[Federal Register: July 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 44748-44749]
[DOCID:fr31jy08-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0146]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Requirements for
Collection of Data Relating to the Prevention of Medical Gas Mix-ups at
Health Care Facilities-Survey

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
September 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All comments
should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0548. Also
include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Requirements for Collection of Data Relating to the Prevention of
Medical Gas Mix-ups at Health Care Facilities-Survey--(OMB Control
Number 0910-0548)--Extension

    On March 7, 2008 (73 FR 12452) and July 1, 2008 (73 FR 37465)
respectively, FDA published a 60-day and 30-day notice stating that it
had received 4 reports of medical gas mix-ups occurring during the past
9 years which involved 7 deaths and 15 injuries to patients who were
thought to be receiving medical grade oxygen, but who were actually
receiving a different gas (e.g., nitrogen, argon) that had been
mistakenly connected to the facility's oxygen supply system. These
reported incidents actually occurred between 1998 and 2000 which, at
the time, prompted the FDA in 2001 to publish guidance making
recommendations to help hospitals, nursing homes, and other health care
facilities avoid the tragedies that result from medical gas mix-ups and
alerting these facilities to the hazards. This survey is intended to
assess the degree of facilities' compliance with safety measures to
prevent mix-ups, to determine if further steps are warranted to ensure
the safety of patients.
    In the Federal Register of March 7, 2008 (73 FR 12452), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information
collection provisions. No comments were received.

                                                      Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No. of         Annual frequency       Total annual        Hours per
                    21 CFR section                         respondents         per response          responses           response         Total hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
210 and 211                                                           285                     1                285                .25              71.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                                 285                     1                285                .25              71.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: July 25, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-17566 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 68593]
[DOCID:fr27no06-81]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 12688-000, 12689-000, 12690-000, and 12692-000]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, WA; Notice
Granting Late Intervention

November 16, 2006.
    On June 22, 2006, the Commission issued a notice in each above-
captioned proceeding of the preliminary permit application filed by
Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington, in the
proceeding.\1\ The notices established August 21, 2006, as the deadline
for filing motions to intervene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The applications seek separate preliminary permits for: (1)
The Rich Passage Tidal Energy Project No. 12688, to be located in
Rich Passage in Puget Sound, Kitsap County, Washington; (2) the
Spieden Channel Tidal Energy Project No. 12689, to be located in
Spieden Channel in San Juan County, Washington; (3) the Admiralty
Inlet Tidal Energy Project No. 12690, to be located in Admiralty
Inlet in Jefferson, Kitsap, and Island Counties, Washington; and (4)
the San Juan Channel Tidal Energy Project No. 12692, to be located
in San Juan Channel in San Juan County, Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 23 and 28, 2006, respectively, the Tulalip Tribes and the
Whidbey Environmental Action Network filed late motions to intervene in
the proceedings. Granting the motions to intervene will not unduly
delay or disrupt the proceedings, or prejudice other parties to them.
Therefore, pursuant to Rule 214,\2\ the motions to intervene filed by
the Tulalip Tribes and Whidbey Environmental Action Network are
granted, subject to the Commission's rules and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214 (2006).

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19924 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 73923-73926]
[DOCID:fr28de07-186]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57013; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-140]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of Proposed Rule Change to List and Trade Options on Shares of the
iShares MSCI Mexico Index Fund

December 20, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 27, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
( ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice and order to
solicit comments on the proposal from interested persons and to approve
the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    CBOE proposes to list and trade options on shares of the iShares
MSCI Mexico Index Fund (the ``Fund Options'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website (http://www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's Office of the

Secretary and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to obtain approval to
list for trading on the Exchange options on the iShares MSCI Mexico
Index Fund (``Fund''). The Exchange currently has in place initial
listing and maintenance standards set forth in CBOE Rules 5.3.06 and
5.4.08, respectively (the ``Listing Standards''), that are designed to
allow the Exchange to list options on funds structured as open-end
investment companies, such as the Fund, without having to file for
Commission approval to list for trading options on the Fund.\3\ The
Exchange submits that the Fund meets substantially all of the Listing
Standards requirements. In particular, all of the requirements set
forth in CBOE Rule 5.3.06 are met, except for the requirement
concerning the existence of a comprehensive surveillance sharing
agreement (``CSSA''). However, the Exchange submits that sufficient
mechanisms exist that would provide the Exchange with adequate

surveillance and regulatory information with respect to the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CBOE Rules 5.3.06 and 5.4.08 set forth the initial listing
and maintenance standards for registered investment companies (or
series thereof) organized as open-end management investment
companies, unit investment trust or other similar entities traded on
a national securities exchange or through the facilities of a
national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund is registered pursuant to the Investment Company Act of
1940 as a management investment company designed to hold a portfolio of
securities that track the MSCI Mexico Index (``Index'').\4\ The Index
consists of stocks traded primarily on the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores
(the ``Bolsa''). The Fund employs a ``representative sampling''
methodology to track the Index, which means that the Fund invests in a
representative sample of securities in the Index that have a similar
investment profile as the Index.\5\ Barclays Global Fund Advisors
(``BGFA'' or the ``Adviser'') expects the Fund to closely track the
Index so that, over time, a tracking error of 5% of less is exhibited.
Securities selected by the Fund have aggregate investment
characteristics (based on market capitalization and industry
weightings), fundamental characteristics (such as return variability,
earnings valuation and yield) and liquidity measures similar to those
of the Index. The Fund will not concentrate its investments (i.e., hold
25% or more of its total assets in the stocks of a particular industry
or group of industries), except, to the extent practicable, to reflect
the concentration of the Index. The Fund will invest at least eighty
percent (80%) of its assets in the securities comprising the Index and/
or related American Depositary Receipts (``ADRs''). In addition, at
least ninety percent (90%) of the Fund's assets will be invested in the
securities comprising the Index or in other related Mexican securities
or ADRs. The Fund may also invest its other assets in futures
contracts, options on futures contracts, listed options, over-the-
counter (``OTC'') options and swaps related to the Index, as well as
cash and cash equivalents. The Exchange believes that these
requirements and policies prevent the Fund from being excessively
weighted in any single security or small group of securities and
significantly reduce concerns that trading in the Fund could become a
surrogate for trading in unregistered securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Morgan Stanley Capital International Inc. (``MSCI'') created
and maintains the Index.
    \5\ As of October 31, 2007, the Fund was comprised of 27
securities. America Movil SAB de DV-Series L had the greatest
individual weight at 23.99%. The aggregate percentage weighting of
the top five and ten securities in the Fund were 59.16% and 78.33%,
respectively. More information may be accessed at the iShares MSCI
Mexico Index Fund (EWW) Web Site (http://www.ishares.com).

