Department of Labor

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Preclearance Supporting Statement

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

THE INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS OF

THE STANDARD ON SLINGS (29 CFR 1910.184)

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

(OMB) CONTROL NO. 1218-0223 (September 2014)

A. JUSTIFICATION

 1.  Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information
necessary.  Identify any legal or administrative requirements that
necessitate the collection.  Attach a copy of the appropriate section of
each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of
information.

The main objective of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(i.e., “the Act”) is to “assure so far as possible every working
man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to
preserve our human resources” (29 U.S.C. 651).  To achieve this
objective, the Act authorizes “the development and promulgation of
occupational safety and health standards” (29 U.S.C. 651).

Section 6(b)(7) of the Act specifies that “[a]ny standard promulgated
under this subsection shall prescribe the use of labels or other
appropriate forms of warning as are necessary to insure that workers are
apprised of all hazards to which they are exposed, relevant symptoms and
appropriate emergency treatment, and proper conditions and precautions
of safe use or exposure.”  This provision goes on to state that
“[t]he Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, may by rule promulgated pursuant to section 553 of title
5, United States Code, make appropriate modifications in the foregoing
requirements relating to the use of labels or other forms of warning . .
. as may be warranted by experience, information, or medical or
technological developments acquired subsequent to the promulgation of
the relevant standard” (29 U.S.C. 655).

With regard to recordkeeping, the Act specifies that “[e]ach employer
shall make, keep and preserve, and make available to the Secretary . . .
such records . . . as the Secretary . . . may prescribe by regulation as
necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of this Act . . . .” (29

U.S.C. 657).  The Act states further that “[t]he Secretary . . .
shall prescribe such rules and regulations as [he/she] may deem
necessary to carry out [his/her] responsibilities under this Act,
including rules and regulations dealing with the inspection of an
employer’s establishment”  (29 U.S.C. 657).

Under the authority granted by the Act, the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (i.e., “OSHA” or “the Agency”) published
at 29 CFR 1910.184 a safety standard for general industry regulating the
use of slings (i.e., “the Standard").  The collection of information
(paperwork) provisions of the Standard specify affixing identification
tags or markings on slings, developing and maintaining inspection
records, and retaining proof testing certificates.  Items 2 and 12 below
describe in detail the specific information collection requirements of
the Standard.

 2.  Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to
be used.  Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the
Agency has made of the information received from the current collection.

The Standard specifies several collections of information (paperwork)
requirements, depending on the type of sling.  The purpose of each of
these requirements is to prevent workers from using defective or
deteriorated slings; thereby, reducing their risk of death or serious
injury caused by sling failure during material handling.

Paragraph (e) of the Standard covers alloy steel chain slings.

Paragraph (e)(1) requires that alloy steel chain slings have permanently
affixed and durable  identification stating size, grade, rated capacity,
and reach of the sling.  The information, supplied by the manufacturer,
is typically marked on a metal tag and affixed to the sling.

Paragraph (e)(3)(i) requires the employer to make a thorough periodic
inspection of alloy steel chain slings in use on a regular basis, but at
least once a year.  Paragraph (e)(3)(ii) requires the employer to make
and maintain a record of the most recent month in which each alloy steel
chain sling was thoroughly inspected, and make this record available for
examination.

Paragraph (e)(4) requires the employer to retain certificates of proof
testing.  Employers must ensure that before use, each new, repaired, or
reconditioned alloy steel chain sling, including all welded components
in the sling assembly, has been proof tested by the sling manufacturer
or an equivalent entity.  The certificates of proof testing must be
retained by the employer and made available for examination.

Paragraph (f) of the Standard covers wire rope slings.

Paragraph (f)(1) requires employers to use only wire-rope slings that
have permanently affixed and legible identification markings as
prescribed by the manufacturer, and indicates the recommended safe
working load for the types of hitchs used, the angle upon which it is
based, and the number of legs if more than one.

Paragraph (f)(4)(ii) requires that all welded end attachments of wire
rope slings be proof tested by the manufacturer at twice their rated
capacity prior to initial use, and that the employer retain a
certificate of the proof test and make it available for examination.

Paragraph (g) of the Standard covers metal mesh slings.

