[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81462-81463]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25776]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98967; File No. SR-NYSE-2023-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 312.03(b) of the NYSE Listed
Company Manual To Modify the Circumstances Under Which a Listed Company
Must Obtain Shareholder Approval of a Sale of Securities Below the
Minimum Price to a Substantial Security Holder of the Company

November 16, 2023.
    On September 26, 2023, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Section 312.03(b) of the NYSE Listed
Company Manual (``Manual'') to modify the circumstances under which a
listed company must obtain shareholder approval of a sale of securities
below the Minimum Price \3\ to a substantial security holder of the
listed company. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on October 4, 2023.\4\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Minimum Price is defined in Section 312.04(h) of the Manual.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. No. 98662 (September
29, 2023), 88 FR 68675 (October 4, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the

proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule change should be disapproved. The 45th day after
publication of the notice for this proposed rule change is November 18,
2023. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates January 2, 2024, as the date by which the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
NYSE-2023-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

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

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25776 Filed 11-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


ATTACHMENT 3

Copy of EPA’s Consultations Request to Potential Respondents

Date:		March 26, 2009

From:		Amuel Kennedy/DC/USEPA/US

To: 		[Addressees]

Subject:	Request for Comments on Information Collection Request Renewal
for Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and the
Environment under TSCA Section 8(e); EPA ICR No. 0794.12, OMB Control
No. 2070-0046

On February 13, 2009, EPA published a Notice in the Federal Register (74
FR 7227) for Notification of Substantial Risk of Injury to Health and
the Environment under TSCA Section 8(e) Request for Comment on Renewal
of Information Collection Activities.; EPA ICR No. 0794.12, OMB Control
No. 2070-0046.”

(http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2009/February/Day-13/t3054.htm)
This Notice refers to EPA's intention to request renewed Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of an information collection
related to reporting and recordkeeping requirements for TSCA Section
8(e) submissions.

In addition to public notice and comment requirement that the above
Notice initiates, OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)) require
agencies to consult with potential respondents and data users about
specific aspects of an information collection request (ICR) before
submitting it to OMB for review and approval, regardless, in the case of
ICR renewals, of whether changes have or have not been made to the
collection activity.

As part of this required consultation, I am contacting you to solicit
your input.  I will also note that, if you take this opportunity to
provide input, your name, affiliation, e-mail address, phone number and
any information you provide (e.g., copies of e-mails) will be
incorporated and attached to the ICR supporting statement, which will be
a public document.  In addition, the OMB Desk Examiner for the ICR in
question may contact you to verify the accuracy of any comments EPA
identifies in the ICR.

EPA solicits your input on the following questions:

Are the data EPA seeks under this ICR available from any public source,
or already collected by another EPA office or by another agency?  If so,
where can the data be found?

Is it clear what is required for data submission?  If not, are there any
suggestions for clarifying instructions?

Would you be interested in an electronic/data submission option?  What
type of alternative would you be most likely to utilize – web form,
diskette, CD-ROM?

For electronic submission, how should signature requirements be handled
–

Private Key Infrastructure, PINS and passwords, signed paper cover
sheet?

How does TSCA CBI affect your choice or use of an electronic medium?
Would you be more inclined to submit TSCA CBI on diskette than on paper
and what benefits would you realize (e.g., burden reduction, greater
efficiency in compiling information, etc).

Do you agree with EPA's estimated burden and costs (the ICR addresses
only the costs associated with paperwork)?  Are the Bureau of Labor
Statistics

(BLS) labor rates accurate?  If you have any reason to consider the BLS
labor rates as used by EPA inaccurate or inappropriate, explain your
rationale.

You can access the Federal Register Notice, the ICR supporting document,
and any public comments received to date at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main"
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main

select Advanced Search link at the top of the page

select Docket from drop-down menu

select EPA in the Agency drop-down menu

enter EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0378 in the Docket ID field

scroll down to Submit

then click on the Docket ID in the search results for a listing of the
documents within the docket

Your timely response will be greatly appreciated.  If you have any
comments in response to the above questions, or with respect to any
other part of the information collection, please respond by return
e-mail by April 14, 2009.  EPA will consider those responses, as well as
any public comment received in response to the Federal Register Notice
identified above, in preparing a final document for OMB review.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Amuel Kennedy

Environmental Protection Agency


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7341-7345]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02585]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0938; FRL-9922-73-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Transportation Conformity and Conformity of General Federal Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of New Mexico on October 28, 2011, November 1,
2013, and August 8, 2014. These revisions amend the State
transportation conformity provisions and remove the State general
conformity provisions from the SIP, as allowed by the 2005 amendments
to the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). These revisions also establish
transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to
interagency consultation and enforceability of certain transportation-
related control measures and mitigation measures. Upon the effective
date of this final action, the EPA federal rules will govern conformity
of transportation Federal actions and general Federal actions within
the State of New Mexico. This action is being taken in accordance with
sections 110 and 176 of the Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 13, 2015 without further notice,
unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by March 12, 2015. If EPA
receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2011-0938, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions.
     Email: Jeffrey Riley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2011-0938. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM
submitted. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
contact Mr. Riley or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. EPA's Evaluation
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