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

    Shares of the Fund (``Fund Shares'') are issued and redeemed, on a
continuous basis, at net asset value (``NAV'') in aggregation size of
100,000 shares, or multiples thereof (a ``Creation Unit''). Following
issuance, Fund Shares are traded on an exchange like any other equity
securities. The Fund Shares trade in the secondary markets in amounts
less than a Creation Unit and the price per Fund Share may differ from
its NAV, which is calculated once daily as of the regularly scheduled
close of business of the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The regularly scheduled close of trading in the NYSE is
normally 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (``ET'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State Street Bank and Trust Company, the administrator, custodian,
and transfer agent for the Fund, calculates the Fund's NAV. Detailed
information on the Fund can be found at http://www.ishares.com.

    The Exchange has reviewed the Fund and determined that the Fund
Shares satisfy the Listing Standards, except for the requirement set
forth in CBOE Rule 5.3.06(A), which requires the Fund to meet the
following condition, ``any non-U.S. component securities of an index or
portfolio of securities on which the Units are based that are not
subject to comprehensive surveillance agreements do not in the
aggregate represent more than 50% of the weight of the index or
portfolio[.]'' The Exchange currently does not have in place a
surveillance agreement with Bolsa.
    The Exchange notes that the Commission, in the past, has been
willing to allow a national securities exchange to rely on a memorandum
of understanding entered into between regulators in the event the
exchanges themselves cannot enter into a CSSA.
    The Exchange previously made attempts to enter into a CSSA with
Bolsa as part of seeking approval to list and trade options on: (1) The
CBOE Mexico 30 Index; (2) the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index Fund
(``EEM''); and (3) the Vanguard Emerging Markets Fund (``VWO''), each
of which held non-U.S. component securities that traded on Bolsa.\7\
The Exchange also understands that the American Stock Exchange
(``Amex'') previously attempted to enter into a CSSA with Bolsa as part
of seeking approval to list and trade options on the Mexico Index.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 36415 (October 25,
1995), 60 FR 559620 (November 1, 1995) (SR-CBOE-95-45); 53621 (April
10, 2006), 71 FR 79568 (April 14, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-82); and 55491
(March 19, 2007), 72 FR 14145 (March 26, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-95).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34500 (August 8,
1994), 59 FR 41534 (August 12, 1994) (SR-Amex-94-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission noted in the Approval Order regarding the CBOE
Mexico 30 Index that, in cases where it would be impossible to secure a
CSSA, the Commission has relied in the past on surveillance sharing
agreements between the relevant regulators.\9\ The Commission further
noted in the Approval Order that, pursuant to the terms of the
memorandum of understanding executed by the Commission and the
CNBV,\10\ dated October 18, 1990 (``MOU''), it was the Commission's
understanding that both the Commission and the CNBV could acquire
information from and provide information to the other, similar to that
which would be required in a CSSA between exchanges.\11\ Therefore,
should CBOE need information on Mexican trading in the component
securities of the CBOE Mexico 30 Index, the Commission could request
such information from the CNBV under the MOU.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 36415 (October 25,
1995), 60 FR 55620 (November 1, 1995) (SR-CBOE-95-45).
    \10\ The National Commission for Banking and Securities, or
``CNBV,'' is Mexico's regulatory body for financial markets and
banking.
    \11\ See supra note 9.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The practice of relying on surveillance agreements between
regulators when a foreign exchange was unable or unwilling to provide a
CSSA was affirmed by the Commission in the Commission's New Product
Release (``New Product Release'').\13\ The Commission noted in the New
Product Release that if securing a CSSA is not possible, an exchange
should contact the Commission prior to listing a new derivative
securities product. The Commission also noted that the Commission may
determine instead that it is appropriate to rely on a memorandum of
understanding between the Commission and the foreign regulator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40761 (December 8,
1998), 63 FR 70952 (December 22, 1998), at note 101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange requests that the Commission allow the listing and
trading of the Fund Shares without a CSSA, upon reliance of the MOU
entered into between the Commission and the CNBV, until the Exchange is
able to secure a CSSA with Bolsa. The Exchange believes this request is
reasonable and notes that the Commission has provided similar relief in
the past. For example, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, two
CBOE proposals to list and trade options on the EEM and on the VWO.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53621 (April 10,
2006), 71 FR 19568 (April 14, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-32); 53930 (June
1, 2006), 71 FR 33322 (June 8, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-56); 54347
(August 22, 2006), 71 FR 51242 (August 29, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-72);
54876 (December 5, 2006), 71 FR 74968 (December 13, 2006) (SR-CBOE-
2006-103); and 55758 (May 14, 2007), 72 FR 28090 (May 18, 2007) (SR-
CBOE-2007-43); and 55491 (March 19, 2007), 72 FR 14145 (March 26,
2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-95).

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

    The Commission's approval of this request to list and trade options
on the Fund would otherwise render the Fund compliant with all of the
Listing Standards.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \15\ (the ``Act'') in general and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \16\ in particular in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest. Further, this proposed rule change is similar to a
proposal that was submitted by Amex and recently approved by the
Commission.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56778 (November 9,
2007), 72 FR 65113 (November 19, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-140 on the subject line.