Paragraph (g)(1) requires each metal mesh sling to have a durable
marking permanently affixed that states the rated capacity for vertical
basket hitch and choker hitch loadings.

Paragraph (g)(8)(ii) requires that once repaired, each metal mesh sling
be permanently marked or tagged, or a written record maintained to
indicate the date and type of the repairs made, and the person or
organization that performed the repairs.  Records of the repairs shall
be made available for examination.

Paragraph (h) of the Standard covers natural and synthetic fiber-rope
slings.

Paragraph (h)(1) requires each natural and synthetic fiber-rope sling to
have permanently affixed and legible identification markings stating the
rated capacity for the type of hitch used and angle upon which it is
based, type of fiber material, and the number of legs if more than one.

Paragraph (i) of the Standard covers synthetic web slings.

Paragraph (i)(1) requires that synthetic web slings be marked or coded
to show the rated capacities for each type of hitch and the type of
synthetic web material used in the sling.

Paragraph (i)(8)(i) prohibits the use of repaired synthetic web slings
until they have been proof tested by the manufacturer or an equivalent
entity.  Paragraph (i)(8)(ii) requires the employer to retain a
certificate of the proof test and make it available for examination.

The information on the identification tags, markings, and codings assist
the employer in determining whether the sling can be used for the
lifting task.  The sling inspections enable early detection of faulty
slings.  The inspection and repair records provide employers with
information about when the last inspection was made and about the type
of repairs made.  This information provides some assurance about the
condition of the slings.  These records also provide the most efficient
means for an OSHA compliance officer to determine that an employer is
complying with the Standard.  Proof-testing certificates give employers,
workers, and OSHA compliance officers assurance that slings are safe to
use.  The certificates also provide the compliance officers with an
efficient means to assess employer compliance with the Standard.

 3.  Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of
information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the
basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection.  Also
describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce
burden.

Employers may use automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
technological information collection techniques, or other forms of
information technology (e.g., electronic submission of responses) when
establishing and maintaining the required records.  The Agency wrote the
paperwork requirements of the Standard in performance oriented language
(i.e., in terms of what data to collect, not how to record the data).

 4.  Describe efforts to identify duplication.  Show specifically why
any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for
use for the purpose(s) described in A.2 above.

The requirements to collect and maintain information are specific to
each employer and worker involved, and no other source or agency
duplicates these requirements or can make the required information
available to OSHA (i.e., the required information is available only from
employers).

 5.  If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other
small entities, describe the methods used to reduce the burden.

The information collection requirements specified by the Standard do not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

 6.  Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if
the collection is or is not conducted less frequently, and any technical
or legal obstacles to reducing the burden.

The Agency believes that the information collection frequencies required
by the Standard are the minimum frequencies necessary to effectively
regulate slings, and; thereby, fulfill its mandate “to assure so far
as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions and to preserve our human resources” as specified
by the Act at 29 U.S.C. 651.  Accordingly, if employers do not perform
the required information collections, or delay in providing this
information, workers may inadvertently use defective or deteriorated
slings; thereby, increasing their probability of death or serious injury
caused by sling failure during material handling.

 7.  Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information
collection to be conducted in a manner:

      ·	requiring respondents to report information to the agency more
often than quarterly;

      ·	requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a
collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

      ·	requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two
copies of any document;

      ·	requiring respondents to retain records, other than health,
medical, government contract, grant-in-aid,  or tax records for more
than three years;

      ·  	in connection with a statistical survey that is not designed
to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the
universe of study;

      ·  	requiring the use of statistical data classification that has
not been reviewed and approved by OMB;

      · 	that includes a pledge of confidentially that is not supported
by authority established in statute or      regulation that is not
supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent
with the    pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with
other agencies for compatible confidential use; or

      · 	requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secret, or
other confidential information unless the agency can prove that it has
instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentially to the
extent permitted by law.

No special circumstances exist that require employers to collect
information using the procedures specified by this item.  The
requirements are within the guidelines set forth in 5 CFR 1320.5.