A. Call to States for Conformity SIP Revisions

    In the CAA, Congress recognized that actions taken by Federal
agencies could affect a State, Tribal, or local agency's ability to
attain and maintain the NAAQS. Congress added section 176(c) (42 U.S.C.
7506) to the CAA to ensure Federal agencies' proposed actions conform
to the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP), Tribal
Implementation Plan (TIP) or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for
attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. That section requires Federal
entities to find that the emissions from the Federal action will
conform with the purposes of the SIP, TIP or FIP or not otherwise
interfere with the State's or Tribe's ability to attain and maintain
the NAAQS.
    The CAA Amendments of 1990 clarified and strengthened the
provisions in section 176(c). Because certain provisions of section
176(c) apply only to highway and mass transit funding and approvals
actions, EPA published two sets of regulations to implement section
176(c). The Transportation Conformity Regulations, (40 CFR part 51,
subpart T, and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) first published on November
24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), address Federal actions related to highway and
mass transit funding and approval actions. The General Conformity
Regulations, (40 CFR part 51, subpart W, and 40 CFR part 93, subpart B)
published on November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214), cover all other Federal
actions. These two conformity regulations have been revised numerous
times.
    When promulgated in 1993, the Federal transportation conformity
rule at 40 CFR 51.395 mandated that the transportation conformity SIP
revision incorporate several provisions of the rule in verbatim form,
except in so far as needed to give effect to a stated intent in the
revision to establish criteria and procedures more stringent than the
requirements stated in these sections. Similarly, 40 CFR 51.851
required the State's general conformity provisions must contain
criteria and procedures that are no less stringent than the Federal
general conformity regulation; however, the State could establish more
stringent general conformity criteria and procedures if they apply
equally to non-Federal, as well as Federal, entities.

B. What is transportation conformity?

    Transportation conformity is required under Section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act to ensure that Federally supported highway projects,
transit projects, and other activities are consistent with (``conform
to'') the purpose of the SIP. Transportation conformity currently
applies to areas that are designated nonattainment, as well as those
areas redesignated to attainment after 1990 (maintenance areas), with
plans developed under section 175A of the Act for the following
transportation related pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter
(PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and
nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the relevant national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The
transportation conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR
51.390.

C. What is general conformity?

    General Conformity is also a requirement of section 176(c) of the
CAA to ensure that no Federally supported actions outside of highway
and transit projects interfere with the purpose of the approved SIP,
i.e. the SIP's protection of the NAAQS. General conformity requirements
currently apply to the following criteria pollutants: Ozone,
particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), carbon
monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and lead. The general conformity regulation is found
in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B and provisions related to conformity SIPs
are found in 40 CFR 51.851.

D. Transportation Conformity Provisions Affected by the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

    On August 10, 2005, the SAFETEA-LU was signed into law streamlining
the requirements for conformity SIPs at section 176(c) of the CAA.
Prior to SAFETEA-LU, states were required to address all of the Federal
conformity rule's provisions in their conformity SIPs. After SAFETEA-LU
amended CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) and EPA revised 40 CFR 51.390 to be
consistent with those amendments, states are required to address and
tailor only three sections of the conformity rule in their
transportation conformity SIPs. These three sections of the Federal
rule which must meet a state's individual circumstances are: 40 CFR
93.105, which addresses consultation procedures; 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii), which requires that written commitments be obtained
for control measures that are not included in a Metropolitan Planning
Organization's (MPO's) transportation plan and transportation
improvement program prior to a conformity determination, and that such
commitments be fulfilled; and, 40 CFR 93.125(c) which requires that
written commitments be obtained for mitigation measures prior to a
project level conformity determination, and that project sponsors must
comply with such commitments. In general, states are no longer required
to submit conformity SIP revisions that address the other sections of
the conformity rule.

E. General Conformity Affected by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)

    On August 10, 2005, SAFETEA-LU was signed into law, and among other
things, it amended the CAA to eliminate the requirement for States to
adopt and submit General Conformity SIPs. On April 5, 2010 (75 FR
17254), EPA updated the General Conformity SIP Regulations to, among
other things, be consistent with SAFETEA-LU by eliminating the Federal
regulatory requirement for states to adopt and submit general
conformity SIPs, instead making submission of a general conformity SIP
a state option. See 40 CFR 51.851.

F. Prior New Mexico Conformity SIP Revision Actions

    On September 9, 1998 (63 FR 48106), EPA approved New Mexico
Administrative Code (NMAC) 20.2.98, ``Conformity of General Federal
Actions to the State Implementation Plan.'' New Mexico's rule mirrored
and specifically referenced the federal requirements in 40 CFR part 93,
subpart B and 40 CFR part 51, subpart W.
    On March 20, 2000 (65 FR 14873), EPA approved NMAC 20.2.99,
``Conformity to the State Implementation Plan of Transportation Plans,
Programs and Projects.'' New Mexico's rule mirrored and specifically
referenced the federal requirements in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A and 40
CFR part 51, subpart T. On April 23, 2010 (75 FR 21169), EPA approved
revisions to NMAC 20.2.99 submitted by the State of New Mexico on
November 2, 2006, June 27, 2007, and May 13, 2009.

G. State Submittals

    On October 10, 2011, the State of New Mexico submitted a SIP
revision consisting of amendments to NMAC 20.2.99, Conformity of the
State Implementation Plan of Transportation Plans, Programs, and
Projects. The