Paper comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-140. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of Amex. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-140 and should be
submitted on or before January 18, 2008.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\18\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\19\ which requires that an
exchange have rules designed, among other things, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
in general to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The listing of the Fund Options does not fully satisfy CBOE's
applicable Listing Standards, specifically the requirement set forth in
CBOE Rule 5.3.06(A) that requires the Fund to meet the following
condition, ``any non-U.S. component securities of an index or portfolio
of securities on which the Units are based that are not subject to
comprehensive surveillance agreements do not in the aggregate represent
more than 50% of the weight of the index or portfolio[.]'' The
Commission has been willing to allow an exchange to rely on a
memorandum of understanding entered into between regulators where the
listing SRO finds it impossible to enter into an information sharing
agreement.\20\ In this case, CBOE has attempted unsuccessfully to reach
such an agreement with Bolsa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 9; See also New Product Release, supra note
13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, the Commission has determined to approve CBOE's
listing and trading of the Fund Options and to allow CBOE to rely on
the MOU \21\ with respect to the underlying Fund components trading on
Bolsa. The Commission believes that, regardless of the Commission's
willingness to permit reliance on the MOU, CBOE should continue to use
its best efforts to obtain a comprehensive surveillance agreement with
Bolsa, which shall reflect the following: (1) Express language
addressing market trading activity, clearing activity, and customer
identity; (2) the Bolsa's reasonable ability to obtain access to and
produce requested information; and (3) based on the CSSA and other
information provided by the Bolsa, the absence of existing rules, law
or practices that would impede the Exchange from obtaining foreign
information relating to market activity, clearing activity, or customer
identity, or in the event such rules, laws, or practices exist, they
would not materially impede the production of customer or other
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested accelerated approval of the proposed
rule change. The Commission finds good cause, consistent with Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\22\ for approving this proposed rule change before
the thirtieth day after the publication of notice thereof in the
Federal Register because it will enable the Exchange to immediately
consider listing and trading the Fund Options, similar to products
already traded on the Exchange,\23\ and because it does not raise any
new regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \23\ See supra note 14.

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

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-140) be, and it
hereby is approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-25199 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Form for submission of information specified in Annex E

of the Stockholm Convention pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention

Introductory information

Name of the submitting Party/observer

	Contact details (name, telephone, e-mail) of the submitting Party/observer

	Chemical name

(as used by the POPs Review Committee)	Endosulfan

Date of submission

(a) Sources, including as appropriate (provide summary information and relevant references)

(i) Production data:

		Quantity

		Location

		Other

	(ii) Uses

	(iii) Releases:

		Discharges

		Losses

		Emissions

		Other

(b) Hazard assessment for endpoints of concern, including consideration of toxicological interactions involving multiple chemicals (provide summary information and relevant references)

(c) Environmental fate (provide summary information and relevant references)

Chemical/physical properties

Persistence

How are chemical/physical properties and persistence linked to environmental transport, transfer within and between environmental compartments, degradation and transformation to other chemicals?

Bio-concentration or bio-accumulation factor, based on measured values (unless monitoring data are judged to meet this need)

(d) Monitoring data (provide summary information and relevant references)

(e) Exposure in local areas (provide summary information and relevant references)

General

As a result of long-range environmental transport

Information regarding bio-availability

(f) National and international risk evaluations, assessments or profiles and labelling information and hazard classifications, as available (provide summary information and relevant references)

(g) Status of the chemical under international conventions

___________________________

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   1

UNEP/POPS/COP.1/26


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 28 (Friday, February 12, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9269-9272]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0027; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00048-R;
Amendment 39-21425; AD 2021-04-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-19-
02, which applied to certain Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter
France) Model SA330J helicopters. AD 2020-19-02 required repetitively
inspecting affected tail rotor (T/R) blades and depending on the
inspection results, repairing or replacing the T/R blade. AD 2020-19-02
also prohibited installing an affected T/R blade unless it passed the
inspections. This AD retains the requirements of AD 2020-19-02 and also
clarifies the applicability, clarifies the affected T/R blades in the
required actions, reduces a compliance time, and corrects the
prohibition requirement. This AD was prompted by the determination that
these corrections are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 1, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of October 7, 2020
(85 FR 59416, September 22, 2020).
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by March 29, 2021.

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 https://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 final rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0027.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0027; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety
Agency) (EASA) AD, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager,
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2020-19-02, Amendment 39-21243 (85 FR 59416,
September 22, 2020) (AD 2020-19-02), for certain Airbus Helicopters
(previously Eurocopter France) Model SA330J helicopters. AD 2020-19-02
required, for each T/R blade part number (P/N) 330A12-0005-(all dash
numbers) and 330A12-0006-(all dash numbers), repetitively accomplishing
a visual and in-depth inspection for debonding and eddy current
inspecting for a crack. If there was debonding within allowable limits,
AD 2020-19-02 required repairing or replacing the T/R blade. If there
was debonding that exceeded allowable limits or a crack, AD 2020-19-02
required replacing the T/R blade. AD 2020-19-02 also prohibited
installing an affected T/R blade unless it passed the inspections. AD
2020-19-02 was prompted by EASA AD No. 2016-0059-E, dated March 22,
2016 (EASA AD 2016-0059-E), issued by the EASA, which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe
condition for Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter
France, Aerospatiale) Model SA 330 J helicopters. EASA AD 2016-0059-E
retains the requirements of Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de
l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) France AD 87-032-052(B)R3, dated January 23,
1991, which it supersedes, and also mandates improved service
instructions. EASA advises of two reports of cracked metal T/R blade
skin, which subsequently led to rotor blade vibrations and forced
landing of the helicopter. According to EASA, this condition, if not
addressed, could result in additional occurrences of T/R blade
structural damage, possibly resulting in significant vibrations and
reduced control of the helicopter.