 8.  If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number
of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required
by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection
before submission to OMB.  Summarize public comments received in
response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in
response to those comments specifically address comments received on
cost and hour burdens.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain
their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the
clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting
format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, revealed, or
reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to
be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once
every three years -- even if the collection of information activity is
the same as in prior periods.  There may be circumstances that mitigate
against consultation in a specific situation.  These circumstances
should be explained.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)), OSHA will publish a notice in the Federal Register
soliciting public comments on its proposal to extend the Office of
Management and Budget’s approval of the information collection
requirements specified by the Standard on Slings (29 CFR 1910.184).
This notice is a part of a preclearance consultation program that
provides the general public with an opportunity to comment.  The Agency
will respond to any comments submitted in response to this notice.

9.  Explain any decision to provide any payments or gift to respondents,
other than reenumeration of contractors or grantees.

The Agency will not provide payments or gifts to the respondents.

10.  Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents
and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency
policy.

The paperwork requirements specified by the Standard do not involve
confidential information.

11.  Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive
nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and
other matters that are commonly considered private.  This justification
should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions
necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the
explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is
requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

None of the provisions in the Standard request sensitive information.

12.  Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of
information.  The statement should:

·	Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual
hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated.  Unless
directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain
information on which to base hour burden estimates.  Consultation with a
sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable.  If the
hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of
differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of
estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance.
Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and
usual business practices.

·	If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide
separate hour burden estimates for each form.

·	Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour
burdens for collections of information, identifying and using
appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying
outside parties for information collection activities should not be
included here.  Instead, this cost should be included in Item 13.

The Agency believes the use of permanently attached identification
markings will eliminate duplicative, inconsistent, and outdated
information; thus, minimizing confusion over the rated capacity of any
type of sling used by workers.  Furthermore, reliance on the information
marked on the sling simplifies compliance for employers by eliminating
the need to check tables or other sources of information.

OSHA amended its standards regulating slings at §1910.184 (general
industry), as well as §§1915.112, 1915.113, and 1915.118 (shipyard
employment), and §1926.251 (construction) on June 8, 2011 (76 FR 33590)
in its Standards Improvement Project Phase III.  OSHA removed outdated
tables that specified safe working loads, and revised other provisions
(e.g., §§1910.184(e)(6) and 1915.112) that reference the outdated
tables.  The load-capacity tables in OSHA’s standards were based on
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B30.9-1971 standard and
were obsolete, and no longer conformed to the load-capacity tables of
the updated ANSI B30.9-2010 standard.  OSHA replaced the outdated tables
with a requirement that prohibits employers from loading slings in
excess of the recommended safe working load as prescribed on permanently
affixed identification markings.  In addition it prohibits the use of
slings that do not have such markings.

Manufacturers produce slings with markings that indicate the sling’s
rated capacity (i.e., safe working load), the name or trademark of the
manufacturer, and other specifications (e.g., size, material used in
manufacturing the sling); this information prevents misuse of slings;
thereby, increasing worker safety and reducing costs.

Burden-Hour and Cost Determinations

The Agency estimates that the Standard covers approximately 1,350,000
slings, and that roughly 8% (108,000) are alloy steel chain slings, 60%
(810,000) are wire rope slings, 2% (27,000) are metal-mesh slings,  and
27% (364,500) are synthetic-web slings, 3% (40,500) are nature and
synthetic fiber rope slings.  OSHA used a wage rate of $35.60 for a
manufacturing worker and $52.54 for a supervisory manufacturing worker
in determining the cost of the paperwork requirements specified by the
Standard.

(A)  Alloy Steel Chain Slings (§1910.184(e))

Paragraph 1910.184(e)(1) requires that alloy steel chain slings have
permanently affixed and durable identification stating size, grade,
rated capacity, and reach of the sling.  The information, supplied by
the manufacturer, is typically marked on a metal tag and affixed to the
sling.  The manufacturer provides this information as a usual and
customary practice at the time of sale. However, if the tag comes off,
another tag or marking with the required information must be affixed to
the sling.  OSHA estimates that only a small percentage of slings would
fall into this category, as low as .1% (108), and that it would take
about 30 minutes (.5 hour) to acquire the information, make a new tag,
and affix it to the sling.  A manufacturing worker would perform this
task.