revision consisted of language to reflect the March 24, 2010 (75 FR
14260) amendments to 40 CFR part 93, subpart A to address
PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment areas.
    On September 26, 2012 the Secretary of NMED submitted a letter to
EPA requesting that EPA only consider and act upon three elements (40
CFR 93.105; 93.122(a)(4)(ii); and 93.125(c)) contained in its October
10, 2011 transportation conformity SIP submittal, pursuant to the
SAFETEA-LU amendments to CAA section 176(c)(4)(E). The October 10, 2011
SIP submittal did not contain any revisions to the EPA-approved
transportation conformity SIP to remove/repeal additional provisions
beyond the three above-noted elements, and thus these additional
provisions no longer required under SAFETEA-LU remained in the SIP. The
September 26, 2012 letter was intended to streamline the New Mexico
transportation conformity SIP, pursuant to SAFETEA-LU amendments the
CAA. Together the October 10, 2011 SIP revision and the September 26,
2012 letter were insufficient to achieve the intended streamlining.
    On August 8, 2014, the State of New Mexico submitted an additional
SIP revision consisting of the SAFETEA-LU required SIP elements and a
repeal of the remainder of NMAC 20.2.99, which contained state
requirements that were beyond what is required by SAFETEA-LU. The
repeal of NMAC 20.2.99 eliminates the need for the state to undertake
additional rulemaking to revise their state rules by incorporating by
reference the federal rules on Transportation Conformity.
    On November 1, 2013, the State of New Mexico submitted SIP
revisions consisting of a repeal of NMAC 20.2.98, Conformity of General
Federal Actions to the State Implementation Plan. The repeal of the
state rule is intended to eliminate the need for future state rule
revisions as a result of amendments to federal regulations. Section
6011(f) of SAFETEA-LU revised section 176(c)(4)(A) of the CAA by
deleting the requirement for the states to adopt and submit a General
Conformity SIP.

II. EPA's Evaluation

    We have reviewed New Mexico's submittals to ensure consistency with
the current Clean Air Act, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, and EPA
regulations governing state procedures for transportation and general
conformity (40 CFR part 93, subparts A and B, 40 CFR 51.390, and 40 CFR
51.851).
    The November 1, 2013 revision, upon final approval by EPA, removes
20.2.98 NMAC, ``Conformity of General Federal Actions to the State
Implementation Plan,'' from the SIP. With the removal of 20.2.98 NMAC
from the SIP, the federal rules in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B will
directly govern conformity of general federal actions in the State of
New Mexico. In addition, New Mexico's November 1, 2013 revision meets
the requirements set forth in section 110(l) of the CAA with respect to
adoption and submission of SIP revisions. 40 CFR part 93, subpart B
continues to subject certain federal actions to general conformity
requirements without the need for identical state rules and SIPs.
Therefore, repealing the state rule will not impact continuity of the
general conformity program in New Mexico, and consequently meets the
requirements of section 110(l).
    Together, the October 10, 2011 and August 8, 2014 revisions, upon
final approval by EPA, remove specific provisions of 20.2.99 NMAC,
``Conformity to the State Implementation Plan of Transportation Plans,
Programs, and Projects,'' from the SIP that are no longer required in
light of the SAFETEA-LU amendments. With the removal of these specific
provisions of 20.2.99 NMAC from the SIP, the federal rules in 40 CFR
part 93, subpart A will directly govern transportation conformity of
federal actions in the State of New Mexico. This revision complies with
the requirements of CAA section 176(c)(4)(e) and 40 CFR 51.390(b). In
addition, New Mexico's October 10, 2011 and August 8, 2014 SIP
revisions meet the requirements set forth in section 110(l) of the CAA
with respect to adoption and submission of SIP revisions. 40 CFR part
93, subpart A continues to subject certain federal actions to
transportation conformity requirements without the need for identical
state rules and SIPs. Therefore, repealing the state rule will not
impact continuity of the transportation conformity program in New
Mexico.
    In addition to provisions addressing the requirements at 40 CFR
93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c), the State's August, 2014
submittal also includes revisions to definitions and changed language
to clarify the scope, applicability, and statutory authority of the
state's transportation conformity SIP.

III. Final Action

    We are taking direct final action to approve revisions to the New
Mexico SIP submitted on October 10, 2011, November 1, 2013, and August
8, 2014, that pertain to removal of NMAC 20.2.98, ``Conformity of
General Federal Actions to the State Implementation Plan,'' and
specific provisions of NMAC 20.2.99, ``Conformity to the State
Implementation Plan of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects''
from the SIP. The approval of New Mexico's conformity SIP revisions
will align the New Mexico SIP with the current Clean Air Act conformity
requirements, as amended by SAFETEA-LU, and the most recent EPA
regulations governing state procedures for transportation and general
conformity.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse
comments are received. This rule will be effective on April 13, 2015
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse comment by
March 12, 2015. If we receive relevant adverse comments, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will
not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive
relevant adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 13, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 28, 2015.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart GG--New Mexico

0
2. In Sec.  52.1620, the first table in paragraph (c) entitled ``EPA
Approved New Mexico Regulations'' is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry for ``Part 98, General Conformity.''
0
b. Revising the entries for ``<IP_ADDRESS>-<IP_ADDRESS>.''
0
c. Removing the entries for ``<IP_ADDRESS>-<IP_ADDRESS>.''
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                       EPA-Approved New Mexico Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
                                                             approval/
         State citation               Title/subject          effective    EPA Approval date        Comments
                                                               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Part 99--Transportation Conformity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Issuing Agency.........       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Scope..................       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Statutory Authority....       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Duration...............       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Effective Date.........       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Objective..............       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Definitions............       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Documents..............       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS> to <IP_ADDRESS>.......  [Reserved].............       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].