Actions Since AD 2020-19-02 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2020-19-02, it was identified that the
compliance time for the initial visual inspection of T/R blade P/N
330A12-0006-(all dash numbers) (with a de-icing system) was
inadvertently stated as within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS). This
final rule corrects this compliance time to within 15 hours TIS.
    Since the FAA issued AD 2020-19-02, it was also identified that the
parts prohibition requirement could cause confusion about when the
inspections must be accomplished prior to installation. This final rule
clarifies this.
    Additionally, this final rule clarifies the applicability by
identifying that T/R blade P/N 330A12-0005-(all dash numbers) is
without a de-icing system installed and that T/R blade P/N 330A12-0006-
(all dash numbers) is with a de-icing system installed. This final rule
also clarifies the required actions by adding the P/Ns.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other helicopters of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service
Bulletin No. 05.101, Revision 0, dated March 21, 2016, for Model SA330J
helicopters with certain T/R blades with and without a de-icing system
installed. This service information specifies procedures for a visual
and in-depth inspection of the T/R blades for skin debonding and an
eddy current inspection of the T/R blades for a crack using various
crack detectors.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, for T/R blade P/N 330A12-0006-(all dash numbers)
(with a de-icing system), within 15 hours TIS after the effective date
of this AD or within 15 hours TIS after last inspecting the T/R blade
as required by paragraph (f)(1) of AD 2020-19-02, whichever occurs
first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15 hours TIS; and for
T/R blade P/N 330A12-0005-(all dash numbers) (without a de-icing
system), within 30 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, or
within 30 hours TIS after last inspecting the T/R blade as required by
paragraph (f)(1) of AD 2020-19-02, whichever occurs first, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 30 hours TIS:
     Accomplishing a visual and in-depth inspection of each T/R
blade for debonding. If there is debonding within allowable limits,
this AD requires repairing or replacing the T/R blade. If there is
debonding that exceeds allowable limits, this AD requires replacing the
T/R blade.
     Eddy current inspecting each T/R blade for a crack. If
there is a crack, this AD requires replacing the T/R blade.
    This AD also prohibits installing an affected T/R blade on any
helicopter unless it passes the inspections required by this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires returning a T/R blade with a discrepancy to
Airbus Helicopters; whereas this AD requires repairing or replacing the
T/R blade if there is debonding within allowable limits and replacing
the T/R blade if there is debonding that exceeds allowable limits or a
crack instead.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because the initial instance of the repetitive inspections must be
completed within 15 or 30 hours TIS, a time period of up to
approximately two months based on the average flight-hour utilization
rates of these helicopters. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for
prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public
interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and
comment.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0027; Project Identifier MCAI-
2021-00048-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Matt
Fuller, AD Program Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as

CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 17 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Inspecting the T/R blades for debonding takes about 0.75 work-hour
for an estimated cost of $64 per helicopter and $1,088 for the U.S.
fleet, per inspection cycle. Eddy current inspecting the T/R blades for
a crack takes about 1.75 work-hours for an estimated cost of $149 per
helicopter and $2,533 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
    If required, replacing a T/R blade takes about 4 work-hours and
parts cost about $19,000, for an estimated cost of $19,340.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    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, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2020-19-02, Amendment 39-21243 (85
FR 59416, September 22, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2021-04-04 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-21425; Docket No. FAA-
2021-0027; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00048-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 1, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-19-02, Amendment 39-21243 (85 FR 59416,
September 22, 2020) (AD 2020-19-02).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J helicopters,
certificated in any category, with a tail rotor (T/R) blade part
number (P/N) 330A12-0005-(all dash numbers) (without a de-icing
system) or 330A12-0006-(all dash numbers) (with a de-icing system),
installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, Tail Rotor
Blades.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by two reports of cracked metal T/R blade
skin. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking of a T/
R blade. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
failure of a T/R blade and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For T/R blade P/N 330A12-0006-(all dash numbers) (with a de-
icing system), within 15 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or within 15 hours TIS after last
inspecting the T/R blade as required by paragraph (f)(1) of AD 2020-
19-02, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 15 hours TIS; and for T/R blade P/N 330A12-0005-(all dash
numbers) (without a de-icing system), within 30 hours TIS after the
effective date of this AD, or within 30 hours TIS after last
inspecting the T/R blade as required by paragraph (f)(1) of AD 2020-
19-02, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 30 hours TIS:
    (i) Inspect each T/R blade for debonding by following the visual
and in-depth inspection procedures in the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2., of Airbus Helicopters Emergency
Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.101, Revision 0, dated March 21, 2016
(EASB 05.101). If there is debonding within allowable limits, before
further flight, repair or replace the T/R blade. If there is
debonding that exceeds allowable limits, before further flight,
replace the T/R blade.
    (ii) Eddy current inspect each T/R blade for a crack by
following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.3.a. of
EASB 05.101, then either paragraph 3.B.3.b.1. or 3.B.3.b.2. of EASB
05.101 depending on your crack detector, and paragraph 3.B.3.c. of
EASB 05.101 except the ``if there are no cracks'' and ``if there are
one or several cracks'' steps. Instead of the ``if there are no
cracks'' and ``if there are one or several cracks'' steps, if there
is a crack, before further flight, replace the T/R blade.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a T/R
blade identified in paragraph (c) of this AD on any helicopter
unless the actions of paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD have
been accomplished.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Strategic Policy Rotorcraft Section, 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 certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Matt Fuller, AD
Program Manager, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit,

Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
No. 2016-0059-E, dated March 22, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2021-
0027.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 7, 2020 (85 FR 59416, September 22, 2020).
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No.
05.101, Revision 0, dated March 21, 2016.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 972-
641-3775; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on February 3, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03056 Filed 2-10-21; 2:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26811-26812]
[DOCID:fr11my07-50]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0931; FRL-8313-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Performance Evaluation Studies on
Water and Wastewater Laboratories (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 0234.09, OMB
Control No. 2080-0021

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 11, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-
2006-0931 to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket

Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance
Docket and Information Center, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Office of Compliance,
Agriculture Division, Laboratory Data Integrity Branch, 2225A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
564-0029, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On January 3, 2007 (72 FR 130), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA published a second notice on
January 22, 2007 (72 FR 2684), to make a correction to the first
notice. EPA received 1 comment during the comment period, which is
addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments on this ICR should be
submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0931, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and

Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives

them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is
restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Performance Evaluation Studies on Water and Wastewater
Laboratories (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0234.09, OMB Control No. 2080-0021.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2007. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR Part 9.
    Abstract: Discharge Monitoring Report-Quality Assurance (DMR-QA)
participation is mandatory for major and selected minor permit holders
under the Clean Water Act's National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), Section 308. The DMR-QA study is designed to evaluate
the entire process used by permittees to routinely report monitoring
results in Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). The study addresses the
analytic ability of the laboratories that perform chemical,
microbiological and whole effluent toxicity (WET) analyses required in
the NPDES permits and the ability to properly report these results in
the DMRs. Under DMR-QA, the permit holder is responsible for obtaining
un-graded results of analyses of test samples performed by in-house
and/or contract laboratories, and submitting these results to the
appropriate federal or state NPDES regulatory authority and the
commercial proficiency testing (PT) provider that supplies the test
samples. Permit holders are responsible for submitting corrective
action reports to the appropriate regulatory authority.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6.3
hours per response. Burden means the total time,

effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Respondents in DMR-QA studies are
NPDES permittees designated by the EPA region or state with permitting
responsibility and the laboratories doing whole-effluent toxicity
testing for these major dischargers. These respondents are most likely
from the following SIC Codes: 2011--through 3999--Manufacturers; 4941--
Water supply systems; 4952--Sewerage systems; 8734--Water testing
laboratories.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 7516.
    Frequency of Response: Once annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 47,351 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $2,494,260, includes $1,240,140
annualized O&M costs and $1,254,120 annual labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 132,984 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is primarily due to the fact that
this renewal ICR does not include burden associated with the Water
Pollution and Water Supply studies that were covered under the previous
ICR. Some of this decrease was offset by a slight increase in the
number of respondents, burden hours and costs for the DMR-QA study