Burden hours:	108 slings × .5 hour = 54 hours

  Cost:	54 hours × $35.60 = $1,922

Paragraph (e)(3)(i) requires the employer to make a thorough periodic
inspection of alloy steel chain slings in use on a regular basis, but at
least once a year.  Paragraph 1910.184(e)(3)(ii) requires the employer
to make and maintain a record of the most recent month in which each
alloy steel chain sling was thoroughly inspected.  OSHA estimates that
approximately 70% (75,600) of alloy steel chain slings are in use on a
regular basis each year.  It is also estimated that it takes 15 minutes
(.25 hour) for a manufacturing worker to conduct the inspection and to
generate and maintain the inspection record once a year.

Burden hours:	75,600 slings × .25 hour = 18,900 hours

  Cost:	18,900 hours × $ 35.60 = $672,840

Paragraph 1910.184(e)(4) requires the employer to ensure that before
use, each new, repaired, or reconditioned alloy steel chain sling,
including all welded components in the sling assembly, be proof tested
by the sling manufacturer, and that the certificate of proof testing be
maintained by the employer and made available for examination.  The
manufacturer normally performs the proof test and marks the equipment.
OSHA estimates that 25% (27,000) of the alloy steel chain slings are
replaced, repaired, or reconditioned each year.  The manufacturer will
prepare a certificate of the proof test as a usual and customary
practice, so the employer has no burden for this activity.  However, the
employer will incur a burden to maintain the certificate, which the
Agency estimates takes a manufacturing worker 1 minute (.02 hour) to
perform for each sling.

Burden hours:	27,000 slings × .02 hour = 540 hours

  Cost:	540 hours × $35.60 = $19,224

(B)  Wire Rope Slings (§1910.184(f))

Paragraph 1910.184(f)(1) requires each wire-rope sling to have
permanently affixed and legible identification marking that indicates
the safe working load for the type of hitch used, the angle upon which
it is based, and the number of legs if more than one. This information
will be supplied by the manufacturer initially, and the only burden to
the employer would be to replace the initial tag or marking.  OSHA
estimates that only a small percentage of slings would fall into this
category, as low as .1%  (810), and it would take about 30 minutes (.50
hours) for a manufacturing worker to acquire the information, make a new
tag, and affix it to the sling.

Burden hours:	810 slings × .50 hour = 405 hours

  Cost:	405 hours × $35.60 = $14,418

Paragraph 1910.184(f)(4)(ii) requires that all welded end attachments be
proof tested by the manufacturer at twice their rated capacity prior to
initial use, and that the employer maintain the certificate of proof
test.  OSHA estimates that 10% (81,000) of the wire rope slings have
welded end attachments.  The employer has no burden associated with the
proof testing because the manufacturer, for liability reasons, and as a
normal and customary practice, will test the equipment and provide a
certificate to the employer.  However, the employer must maintain the
certificate.  OSHA estimates that a manufacturing worker spends 1 minute
(.02 hour) maintaining a certificate for each sling.

Burden hours:	81,000 slings × .02 hour = 1,620 hours

  Cost:	1,620 hours × $35.60 = $57,672

(C)  Metal Mesh Slings (§1910.184(g))

Paragraph 1910.184(g)(1) requires each metal mesh sling to have a
durable marking permanently affixed to it that indicates the rated
capacity for vertical basket hitch and choker hitch loadings. This
information will be supplied by the manufacturer initially, and the only
burden to the employer would be to replace the initial tag or marking.
OSHA estimates that only a small percentage of slings would fall into
this category, as low as .1%  (27), and it would take about 30 minutes
(.50 hours) for a manufacturing worker to acquire the information, make
a new tag, and affix it to the sling.

Burden hours:	27 slings × .50 hour = 14 hours

  Cost:	14 hours × $35.60 = $498

Paragraph 1910.184(g)(8)(ii) requires that once repaired, each sling
shall be permanently marked or tagged, or a written record prepared for
the employer, that contains the information specified in the Standard.
The employer must maintain this record.  Accordingly, OSHA estimates
that the manufacturer, as a usual and customary practice, will affix
markings stating the rated capacity for vertical basket hitch and choker
hitch loadings as required under paragraph 1910.184(g)(1). OSHA also
estimates that manufacturers will provide written records for about 10%
(2,700) of the repaired slings.  The remaining slings are either tagged
or marked permanently as specified in the Standard.  The manufacturer
will prepare the certificate for the employer, and will provide tags or
markings, as a usual and customary practice; hence, the employer has no
burden for this activity.  However, the employer must maintain the
written records as required by paragraph 1910.184(g)(8)(ii).  The Agency
estimates that it takes a manufacturing worker 1 minute (.02 hour) to
complete this task.