<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Applicability..........       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Consultation...........       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Agency Roles in               7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                  Consultation.                            Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Agency Responsibilities       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                  in Consultation.                         Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  General Consultation          7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                  Procedures.                              Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Consultation Procedures       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                  for Specific Major                       Federal Register
                                  Activities.                              Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Consultation Procedures       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                  for Specific Routine                     Federal Register
                                  Activities.                              Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Notification Procedures       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                  for Routine Activities.                  Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Conflict Resolution and       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                  Appeals to the                           Federal Register
                                  Governor.                                Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Public Consultation           7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                  Procedures.                              Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Enforceability of             7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                  Design Concept and                       Federal Register
                                  Scope and Project-                       Citation].
                                  Level Mitigation and
                                  Control Measures.
<IP_ADDRESS>....................  Savings Provision......       7/11/2014  2/10/15 [Insert    ...................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           Citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-02585 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 74227-74228]
[DOCID:fr05de08-132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0189]

Initial Decision That Certain BMW Mini Cooper S Vehicles Contain
a Safety-Related Defect Regarding the Exhaust Pipe Tips; and Scheduling
of a Public Meeting

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

ACTION: Notice of initial decision and public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA will hold a public meeting regarding its Initial
Decision that model year (MY) 2007 and certain MY 2008 BMW Mini Cooper
S vehicles (subject vehicles) contain a defect related to motor vehicle
safety in the vehicle's exhaust pipe tips.

DATES: The public meeting will be held beginning at 10 a.m. on
Wednesday, December 17, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: AnnaLisa Nash, Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;<PHONE_NUMBER>. NHTSA's
Initial Decision, and the information on which it was based, is
available at NHTSA's Technical Information Services (TIS), Room E12-
100, 1201 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone:
(202) 366-2588. When visiting Technical Information Services or
contacting it via telephone, refer to investigation EA08-020. In
addition, the agency's initial decision is available on the agency's
Web site at http://www.nhtsa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(a) and 49 CFR
554.10, on November 26, 2008, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for
Enforcement made an Initial Decision that MY 2007 and certain 2008 BMW
Mini Cooper S vehicles manufactured by BMW of North America, LLC (BMW)
contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. The exhaust pipe tips
on these vehicles cause and contribute to burns on the legs of people.

A. The Agency's Investigation and Request That BMW Conduct a Recall

    On April 28, 2008, NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI)
opened an investigation, Preliminary Evaluation (PE08-031), to
investigate an alleged safety-related defect concerning burn injuries
in MY 2007 Mini Cooper S (hardtop) vehicles. ODI requested information
from BMW. After a review

of BMW's response, ODI upgraded PE08-031 to an Engineering Analysis
(EA08-020) on August 29, 2008, and expanded the scope of the
investigation to include MY 2008 Mini Cooper S vehicles.
    ODI and BMW have received numerous complaints indicating that
consumers' legs have been burned while they access the rear cargo area
of the subject vehicles via the rear hatchback shortly after the
vehicles have been driven. As reflected by the complaints, people
accessing the cargo area naturally place their legs at the rear of the
vehicle. People are burned as they inadvertently contact either of the
two hot exhaust pipe tips while removing items from, or placing items
in, the rear cargo area. Some of the burn injuries are significant
second degree burns, causing blistered skin or scarring, often in a
half-moon shape pattern matching the approximately 2\3/4\-inch diameter
of the exhaust tips.
    Prior to the redesign of the subject vehicles for MY 2007, there
were relatively few instances of burns from the exhaust pipe tips of
Mini Cooper S vehicles. As redesigned for MY 2007, the Mini Cooper S
vehicles have much larger exhaust pipe tips than under the previous
design, and the tips extend beyond the rear bumper cover. After the
redesign, reports of burn injuries from Mini Cooper S vehicles
increased dramatically. BMW has acknowledged that the exhaust tips have
caused burn injuries. BMW redesigned the tips so they do not extend as
far back as originally designed for MY 2007 vehicles. This redesign was
incorporated into mid-year production on approximately July 1, 2008, of
the MY 2008 subject vehicles.
    ODI advised BMW, by letter of October 10, 2008, of its belief that
the subject vehicles contain a safety-related defect in the exhaust
pipe tips of the subject vehicles within the meaning of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended. ODI requested BMW to
initiate a safety recall, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120, to
notify all owners, purchasers, and dealers of the defect and to provide
a free remedy for each of the subject vehicles. In its October 27,
2008, response to ODI, BMW declined to conduct the safety recall
stating it is not warranted and informed NHTSA that, in the interest of
customer satisfaction, it had instituted a Service Campaign concerning
this issue.