    Dated: May 1, 2007.
Sara Hisel McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E7-9113 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36315-36317]
[DOCID:fr26jn08-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF08-17-000]

Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline L.L.C.; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Maritimes Phase V
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

June 19, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
address the environmental impacts of the Maritimes Phase V Project
proposed by Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. (Maritimes). The
Commission will use the EA in its decision-making process to determine
whether or not to authorize the project. This notice explains the
scoping process we \1\ will use to gather environmental input from the
public and interested agencies on the projects. Your input will help
the Commission determine the issues that need to be evaluated in the
EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on July 21, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Details on how to submit written comments are provided in the
Public Participation section of this notice.
    This Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for
the Proposed Maritimes Phase V Project (NOI) is being sent to federal,
state, and local government agencies; elected officials; affected
landowners; environmental and public interest groups; Native American
tribes; and other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. We encourage government representatives to notify their
constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on
their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project
facilities. Each pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually
acceptable agreement for its project. However, if the projects are
approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an
agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings
in accordance with state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact
sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the
use of eminent domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Maritimes proposes to construct, own, operate, and maintain certain
natural gas transportation facilities within the states of Maine and
Massachusetts. The general locations of the proposed pipeline and
compression facilities are shown in the figures included as Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
Public Participation section of this notice. Copies of the
appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail.
Requests for detailed maps of the proposed facilities should be made
directly to Maritimes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the project is to provide transportation service for
gas from a new gas field (``Deep Panuke'') located offshore of Nova
Scotia to the New England market area. The Maritimes Phase V Project
would increase the capacity of Maritimes existing system by about
250,000 dekatherms per day.
    Maritimes proposes to construct:
     About four miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop
(Richmond Loop) extending south from the existing Richmond Compressor
Station in Sagadahoc County, Maine; and
     A fenced loop terminus site at the southern end of the
Richmond Loop which would include a pig receiver and valves.
    Maritimes would add compression and modify the following compressor
stations in Maine:
     Baileyville Compressor Station (existing)--additional
8,960 horsepower (HP) of compression, additional cooling, and restaging
of existing compressor units (Washington County);
     Woodchopping Ridge Compressor Station (under
construction)--additional 8,960 HP of compression, additional cooling,
and restaging of existing compressor unit (Hancock County);
     Brewer Compressor Station (under construction)--additional
8,960 HP of compression, additional cooling, and restaging of existing
compressor unit (Penobscot County);
     Searsmont Compressor Station (under construction)--
additional 8,960 HP of compression, additional cooling, and restaging
of existing compressor unit (Waldo County);
     Richmond Compressor Station (existing)--additional 8,960
HP of compression, additional cooling, and restaging of existing
compressor units (Sagadahoc County); and
     Eliot Compressor Station (under construction)--additional
18,085 HP of compression, additional cooling, and restaging of existing
compressor unit (York County).
    In addition, Maritimes would:
     Install additional meter and regulator runs and replace
equipment at the existing Dracut Meter Station (Middlesex County,
Massachusetts); and
     Uprate the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure on the
existing 24-inch-diameter pipeline from 1,440 pounds per square inch
gauge (psig) to 1,600 psig between the Baileyville Compressor Station
and the Westbrook Compressor Station. This uprate would require the
modification of the existing valves and meter stations at 23 locations
along the existing pipeline. No ground disturbance would be required at
18 of the locations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Maritimes does not expect excavation to be necessary at most
of the uprate facilities. Maritimes has identified five locations
that would require excavation: The Veazie Tap Valve (Penobscot
County, Maine); the Orrington Meter Station and associated valve
(Penobscot County, Maine); the Bowdoin Meter Station and associated
valve (Sagadahoc County, Maine); the Lewiston Meter Station and
associated valve (Cumberland County, Maine); and the Westbrook PNGTS
Inlet Meter Station (Cumberland County, Maine).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Work at the compressor stations is proposed to begin in July 2009.
Construction of the Richmond Loop and the other modifications are
proposed to begin in 2010. The proposed in-service date for the Phase V
facilities is November 1, 2010.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the Richmond Loop would disturb about 50 acres of
land. After construction Maritimes would retain 11.9 acres as new
permanent right-of-way.
    Generally, the width of the proposed construction right-of-way for
the

Richmond Loop would be 105 feet. The construction right-of-way way
would consist of: the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for the
existing 24-inch-diameter pipeline; a new 25-foot-wide permanent right-
of-way for the loop (which would abut the existing permanent right-of-
way); and a 30-foot-wide temporary right-of-way. The construction
right-of-way would be reduced in areas containing sensitive resources
such as wetlands and stream banks.
    Work at the aboveground facilities (compressor stations, meter
stations, and valves) would take place within the existing fenceline of
the facility except for the Orrington Meter Station and the Richmond
Compressor Station.
    Additional temporary extra workspaces beyond the typical
construction right-of-way limits would be required at certain feature
crossings (e.g., roads, railroads, wetlands, or waterbodies,
utilities), in areas with steep side slopes, in association with
special construction techniques and for topsoil segregation. Maritimes
would access its project construction areas primarily along the
existing pipeline right-of-way and existing roads; however, other
access roads may be required during construction. One new permanent
access road would access the Richmond Loop terminus site.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action when it considers whether or not an interstate
natural gas pipeline should be approved. The FERC will use the EA to
consider the environmental impact that could result if the Projects are
authorized under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires
us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals
to be considered by the Commission. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. With this
Notice of Intent, the Commission staff is requesting public comments on
the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during preparation of the EA.
    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Threatened and endangered species;
     Air quality and noise;
     Hazardous waste; and
     Public safety.
    In the EA, we will also evaluate possible alternatives to the
proposed projects or portions of the projects, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on affected resources.
    Although no formal application has been filed, the FERC staff has
already initiated its NEPA review under its NEPA Pre-filing Process.
The purpose of the Pre-filing Process is to encourage the early
involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve
issues before an application is filed with the FERC.
    With this NOI, we are asking federal, state, and local agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation
of the EA (see Appendix 2). These agencies may choose to participate
once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their
responsibilities. Additional agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions in Appendix 2
of this NOI.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Maritimes Phase V Project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send
in your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or
before July 21, 2008.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number PF08-17-000 with your submission.
The docket number can be found on the front of this notice. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 2,
PJ11.2.