Burden hours:	2,700 slings × .02 hour = 54 hours

  Cost:	54 hours × $35.60 = $1,922

(D)  Natural and Synthetic Fiber Rope Slings (§1910.184(h)(1))

Paragraph (h)(1) requires each natural and synthetic fiber-rope sling to
have permanently affixed and legible identification markings stating the
rated capacity for the types of hitchs used and angle upon which it is
based, type of fiber material, and the number of legs if more than one.
This information will be supplied by the manufacturer initially, and the
only burden to the employer would be to replace the initial tag or
marking.  OSHA estimates that only a small percentage of slings would
fall into this category, as low as .1%  (41), and it would take about 30
minutes (.50 hours) for a manufacturing worker to acquire the
information, make a new tag, and affix it to the sling.

Burden hours:	41 slings ×.50 hour = 21 hours

  Cost:	21 hours × $35.60 = $748

(E) Synthetic Web Slings (§1910.184(i))

Paragraph (i)(1) requires that synthetic web slings be marked or coded
to show the rated capacities for each type of hitch, and the synthetic
web material used in the sling. This information will be provided by the
manufacturer as a usual and customary practice at the time of sale.
However, if the mark or code needs to be replaced, OSHA estimates that
it will take a manufacturing worker about 30 minutes (.50 hour) to
acquire the information and attach the marking or coding to the sling.
OSHA estimates that only a few slings, about .1% (365), fall into this
category.

Burden hours:	365 slings × .50 hour = 183 hours

  Cost:	183 hours × $35.60 = $6,515

Paragraph 1910.184(i)(8)(ii) prohibits the use of repaired synthetic web
slings that have not been proof tested by the manufacturer.  The
employer shall maintain a certificate of the proof test.  The
manufacturer will prepare a certificate of the proof test as a usual and
customary practice, so the employer has no burden for this activity.
However, the employer will incur a burden to maintain the certificate.
The Agency estimates that a manufacturing worker spends 1 minute (.02
hour) performing this activity.  OSHA estimates that, in any given year,
25% (91,125) of the synthetic web slings are repaired.

Burden hours:	91,125 slings × .02 hour = 1,823 hours

  Cost:	1,823 hours × $35.60 = $64,899

(F)  Disclosure of Certificates

The Agency believes that approximately 18,900 slings covered by the
Standard may be subject to an inspection each year, during which the
employer may be required to disclose certification records.  OSHA
estimates that it will take a supervisory manufacturing worker 2 minutes
(.03 hour) to disclose the records for each sling.

Burden hours:	18,900 slings × .03 hour = 567

  Cost:	567 burden hour × $52.24 = $29,620

13.  Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents
or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information.  (Do not
include the cost of any hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14.)

•	The cost estimate should be split into two components:  (a) a total
capital and start-up cost component annualized over its expected useful
life); and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of service
component.  The estimates should take into account costs associated with
generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information.
Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors
including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of
capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which
costs will be incurred.  Capital and start-up costs include, among other
items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing
computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing
equipment; and record storage facilities.

	•		If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should
present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance.
 The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collection
services should be a part of this cost burden estimate.  In developing
cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondent
(fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment
process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis
associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as
appropriate.

•	Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or
services, or portions thereof, made:  1)  prior to October 1, 1995, (2)
to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with
the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide
information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of
customary and usual business or private practices.

Item 12 above provides the total cost of the information collection
requirements specified by the Standard.

14.  Provide estimates of the annualized cost to the Federal Government.
 Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which
should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as
equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), any other expense
that would not have been incurred without this collection of
information.  Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12,
13, and 14 into a single table.