B. Initial Decision

    Based on the available information, NHTSA's Associate Administrator
for Enforcement has made an Initial Decision, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118(a) and 49 CFR 554.10, that MY 2007 and certain 2008 BMW Mini
Cooper S vehicles manufactured by BMW of North America, LLC (BMW)
contain a safety-related defect. The exhaust pipe tips, which are
located at the center of the rear of the vehicle and protrude rearward
beyond the bumper cover, are situated in such a way that persons
conducting completely foreseeable tasks at the rear of the vehicle may
experience significant and painful burns on their legs. An initial
decision is not a final agency action.
    This initial decision reflects the agency's rejection of BMW's
proffer of a service campaign instead of a recall. The subject vehicles
built prior to the production modification in 2008 pose a significant
risk of burn injuries to persons accessing the rear cargo area via the
hatchback. It is unreasonable for people, who engage in the routine
activity of standing near or against the back of a vehicle with the
hatch up to remove items from or place items in the rear cargo area, to
be subject to a significant risk of painful burns. The National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended provides for a safety recall
when there is a safety-related defect. In that situation, the
manufacturer has a duty to provide a defect notice to the agency and
proper notice to the vehicle owner. The statute does not give the
manufacturer the option of choosing a different course of action. A
safety recall would assure that vehicle owners have the proper
statutory notice of the safety risks along with a free remedy, thus
presenting the greatest opportunity for preventing a significant risk
of any further burn injuries. Unlike a manufacturer's service campaign,
a notice to the vehicle owner pursuant to 49 CFR 577.5(f) must explain
the risk to safety related to the defect and the type of injury that
can result from the defect. Additionally, pursuant to 49 CFR 573.7,
after initiating a recall BMW would be required to provide quarterly
reporting to the agency to ensure that all vehicles have been remedied.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(b)(1) and 49 CFR 554.10(b), NHTSA will
conduct a public meeting, beginning at 10 a.m., Wednesday, December 17,
2008, in Room W40-302, Department of Transportation Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, at which time the manufacturer and
other interested parties will be afforded an opportunity to present
information, views, and arguments on the issue of whether MY 2007 and
certain 2008 BMW Mini Cooper S vehicles contain a safety-related defect
in the exhaust pipe tips.
    Interested persons are invited to participate in this proceeding
through written and/or oral presentations. Persons wishing to make oral
presentations must notify Ethel Hayden, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, W45-206, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, before
the close of business on Friday, December 12, 2008. The notifications
should specify the amount of time that the presentation is expected to
last. The agency will prepare a schedule of presentations. Depending
upon the number of persons who wish to make oral presentations, and the
anticipated length of those presentations, the agency may add an
additional day or days to the meeting/hearing and may limit the length
of oral presentations. This will not be an adjudicatory proceeding.
Although the agency may ask questions of those who make oral
presentations, there is no cross examination of witnesses by other
participants in the public meeting.
    Persons who wish to file written comments should submit them to the
same address, no later than Friday, December 12, 2008.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118(a), (b); delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.50(a) and 49 CFR 501.8.

    Issued on: November 26, 2008.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
 [FR Doc. E8-28883 Filed 12-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52225-52229]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1213; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-097-AD;
Amendment 39-16775; AD 2011-17-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-
81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD requires repetitive inspections for
cracking of the lower rear spar caps of the wings, and related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also
requires repetitive inspections of certain repaired areas. This AD was
prompted by reports of cracking of the wing rear spar lower cap at the
outboard flap and inboard drive hinge at station Xrs=164.000; the
cracking is due to material fatigue from normal flap operating loads.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such fatigue cracking,
which could result in fuel leaks, damage to the wing skin or other
structure, and consequent reduced structural integrity of the wing.

DATES: This AD is effective September 26, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 26,
2011.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
the specified products. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on
February 8, 2010 (75 FR 6162). That NPRM proposed to require repetitive
inspections for cracking of the lower rear spar caps of the wings, and
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. That NPRM
also proposed to require repetitive inspections of certain repaired
areas.

Actions Since Issuance of NPRM

    The NPRM referred to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242,
dated May 8, 2009, as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the actions. Since issuance of the NPRM, Boeing has
issued Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7,
2011. No more work is necessary for airplanes on which the original
issue was used to accomplish the actions. Certain procedures specified
in Revision 1 of this service bulletin have been clarified to provide
additional instructions. Revision 1 of this service bulletin also added
procedures for splice repair options and removed the instruction to
contact Boeing for that repair. In addition, the term ``temporary
repair,'' as specified in the original issue of this service bulletin,
was changed to ``doubler repair'' in Revision 1 of this service
bulletin. In addition, instead of contacting Boeing for repair
instructions for Condition 3, Revision 1 of this service bulletin
specifies three sub-conditions and provides corresponding doubler or
splice repairs.
    We have revised this AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, as the appropriate
source of service information for accomplishing the actions, and added
a new paragraph (h) to this AD (and reidentified subsequent paragraphs)
to give credit for using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242,
dated May 8, 2009, for accomplishing the actions. We also have replaced
the word ``temporary'' in paragraphs (g)(2) and (j) of this AD with the
word ``doubler.'' In addition, we have removed paragraph (i) of the
NPRM, which specified contacting the FAA for the splice repair.
Further, we have specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD that
operators may still accomplish the required action in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Include Inspections Required by Previous ADs

    The Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its member
American Airlines (AAL), asked that applicable inspection requirements
in AD 96-23-07 R1, Amendment 39-10110 (62 FR 44208, August 20, 1997);
and AD 2004-11-07, Amendment 39-13653 (69 FR 13514, June 4, 2004); be
included in the NPRM. ATA and AAL reiterated certain inspection/
compliance requirements in those previous ADs, and stated that some of
those requirements conflict with the requirements in this NPRM. ATA and
AAL recommend incorporating those ADs into this NPRM to clarify,
consolidate, and update the compliance requirements.
    We do not agree to include the inspection requirements from
previous ADs in this AD. Although the inspections in the previous ADs
are similar, the root cause of the unsafe condition in this AD (i.e.,
high-cycle fatigue in this AD versus manufacturing quality in the
previous ADs) is different, which means the inspections and terminating
actions are different as well, and do not conflict with the
requirements specified in the existing ADs referenced by the commenter.
Therefore, we have determined that the actions should be addressed in
this ``stand-alone'' AD. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Repetitive Inspection Requirement

    ATA and AAL stated that the Relevant Service Information section of
the NPRM specifies that no action is necessary for Group 1,
Configuration 1 airplanes. The commenters added that this statement
conflicts with paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011 (which also is
related to AD 96-23-07 R1). That service bulletin also specifies the
following in a note: ``Repeat inspections in accordance with Service
Bulletin MD80-57-184, Paragraph 1.D.(5), ``Compliance,'' are still
required.''
    We agree that clarification is necessary. The NPRM clearly
specifies that no action is necessary for Group 1, Configuration 1
airplanes. That statement is correct as it applies to this new AD.
However, the note which appears in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-
57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, serves as a reminder that
repetitive inspections are still required in accordance with AD 96-23-
07 R1 for Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes. For clarification
purposes, we have revised paragraph (g) of this AD to exclude Group 1,
Configuration 1 airplanes from the requirements of that paragraph.