Environmental Mailing List

    We might mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in
receiving it, please return the Mailing List Retention Form (Appendix
3). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be taken off
the mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary
link.'' Click on the eLibrary link, select ``General Search'' and enter
the project docket number excluding the last three digits (PF08-17) in
the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate
date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet website
also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with

notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm.
    Maritimes has also established an Internet Web site for the
Maritimes Phase V Project at: http://www.mnpp.com/USA/new.htm. The
Maritimes Web site includes contact information and information about
its proposed project. You may also use Maritimes' toll free telephone
number, 1-800-738-4880.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-14454 Filed 6-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


enforcement of the rules requires partnership with State officials
through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) [49 CFR
part 350]. FMCSA provides annual MCSAP grants to States that agree to
adopt and enforce as State laws or regulations, motor carrier safety
regulations which are compatible with the FMCSRs. For State safety
regulations applicable to CMVs operating in interstate commerce,
``compatible'' regulations must be identical to, or have the same
effect as, the FMCSRs. All of the States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Territories accept MCSAP funds and enforce
compatible laws or regulations, including hours-of-service rules. The
States have approximately 10,000 officers available for enforcement of
State safety regulations compatible with the FMCSRs. These officers
account for 95% of FMCSA's available enforcement resources; they
conduct 96% (3.1 million) of the roadside inspections per year.
    MCSAP grantees use different methods of adopting compatible laws
and regulations: Of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 23
jurisdictions automatically adopt any FMCSA safety rule as a State
regulation, 22 use an administrative process, and 6 require action by
the State legislature. In order to accommodate these various adoption
methods, 49 CFR 350.331(d) of the MCSAP rules allow States 3 full years
after the effective date of an FMCSA to rule to adopt a compatible
State rule. States typically adopt safety-related rules as soon as
possible, but adoption is not simultaneous among the States.
    When FMCSA promulgated a new hours-of-service rule on April 23,
2003, it adopted a compliance date of January 4, 2004, more than 8
months after its publication. More than 9,000 State enforcement
officers were trained on the requirements of the new hours-of-service
rule between October and the end of December 2003, either by FMCSA
directly or by State personnel trained by FMCSA. States amended their
operations manuals and enforcement guidelines to implement the new
rules. Similarly, FMCSA and the States reprogrammed computers as
necessary to ensure that hand-held devices used at roadside and office
systems tracked the new HOS rules.
    The same process would be needed to prepare for enforcement of an
HOS rule with a 10-hour driving limit and without 34-hour restart
provision. States that use administrative or legislative processes to
adopt safety regulations compatible with Federal regulations would
require an amount of time similar to that required to adopt new hours-
of-service regulations. Additionally, all of the officers trained on
the 11-hour driving limit and the 34-hour restart provision in the fall
and early winter of 2003 would have to be re-trained on the previous
rules. Experienced officers may be able to adapt to the previous rules
without much difficulty, but newly hired officers who have never worked
with the previous regulatory regime would require full-scale training.
State agencies would have to amend, print, and distribute manuals and
enforcement guidelines before re-training could begin. Computers--both
the hand-held devices often used at roadside and the larger machines
used by the central office of the enforcement agency--would have to be
re-programmed.
    Enforcement would suffer during the transition period. Re-training
would take officers away from their safety activities at roadside.
Officers would need to work overtime to maintain the same level of
enforcement, or those activities would have to be reduced for a time,
with the result that unsafe motor carriers and drivers would have a
better chance of escaping detection.
    If the provisions of the pre-2003 hours-of-service rules were
reinstated after the stay expires, nationwide enforcement would be far
from uniform. Some States would automatically adopt the Federal rule
(but even their officers would require re-training before enforcement
could begin), while others would continue to operate under the 2005
rule until the State legislature acted or an administrative process was
completed. The resulting nationwide patchwork of regulations would
render effective enforcement problematic.
    In view of the legal challenges to Federal hours-of-service rules
in the last few years, States may be less inclined to adopt the latest
Federal rule quickly, preferring to wait and see whether further
changes are made that would affect their training and enforcement. The
pattern of State hours-of-service regulations could therefore change
from month to month, and might remain inconsistent for up to three full
years as allowed by 49 CFR 350.331(d). The patchwork of regulations
would create uncertainty about the HOS standard applicable during a
trip. In fact, a driver could be subject to several different State
rules in the course of a few hours. Adding to the confusion is the fact
that FMCSA would have to evaluate driver HOS records under the rules
mandated by the Court's decision during compliance reviews of motor
carriers, while driver HOS records would be evaluated under State
regulations at roadside inspections in States that do not immediately
conform their rules to the Federal standard.
    The extent to which the 11-hour driving limit and the 34-hour
restart are being used varies widely among industry segments, motor
carriers, and individual drivers, but the sudden loss of these
provisions would have a noticeable effect on many carriers and drivers
and a substantial impact on some. We estimated that the loss of the 11-
hour driving limit and the 34-hour restart would cost the industry
about $2.1 billion per year, of which $1.6 billion would be
attributable to the 34-hour restart and $500 million to the 11th hour
of driving. See RIA in the docket for more details. By subtracting the
estimated $125 million of safety benefits, the net annual cost to the
industry would be approximately $2 billion. This cost is due to a 7
percent reduction in labor productivity for motor carriers due to loss
of the 11th driving hour and the 34-hour restart provision. In the
absence of an IFR, all motor carriers would have to revise their
operational procedures immediately and many would have to purchase new
equipment and hire more drivers (FMCSA estimates 106,000 additional
drivers in the RIA), a significant burden in a huge and diverse
industry. This would imply that the 106,000 additional drivers would
cause additional congestion on America's highways.
    In an affidavit filed with the D.C. Circuit with ATA's motion for
stay of the mandate in OOIDA v. FMCSA, the Senior Vice President of
Corporate Safety and Security for J.B. Hunt, the 11th largest for-hire
motor carrier in the industry in 2006, estimated that it would take his
company ``a minimum of 6 months * * * to make a proper transition to an
hours of service regulation that does not include the 11 and 34 hour
provisions, including time to undertake computer programming changes,
system testing, engineering design and simulations, education of
shippers/receivers, training of over 13,500 drivers and 2,000 non-
driver personnel, hiring of additional drivers and the acquisition of
additional equipment'' (Greer Woodruff,\15\ September 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Tab M of the ATA Motion's Addendum to read Mr.
Woodruff's affidavit. It is in the docket referenced at the
beginning of this notice.