OSHA estimates that a compliance officer (GS-12, step 5), with an hourly
wage rate of $37.74, spends about 5 minutes (.08 hour) during an
inspection reviewing the documents required by the Standard.  The Agency
determined that its compliance officers will inspect 18,900 slings
covered by the Standard during each year covered by this ICR (see
footnote 4).  OSHA considers other expenses, such as equipment,
overhead, and support staff salaries, to be normal operating expenses
that would occur without the paperwork requirements specified by the
Standards. Therefore, the total cost of these paperwork requirements to
the Federal government is:

			Cost:	18,900 inspections × .08 hour × $37.74 = $57,063

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.

OSHA is proposing to increase the existing burden hour estimate for the
collection of information requirements specified by the Standard from
20,001 hours to 24,181 hours (a total increase of 4,180 hours).  This
increase in burden hours is a result of an adjustment in the number of
slings (from 1,116,667 to 1,350,000).

16.  For collections of information whose results will be published,
outline plans for tabulation, and publication.  Address any complex
analytical techniques that will be used.  Provide the time schedule for
the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the
collection information, completion of report, publication dates, and
other actions.

OSHA will not publish the information collected under the Standard.

17.  If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB
approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display
would be appropriate.

OSHA lists current valid control numbers in §§1910.8, 1915.8, 1917.4,
1918.4, and 1926.5 and publishes the expiration date in the Federal
Register notice announcing OMB approval of the information collection
requirement (see 5 CFR 1320.3(f)(3)).  OSHA believes that this is the
most appropriate and accurate mechanism to inform interested parties of
these expiration dates.

18.  Explain each exception to the certification statement.

OSHA is not seeking an exception.

B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

The supporting statement does not contain any collection of information
requirements that employs statistical methods.

Table 1

Proposed Burden-Hour Adjustments

Information Collection Requirement	Current

Burden Hours	Proposed

 Burden Hours

Adjustment

(Hours)

Cost Under

Item 12

Responses

Explanation of Adjustment

(A)  Alloy Steel Chain Slings

§1910.184 (e)(1)	45	54	9	$1,922	108	New data indicates an increase in
the number of alloy steel chain slings from 89,333 to 108,000.

§1910.184(e)(3)(i)	15,633	18,900	3,267	$672,840	75,600	New data
indicates an increase in the number of alloy steel chain slings from
89,333 to 108,000.

§1910.184(e)(4)	447	540	93	$19,224	27,000	New data indicates an
increase in the number of alloy steel chain slings from 89,333 to
108,000.

(B)  Wire Rope Slings

§1910.184(f)(1)

	335	405	70	$14,418	810	New data indicates an increase in the estimated
number of wire rope slings from 670,000 to 810,000.

 §1910.184(f)(4)(ii) 	1,340	1,620	280	$57,672	81,000	New data indicates
an increase in the estimated number of synthetic web slings from 301,500
to 364,500.

(C)  Metal Mesh Slings

New data indicates an increase in the estimated number of metal mesh
slings from 22,333 to 27,000.

§1910.184(g)(1)	11	14	3	$498	27	New data indicates an increase in the
estimated number of metal mesh slings from 22,333 to 27,000.

§1910.184(g)(8)(ii)	45	54	9	$1,922	2,700	New data indicates an increase
in the number of synthetic web slings from 301,500 to 364,500.

(D) Natural and Synthetic Fiber Rope Slings

§1910.184(h)(1)	17	21	4	$748	41	New data indicates an increase in the
estimated number of natural and synthetic fiber rope slings from 301,500
to 364,500.

(E) Synthetic Web Slings

§1910.184(i)(1)	151	183	32	$6,515	365	New data indicates an increase in
the estimated number of synthetic web slings from 301,500 to 364,500.

§1910.184(i)(8)(ii)	1,508	1,823	315	$64,899	91,125	New data indicates
an increase in the number of synthetic web slings from 301,500 to
364,500.

(F)  Disclosure of Certificates	469	567	98	$29,620	18,900	The disclosure
burden assumes that a specific percentage (1.4%) of the 1,116,667 total
slings to 1,350,000 covered by the Standard will be subject to an OSHA
inspection, and that a supervisory manufacturing worker will disclose
the documents to an OSHA compliance officer during the inspection.

TOTALS	20,001	  =SUM(ABOVE)  24,181 	4,180	  =SUM(ABOVE)  $870,2 78
297,676

The purpose of this Supporting Statement is to analyze and describe the
burden hours and cost associated with provisions of this standard that
contain paperwork requirements; this Supporting Statement does not
provide information or guidance on how to comply with, or how to
enforce, these provisions.