Request To Clarify Certain Procedures in Differences Section

    ATA and AAL also stated that the Differences section of the NPRM
specifies FAA- or Boeing Organization Designation Authorization (ODA)-
approved repairs for any crack found (less than or equal to 2.0 inches)
in a temporary repair done during the repetitive inspections. The
commenters noted that paragraph (j) of the NPRM specifies, ``[i]f any
crack is found during any inspection of a temporary repair, before
further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.'' The commenters
added that these requirements do not clearly detail the crack
requirements and limitations; since the temporary repair is reinforcing
an existing crack, a crack will always be found during subsequent
inspections. The commenters also stated that the ``any crack''
statement conflicts with the requirements of paragraph (c)(3)(i) of AD
96-23-07 R1, which states, ``[i]f any crack progression is found during
any repetitive eddy current inspection following accomplishment of the
temporary repair, contact the ACO.'' Additionally, the commenters noted
that the ``any crack'' statement conflicts with Boeing Drawing 3668B,
Disposition A through D.
    We disagree with the commenters. The requirement in this AD is to
do repetitive eddy current inspections around the perimeter of the
repair doublers; therefore, indications of the initially stop-drilled
and repaired cracking would not be found during accomplishment of the
repetitive inspections. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Certain Procedures in Referenced Service Information

    In addition, ATA and AAL stated that the NPRM should further
clarify the new requirements associated with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 8, 2009, and identified in two sections
of the NPRM--the differences section in the preamble and the exceptions
in paragraphs (h) and (i) of the NPRM.
    Where the NPRM specifies that ``crack length is longer than 2.0
inches or is located in the rear spar cap forward horizontal leg
radius,'' the commenters stated this could be further clarified by
stating that this is Condition 3 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-
57A242, dated May 8, 2009, or by adding a table to the AD.
    The commenters also stated that where paragraph (i) of the NPRM
specifies that ``If any crack is found during any inspection required
by this AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 8,
2009, specifies contacting Boeing for repair * * *,'' the phrase could
be further

clarified by adding a table to the AD that identifies the three
conditions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242,
dated May 8, 2009, the three sub-conditions under Condition 2, the
temporary repair condition, and the associated AD requirements.
    We find that some clarification is necessary. Condition 3 in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011,
provides clarification with regard to the cracking, as follows: '' * *
* lower spar cap has a crack longer than 2.0 inches in length or crack
in the rear spar cap forward horizontal leg radius.'' No change to this
AD is necessary in this regard because the differences section of the
preamble of the NPRM is not restated in the final rule.
    In addition, as explained previously we removed paragraph (i) of
the NPRM from this final rule because Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, now provides splice
repair instructions. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to include an
exception to this service bulletin. We have not changed the AD in this
regard.

Request To Call Out Specific Service Bulletin Sections

    Additionally, ATA and AAL noted concerns that the proposed
requirements of the NPRM specify accomplishing what AAL interpreted to
be all the requirements in the service information. The commenters
stated that the proposed AD should be clarified and further highlighted
to indicate that only specific sections of the service bulletin are
required by the proposed AD. AAL reiterated certain open and close
procedures and noted that accomplishing those procedures should not
affect compliance with the proposed AD. AAL asked that we include the
following in the AD: ``Only the SB procedures specified by the AD are
affected by the FAA-AD. Other procedures such as preparation, open/
close, and access procedures described by the SB are not affected by
FAA-AD compliance requirements.'' AAL also asked that we consider
including the procedures that are or are not affected by the proposed
AD in its content.
    We acknowledge the commenters' concerns, but disagree with the
request to change this AD. In Section 3.A., ``General Information,''
paragraphs 8 through 10 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242,
Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, additional procedures are defined
that can be used for accomplishing certain actions. In addition,
paragraph 13 of that section specifies, in part, that when the words
``refer to'' are used, and the operator has an accepted alternative
procedure, the accepted alternative procedure can be used. Therefore,
we have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Crack Limitations in Referenced Service Information

    ATA and AAL noted that the criteria for crack findings specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 9, 2009, do not
provide clear guidance regarding crack limitations. The commenters
added that the procedures in this service bulletin do not describe
criteria for a crack with the stop-drill configuration. The commenters
asked that the criteria for crack findings be further clarified.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. The measurement of the
crack length is intended to be the total curvilinear crack length,
which is consistent with standard maintenance practice; therefore, no
additional measurement criteria are necessary. The effect of stop
drills on crack length is not relevant because Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, specifies
actions based on the length of the unrepaired cracks, and not on
repaired or stop-drilled cracks. We have not changed the AD in this
regard.
    ATA and AAL also noted that the procedures in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May 9, 2009, are inconsistent regarding
acceptable crack configurations for the forward horizontal leg radius
for the lower and upper spar caps. The commenters stated that the
procedures specify that a crack cannot be in the forward horizontal leg
radius for the lower cap, and those procedures refer to Drawing
J060271, Note 29. The commenter stated that this drawing does have this
limitation for the lower cap as well as the upper cap. However, that
service bulletin does not refer to Note 29 for the upper cap
procedures. The commenter requested that clarification of the crack
criteria for doubler repairs on the upper spar cap be provided.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, clarifies the
crack criteria for the upper cap using Drawing J060271, Note 29, for
the crack criteria when determining whether doubler repair of the upper
spar cap is allowed. We have included Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, as an appropriate
source of service information for accomplishing the actions required by
this AD.