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

    The Executive Vice President of PeopleNet, which offers trucking
customers an electronic system for maintaining and tracking driver
logs, also filed an affidavit with the ATA petition. He reported that,
``[e]ven with the leading edge technology platform that PeopleNet
manages and the patented, Over-The-Air-Programming technology that
allows for expedient deployment of code to all Onboard users, it would
take approximately four to six months to design, test, and roll-out new
software that is fully compliant with the elimination of the 34-hour
restart provision and the eleven hour permitted driving time and
provides the driver with the needed compliance assistance provided
today'' (Brian McLaughlin,\16\ September 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Tab G of the ATA Motion's Addendum to read Mr.
McLaughlin's declaration. It is in the docket referenced at the
beginning of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Old Dominion Freight Lines, which redesigned its operations to
better utilize the rules adopted in 2003, reported that elimination of
the 34-hour restart for its pickup and delivery drivers could lead to
``increased labor needs of 20% or in Old Dominion's case require the
recruiting, hiring and training of over 600 drivers. In our industry
the safety record of new drivers in their first year of work is not as
good as that of experienced drivers. In 2006, Old Dominion had 1,971
accidents. Drivers in their first year made up 12% of the driver
workforce, yet they had 526 or 27% of the total accidents'' (Affidavit,
Brian J. Stoddard,\17\ August 31, 2007). The Frozen Food Express Group
(FFEG) made the same point: ``FFEG's experience shows that drivers in
their first year of driving are about 3 times more likely than a
veteran driver to be involved in an accident'' (Affidavit, David
Hedgepeth,\18\ September 4, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Tab K of the ATA Motion's Addendum to read Mr.
Stoddard's affidavit. It is in the docket referenced at the
beginning of this notice.
    \18\ See Tab E of the ATA Motion's Addendum to read Mr.
Hedgepeth's affidavit. It is in the docket referenced at the
beginning of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transportation manager for Cemex, the largest cement
manufacturer in North America, reported that its drivers use the 34-
hour restart to ``re-set'' their clocks during bad weather, when
concrete cannot be poured. ``Because the elimination of the 34-hour
restart provision would curtail the flexibility that Cemex needs to
supply its customers, Cemex would need to hire additional truck drivers
if that provision were eliminated. It is very difficult to find good,
qualified drivers, and Cemex would not be the only company competing
for these limited driver resources. * * * The third-party carriers that
Cemex uses to ship some of its cement would also be affected by the 34-
hour restart provision. Those carriers would be competing with Cemex to
hire additional drivers'' (Affidavit, George Caine,\19\ September 5,
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Tab D of the ATA Motion's Addendum to read Mr. Caine's
declaration. It is in the docket referenced at the beginning of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA believes that the problems described by J.B. Hunt, PeopleNet,
Old Dominion, and Cemex would affect most motor carriers, in varying
degree. All carriers would need to retrain drivers and support
personnel if the driving time-limit were immediately reduced to 10
hours and the 34-hour restart were eliminated. Technological changes
would be more burdensome for carriers that have invested heavily in
computer-based management, tracking and communications systems. The
need for new drivers and vehicles to handle the existing workload would
depend on the extent to which a carrier and its drivers had utilized
the 11-hour driving limit and the 34-hour restart. Despite
uncertainties, FMCSA believes that all of these challenges would occur
and that they would be seriously disruptive if they converged at the
end of the 90-day stay granted by the Court.
    As demonstrated elsewhere in the preamble, this rule fully
addresses the legal shortcomings identified in OOIDA v. FMCSA. Because
the Court did not vacate the 11-hour driving limit or the 34-hour
restart for reasons related to safety, but only because of procedural
flaws, FMCSA's resolution of those flaws in this rule, combined with
the impracticability of immediately establishing, enforcing, and
complying with a new regulatory regime upon expiration of the Court's
90-day stay, compels the conclusion that the Agency has good cause to
issue this rule without prior notice and comment. Motor carriers that
need more drivers to compensate for reduced driving time may not be
able to find them, and even if new drivers are located, their
inexperience may cause additional crashes and offset gains made in
highway safety since 2003. The crash and compliance data that has
become available since the 2005 HOS rule was issued show that
operational safety under the 2003/2005 rules have not been degraded and
in some cases, data indicate improvement. Furthermore, the degree of
disruption to the motor carrier industry caused by a sudden, major
regulatory change could be serious enough to interfere with the timely
delivery of some products. That risk is greater today than at any time
in the past because of the widespread use in the American economy of
``just-in-time'' delivery as a method of reducing the overhead costs
associated with warehousing. Disruptions in the supply chain caused by
truckers' inability immediately to comply with a new HOS rule, to say
nothing of an increase in crashes and congestion associated with
106,000 inexperienced drivers hired to satisfy a new HOS rule, would be
contrary to the public interest, especially when the economy is already
fragile due to the decline in housing starts and the financial pressure
caused by non-performing subprime mortgages.
    The disruption to enforcement, operations, and compliance that
justify an IFR also provide good cause to make the IFR final upon
publication, before the end of the 90-day stay.
Congressional Review Act
    Because FMCSA has determined that it has good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) to adopt this rule without prior notice and opportunity for
comment, the 60-day delay required by the Congressional Review Act
before a major rule can become effective [see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)] is
not applicable and this rule can take effect on a date determined by
the Agency [see 5 U.S.C. 808(2)]. FMCSA has established December 27,
2007, as the effective date of this rule.
Executive Order 12866
    The FMCSA has determined that this action is an economically
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order
12866, This interim rule reinstates those provisions vacated by the
Court as of December 27, 2007. The Agency has prepared a regulatory
impact analysis analyzing the interim rule. A copy of the regulatory
analysis document is included in the docket referenced at the beginning
of this notice. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed
this document.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121,
110 Stat. 857), FMCSA is not required to prepare a final regulatory
flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 604(a) for this interim final rule
because the Agency has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking prior
to this action. However, FMCSA believes the RFA impacts of this IFR
were adequately described by the 2005 final rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    This IFR will not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as defined by
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532, et seq.), that
will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $128.1 million or more
in any one year.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    This final rule does not alter the existing information collection
requests for HOS recordkeeping.
National Environmental Policy Act
    FMCSA has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321, et seq., as amended), the FMCSA's NEPA Implementing Procedures
and Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts (FMCSA Order
5610.1),\20\ the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the DOT Order
5610.C (September 18, 1979, as amended on July 13, 1982 and July 30,
1985), entitled ``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,''
and other pertinent environmental regulations, Executive Orders,
statutes, and laws for consideration of environmental impacts of FMCSA
actions. The Agency relies on all of the authorities noted above to
ensure that it actively incorporates environmental considerations into
informed decisionmaking on all of its actions, including rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ FMCSA's environmental procedures were published on March 1,
2004 (69 FR 9680), FMCSA Order 5610.1, National Environmental Policy
Act Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental
Impacts, and effective on March 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the Environmental Assessment that accompanies this IFR,
none of the alternatives considered would have a significant adverse
impact on the human environment. Subsequently, FMCSA has determined
that this IFR will not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment and that a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement is
not required. The EA for this IFR, as well as the Agency's finding of
no significant impact (FONSI), are contained in the docket referenced
at the beginning of this notice.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. The FMCSA has determined
this rule does not have a substantial direct effect on States, nor
would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in
this document preempts any State law or regulation.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this program.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
Executive Order 12988
    This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice
Reform.
List of References
    Most of the research studies cited in this interim rule are
included in the List of References in the 2005 final rule (70 FR 49978,
at 50067). Copies or abstracts of the 2005 referenced studies, as well
as newer research studies published after the 2005 rule, new safety and
operational data, affidavits and declaration of trucking company
executives, and the Regulatory Impact Analysis cited in this interim
rule are in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Motor
carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