OSHA contacted two chain and wire companies to obtain information on the
number of chain slings in use. The Agency was not able to obtain data
from industry representatives on the number of slings in use; therefore,
for this ICR, OSHA extrapolated from the change in the number of slings
from 2008 (1,000,000) to 2010 (1,116,667) and estimated the 2014 value,
based on the assumption that the number of slings has increased at the
same average annual rate since 2008.

Source:  Employer Costs for Worker Compensation, U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2014.

The Agency estimated the number of inspections by determining the
inspection rate (1.4%) for all slings under the jurisdiction of the Act
(including both Federal OSHA and approved state-plan agencies), and then
multiplying the total number of slings regulated under the Standard by
this percentage (i.e., 1,350,000 slings × 1.4% = 18,900 slings
inspected).

Source:  U.S. Office of Personnel Management, General Schedule and
Locality Tables, Salary Table 2014-RUS,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salar
y-tables/pdf/2014/salhrl.pdf"
http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary
-tables/pdf/2014/salhrl.pdf .

 PAGE

( PAGE  14 (

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53824-53825]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-70]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before September 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0629 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov

and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20951.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 5, 2014.
Brenda D. Courtney,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition For Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0629
    Petitioner: Aetos Group Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR: parts 21 Subpart H, 45.23(b), 47.3(b)(2),
47.31(c), 61.133(a)(1)(ii), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.119, 91.121,
91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2),
and 91.417(a) and (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking an
exemption to commercially operate their small unmanned aircraft systems
(sUAS) for the purposes of aerial inspection of specific chemical plant
infrastructure and environmental monitoring in the petrochemical
industry.
[FR Doc. 2014-21580 Filed 9-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 50761]
[DOCID:fr17au10-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-77-000]

Corning Natural Gas Corporation; Notice of Petition Approval of
Rate Reduction Agreement

August 10, 2010.
    Take notice that on August 4, 2010, Corning Natural Gas Corporation
(Corning) filed a petition for approval of a rate reduction agreement,
pursuant to Rule 207(a)(5) of the Commissions regulations. Corning
proposed to lower its fuel retention rate from 1.32 percent to 0.5
percent.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, August 23, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20205 Filed 8-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6554-6555]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03012]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-11-000]

East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review of the Lewis Creek Amendment

    On October 27, 2017, East Cheyenne Gas Storage, LLC (East Cheyenne)
filed an application in Docket No. CP18-11-000 requesting a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline
facilities. The proposed project, known as the Lewis Creek Amendment
Project (Project), would combine the working gas capacity and cushion
gas capacity for the West Peetz and Lewis Creek Storage Fields and
utilize the same maximum bottom-hole pressure, thus eliminating
separately certified capacities for each field. East Cheyenne requests
this amendment because recent geologic information shows that the West
Peetz and Lewis Creek D-sands in the storage field are a single
integrated reservoir. As part of this consolidation, East Cheyenne
would reconfigure certain natural gas facilities in the Lewis Creek
Storage Field; and expand the authorized buffer zone of the East
Cheyenne Project.
    On November 8, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of EA, March 30, 2018.
    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline, June 28, 2018.
    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    East Cheyenne is requesting authorization to amend its certificate
previously issued in Docket No. CP10-34-000, for the East Cheyenne Gas
Storage Project in Logan County, Colorado. As part of the West Peetz
and Lewis Creek Field consolidation, East Cheyenne would reconfigure
the well layout on the Lewis Creek portion of the Project by reducing
the number of injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells by consolidating the
wells on a single well pad, and reconfiguring the currently
certificated Lewis Creek monitoring wells. Specifically, East Cheyenne
would reconfigure the I/W well in the Lewis Creek portion of the
project by converting one existing non-jurisdictional well to an I/W
well (LC-D021) and collocating five directionally drilled I/W wells
(LC-D022, LC-D023, LC-D024, LC-D025, and LC-D026) on the LC-2021 well
pad. Additionally, East Cheyenne would decrease the total cushion gas
capacity to 12.1 billion cubic feet and increase the total working gas
capacity to 22.5 billion cubic feet. East Cheyenne would also
reconfigure its existing pipelines and reduce the diameter of the
existing 20-inch-diameter natural gas mainline to a 16-inch-diameter
pipeline. Furthermore, East Cheyenne would reconfigure the existing 16-
inch diameter Lewis Creek natural gas mainline and the 6-inch-diameter
water disposal pipeline to connect directly to the reconfigured I/W
wells LC-D021 through LC-D026 on a single well pad.

