012-1221; Directorate Identifier
2012-NM-151-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 18, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300
series airplanes; certificated in any category; equipped with Pratt
& Whitney 4000 engines; as identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/pylons.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid contamination
found in the strut forward dry bay. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct hydraulic fluid contamination of the strut forward dry
bay, which could result in hydrogen embrittlement of the titanium
forward engine mount bulkhead fittings, and consequent inability of
the fittings to carry engine loads, resulting in the loss or
departure of an engine. Hydraulic embrittlement could cause a
through-crack formation across the fittings through which an engine
fire could breach into the strut, resulting in an uncontained strut
fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    Except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, at the times
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012: Do a
general visual inspection for hydraulic fluid contamination of the
interior of the strut forward dry bay, and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012, except as required by
paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the
times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012. Except
as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, do all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions at the times specified
in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012.

(h) Exceptions

    (1) Where the Compliance time column of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May
25, 2012, refers to the compliance time ``after the original issue
date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within
the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028,
dated May 25, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for repair: Except
as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, at the applicable times
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012, repair,
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be
approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin

777-54-0028, dated May 25, 2012, specifies a compliance time of
``within 25 flight-cycles or 10 days, whichever occurs first,'' this
AD requires compliance within 25 flight cycles or 10 days after the
most recent inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
whichever occurs first.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 21, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-29177 Filed 12-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P