49 CFR Part 395

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA is amending 49 CFR parts 385
and 395 as follows.

PART 385--SAFETY FITNESS PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(e), 5109, 5113,
13901-13905, 31136, 31144, 31148, and 31502; Sec. 350 of Pub. L.
107-87; and 49 CFR 1.73.

0
2. In Appendix B to part 385--
0
a. Amend section II by removing paragraph (c);
0
b. Amend section VII by removing the entries for Sec. Sec.
395.3(a)(1), 395.3(c)(1), and 395.3 (c)(2);
0
c. Amend section II by adding paragraph (c);
0
d. Amend section VII by adding entries for Sec. Sec.  395.3(a)(1),
Sec.  395.3(c)(1), and (c)(2) to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 385--Explanation of Safety Rating Process

* * * * *

II. Converting CR Information Into a Safety Rating

* * * * *
    (c) Critical regulations are those identified as such where
noncompliance relates to management and/or operational controls.
These are indicative of breakdowns in a carrier's management
controls. An example of a critical regulation is Sec.  395.3(a)(1),
requiring or permitting a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle
driver to drive more than 11 hours.
* * * * *

VII. List of Acute and Critical Regulations

* * * * *
    Sec.  395.3(a)(1) Requiring or permitting a property-carrying
commercial motor vehicle driver to drive more than 11 hours
(critical).
* * * * *
    Sec.  395.3(c)(1) Requiring or permitting a property-carrying
commercial motor vehicle driver to restart a period of 7 consecutive
days without taking an off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive
hours (critical).
    Sec.  395.3(c)(2) Requiring or permitting a property-carrying
commercial motor vehicle driver to restart a period of 8 consecutive
days without taking an off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive
hours (critical).
* * * * *

PART 395--HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS

0
3. The authority citation for part 395 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 14122, 31133, 31136, 31502; Sec. 229,
Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748; Sec. 113, Pub. L. 103-311, 108
Stat. 1673, 1676; and 49 CFR 1.73.

0
4. In Sec.  395.1--
0
a. Remove paragraphs (e)(1)(iv)(A), (e)(2)(v), (g)(1)(i)(B),
(g)(1)(ii)(B), (g)(2)(ii), and (o)(3).
0
b. Add paragraphs (e)(1)(iv)(A), (e)(2)(v), (g)(1)(i)(B),
(g)(1)(ii)(B), (g)(2)(ii), and (o)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  395.1  Scope of rules in this part.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv)(A) A property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver does
not exceed 11 hours maximum driving

time following 10 consecutive hours off-duty; or
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) The driver does not drive more than 11 hours following at least
10 consecutive hours off-duty;
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) May not drive more than 11 hours following one of the 10-hour
off-duty periods specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i)(A)(1) through (4) of
this section; and
* * * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Calculation of the 11-hour driving limit includes all driving
time; compliance must be re-calculated from the end of the first of the
two periods used to comply with paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) of this
section.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The driving time in the period immediately before and after
each rest period, when added together, does not exceed 11 hours;
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (3) The driver has not taken this exemption within the previous 6
consecutive days, except when the driver has begun a new 7- or 8-
consecutive day period with the beginning of any off-duty period of 34
or more consecutive hours as allowed by Sec.  395.3(c).
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  395.3--
0
a. Remove paragraphs (a)(1) and (c).
0
b. Add paragraphs (a)(1) and (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  395.3  Maximum driving time for property-carrying vehicles.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) More than 11 cumulative hours following 10 consecutive hours
off-duty;
* * * * *
    (c)(1) Any period of 7 consecutive days may end with the beginning
of any off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours; or
    (2) Any period of 8 consecutive days may end with the beginning of
any off-duty period of 34 or more consecutive hours.

    Dated: December 10, 2007.
John H. Hill,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-24238 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P