Background

    On December 8, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Lewis Creek
Amendment and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The
NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local
government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and
local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission
received comments from the Bureau of Land Management and the Logan
County Economic Development Corporation support the applicant's
request.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. 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. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP18-11), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected].
    The eLibrary link on the FERC website also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: February 8, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03012 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13740-13742]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04425]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0138; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-20]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Calvert, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface

for Kentucky Dam State Park Airport, Calvert City, KY, to accommodate
area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard
instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving this airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify Docket No. FAA-
2023-0138; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-20 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G Airspace Designations and Reporting Points
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, contact the Rules
and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would establish airspace in Culvert, KY, to support IFR
operations in the area.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide a factual basis supporting the views
and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2023-0138; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-20) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
the address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0138; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-20.'' The
postcard will be dated/time-stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be change in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. These updates would subsequently be published in the next
update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly
available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class
E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for
Kentucky Dam State Park Airport, Calvert City, KY, to accommodate RNAV
GPS standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving this
airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management
of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO KY E5 Culvert, KY [Established]

Kentucky Dam State Park Airport, KY
    (Lat 37[deg]00'35'' N, long. 88[deg]17'58'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Kentucky Dam State Park Airport and
within 4 miles on each side of the 098[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.2 miles east of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 16, 2023
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2023-04425 Filed 3-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 219)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64009-64010]
[DOCID:fr14no07-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29333; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-141-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, and -900 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); extension of comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: This document extends the comment period for the above-
referenced NPRM, which proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. The NRPM would require various
repetitive inspections to detect cracks along the chemically milled
steps of the fuselage skin or missing or loose fasteners in the area of
the preventative modification or repairs, replacement of the time-
limited repair with the permanent repair if applicable, and applicable
corrective actions if necessary, which would end certain repetitive
inspections. The NPRM results from a fatigue test that revealed
numerous cracks in the upper skin panel at the chemically milled step
above the lap joint. This extension of the comment period is necessary
to ensure that all interested persons have ample opportunity to submit
any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding the NPRM.

DATES: We must receive comments on this NPRM by December 3, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6447; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD (the ``original NPRM'')
for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series
airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the Federal Register on
September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55118). The original NPRM proposed to require
various repetitive inspections to detect cracks along the chemically
milled steps of the fuselage skin or missing or loose fasteners in the
area of the preventative modification or repairs, replacement of the
time-limited repair with the permanent repair if applicable, and
applicable corrective actions if necessary, which would end certain
repetitive inspections. The original NPRM also invites comments on its
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects.

Events Leading to Extension of Comment Period

    Since we issued the NPRM, the DOT's Docket Management System (DMS)
was replaced by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a
government-wide, electronic docket management system, which contains
the public dockets and is the method used for submitting comments on
the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of
proposed rulemaking actions. However, due to the

service disruption caused by the transition from DOT's DMS to the FDMS,
the docket material was not posted on the FDMS until November 1, 2007.
Therefore, we have determined that the public was not provided adequate
opportunity to submit comments on the NPRM. As a result, we have
decided to extend the comment period for this NPRM until December 3,
2007, to receive additional comments.

FAA's Determination

    We have considered this issue and find it appropriate to extend the
comment period to give all interested persons additional time to
examine the proposed requirements of the original NPRM and submit
comments. After evaluating the circumstances stated previously, we have
determined that extending the comment period until December 3, 2007,
will not compromise the safety of these airplanes.

Extension of Comment Period

    The comment period for Docket No. FAA-2007-29333; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NM-141-AD; has been revised. The comment period now
closes December 3, 2007.
    No other part of the regulatory information has been changed;
therefore, the original NPRM is not republished in the Federal
Register.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 7, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 07-5656 Filed 11-9-07; 10:10 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P