Request for Validation of the Service Bulletin

    ATA and AAL expressed concern that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
MD80-57A242, dated May 8, 2009, did not have a validation program
performed to ensure that data, instructions, and processes specified in
that service bulletin are correct, clear, appropriate, and understood
by maintenance personnel performing the work.
    From this statement, we infer the commenters are requesting that
the procedures specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242,
dated May 8, 2009, be validated by the airplane manufacturer. We agree
that certain procedures in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242,
dated May 8, 2009, need clarification. However, Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011, provides
clarification for certain instructions provided in the original issue
of that service bulletin so the procedures are clear and concise and to
ensure they are understood by maintenance personnel performing the
work.
    In addition, it should be noted that the inspections and repairs in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7,
2011, are identical to those in AD 96-23-07 R1, although the compliance
times and applicability are different. (AD 96-23-07 R1 referred to
McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 57-184, Revision 1, dated
December 22, 1994, as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the actions.) In light of this information, a formal
evaluation of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242 was not deemed
necessary. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Explanation of Changes Made to This AD

    We have revised this AD to identify the name of the manufacturer as
published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the
affected airplane models.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that
these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator
nor increase the scope of the AD.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the NPRM, we have increased the labor rate used
in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour.
The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in
the specified labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 670 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $227,800, or $340 per product, per inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2011-17-11 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16775; Docket No. FAA-
2009-1213; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-097-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective September 26, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model DC-9-81 (MD-81),
DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and MD-88
airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7,
2011.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the wing rear
spar lower cap at the outboard flap and inboard drive hinge at
station Xrs=164.000; the cracking is due to material fatigue from
normal flap operating loads. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking, which could result in fuel leaks, damage
to the wing skin or other structure, and consequent reduced
structural integrity of the wing.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Repetitive Inspections and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (g) At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E. of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January
7, 2011, do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
this AD, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. The actions
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD are not
required for Group 1, Configuration 1 airplanes, as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January
7, 2011.
    (1) Do initial and repetitive eddy current testing high
frequency (ETHF) inspections for cracking of the lower rear spar
caps of the wings, and do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions, by doing all the applicable actions specified in
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011; or in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (2) Do initial and repetitive ETHF inspections for cracking of
any doubler repairs, and do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions, by doing all the applicable actions specified in
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
MD80-57A242, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011; except as required
by paragraph (j) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (h) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, dated May
8, 2009, are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of this AD.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (i) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242, Revision 1,
dated January 7, 2011, specifies a compliance time after the date of
that service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (j) If any crack is found during any inspection of a doubler
repair, before further flight, repair using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

Related Information

    (l) For more information about this AD, contact Roger Durbin,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-57A242,
Revision 1, dated January 7, 2011; to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information contained in
this AD under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-0001;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 8, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-20672 Filed 8-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 69084]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27436]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0333; FRL-9902-94-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Air Emission Standards for Tanks, Surface
Impoundment and Containers (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Air Emission Standards for
Tanks, Surface Impoundment and Containers (40 CFR Part 264, Subpart CC,
and 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart CC) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1593.09, OMB
Control No. 2060-0318), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which
is currently approved through December 31, 2013. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 33409) on June 4,
2013, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 18,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0333, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR renewal is being submitted for the Air Emission
Standards for Tanks, Surface Impoundments and Containers (40 CFR Part
264, Subpart CC and 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart CC), which were
promulgated on December 6, 1994. The requirements of this subpart apply
to owners and operators of all facilities that treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous wastes in tanks, surface impoundments and containers that
are subject to subparts I, J or K of these parts, except for Sections
264.1 and 265.1 and those management units identified at Sections
264.1080(b) and 265.1080(b). Also, the requirements of this subpart
apply to large quantity generators that manage hazardous wastes in
either tanks, or containers (262.34(a)(1)(i and ii)). The affected
entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR
part 60, subpart A and any changes or additions to the Provisions
specified at 40 CFR part 264, subpart CC and 40 CFR part 265, subpart
CC.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities that treat, store, or
dispose of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 264,
subpart CC and 40 CFR part 265, subpart CC)
    Estimated number of respondents: 6,209 (total).
    Frequency of response: Occasionally, annually, and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 712,293 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $82,092,685 (per year), includes $12,418,000
for operation & maintenance costs annualized capital and no annualized
capital/start-up costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
respondent burden hours and costs from the most recently approved ICR.
The previous ICR used rounded numbers, while this ICR uses exact values
in calculating burden hours. In addition, this ICR uses updated labor
rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate burden costs.
    There is also an increase of one response in this ICR due to a
correction. The previous ICR did not account for the annual project
report for the Sisterville Plant when calculating the total number of
responses.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-27436 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 38854-38856]
[DOCID:fr06jy10-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor

Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 7d-1; SEC File No. 270-176; OMB Control No. 3235-0311.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit these existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Section 7(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
7(d)) (the ``Act'' or ``Investment Company Act'') requires an
investment company (``fund'') organized outside the United States
(``foreign fund'') to obtain an order from the Commission allowing the
fund to register under the Act before making a public offering of its
securities through the United States mail or any means of interstate
commerce. The Commission may issue an order only if it finds that it is
both legally and practically feasible effectively to enforce the
provisions of the Act against the foreign fund, and that the
registration of the fund is consistent with the public interest and
protection of investors.
    Rule 7d-1 (17 CFR 270.7d-1) under the Act, which was adopted in
1954, specifies the conditions under which a Canadian management
investment company (``Canadian fund'') may request an order from the
Commission permitting it to register under the Act. Although rule 7d-1
by its terms applies only to Canadian funds, other foreign funds
generally have agreed to comply with the requirements of rule 7d-1 as a
prerequisite to receiving an order permitting those foreign funds'
registration under the Act.
    The rule requires a Canadian fund that wishes to register to file
an application with the Commission that contains various undertakings
and agreements by the fund. The requirement of the Canadian fund to
file an application is a collection of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Certain of the undertakings and agreements, in turn,
impose the following additional information collection requirements:
    (1) The fund must file agreements between the fund and its
directors, officers, and service providers requiring them to comply
with the fund's charter and bylaws, the Act, and certain other
obligations relating to the undertakings and agreements in the
application;
    (2) The fund and each of its directors, officers, and investment
advisers that is not a U.S. resident, must file an irrevocable
designation of the fund's custodian in the United States as agent for
service of process;
    (3) The fund's charter and bylaws must provide that (a) the fund
will comply with certain provisions of the Act applicable to all funds,
(b) the fund will maintain originals or copies of its books and records
in the United States, and (c) the fund's contracts with its custodian,
investment adviser, and principal underwriter, will contain certain
terms, including a requirement that the adviser maintain originals or
copies of pertinent records in the United States;
    (4) The fund's contracts with service providers will require that
the provider perform the contract in accordance with the Act, the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a), and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a), as applicable; and
    (5) The fund must file, and periodically revise, a list of persons
affiliated with the fund or its adviser or underwriter.
    As noted above, under section 7(d) of the Act the Commission may
issue an order permitting a foreign fund's registration only if the
Commission finds that ``by reason of special circumstances or
arrangements, it is both legally and practically feasible effectively
to enforce the provisions of the (Act).'' The information collection
requirements are necessary to assure that the substantive provisions of
the Act may be enforced as a matter of contract right in the United
States or Canada by the fund's shareholders or by the Commission.
    Rule 7d-1 also contains certain information collection requirements
that are associated with other provisions of the Act. These
requirements are applicable to all registered funds and are outside the
scope of this request.
    The Commission believes that one foreign fund is registered under
rule 7d-1 and currently active. Apart from requirements under the Act
applicable to all registered funds, rule 7d-1 imposes ongoing burdens
to maintain records in the United States, and to update, as necessary,
certain fund agreements, designations of the fund's custodian as
service agent, and the fund's list of affiliated persons. The
Commission staff estimates that each year under the rule, the active
registrant and its directors, officers, and service providers engage in
the following collections of information and associated burden hours:
    For the fund and its investment adviser to maintain records in the
United States: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule requires an applicant and its investment adviser to
maintain records in the United States (which, without the
requirement, might be maintained in Canada or another foreign
jurisdiction), which facilitates routine inspections and any special
investigations of the fund by Commission staff. The registrant and
its investment adviser, however, already maintain the registrant's
records in the United States and in no other jurisdiction.
Therefore, maintenance of the registrant's records in the United
States does not impose an additional burden beyond that imposed by
other provisions of the Act. Those provisions are applicable to all
registered funds and the compliance burden of those provisions is
outside the scope of this request.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 hours: 0 minutes of compliance clerk time.

     For the fund to update its list of affiliated persons:

2 hours: 2 hours of support staff time.

     For new officers, directors, and service providers to
enter into and file agreements requiring them to comply with the fund's
charter and bylaws, the Act, and certain other obligations:

0.5 hours: 7.5 minutes of director time; 2.5 minutes of officer time;
20 minutes of support staff time.

     For new officers, directors, and investment advisers who
are not residents of the United States to file irrevocable designation
of the fund's custodian as agent for process of service:

0.25 hours: 5 minutes of director time; 10 minutes of support staff
time.
    Based on the estimates above, the Commission estimates that the
total annual burden of the rule's paperwork requirements is 2.75
hours.\2\ We estimate that directors perform 0.21 hours of these burden
hours at a total cost of $945,\3\ officers perform 0.04 of these burden
hours at a total cost of 16.72,\4\ and support staff perform 2.5 of
these burden hours at a total cost of $147.50.\5\ Thus, the Commission

estimates the aggregate annual cost of the burden hours associated with
rule 7d-1 is $1109.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: (0 + 2
+ 0.5 + 0.25) = 2.75 hours.
    \3\ The director estimates are based on the following
calculations: (7.5 minutes + 5 minutes)/60 minutes per hour = 0.21
hours; and 0.21 hours x $4500/hour = $945. The per hour cost
estimate is based on estimated hourly compensation for each board
member of $500 and an average board size of 9 members.
    \4\ The officer estimates are based on the following
calculations: 2.5 minutes/60 minutes per hour = 0.04 hours; 0.04
hours x $418/hour = $16.72. The per hour cost estimate is based on
the figure for chief compliance officers found in SIFMA's Management
& Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2009, modified by
Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead.
    \5\ The support staff estimates are based on the following
calculations: 2 hours + 20 minutes + 10 minutes = 2.5 hours; and 2.5
hours x $59/hour = $147.50. The per hour cost estimate is based on
the figure for compliance clerks found in SIFMA's Management &
Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2009, modified by
Commission staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and
multiplied by 2.93 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead.
    \6\ This estimate is based on the following calculation:
$1109.22 = $945 + $16.72 + 147.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a fund were to file an application under the rule, the
Commission estimates that the rule would impose initial information
collection burdens (for filing an application, preparing the specified
charter, bylaw, and contract provisions, designations of agents for
service of process, and an initial list of affiliated persons, and
establishing a means of keeping records in the United States) of
approximately 90 hours for the fund and its associated persons. The
Commission is not including these hours in its calculation of the
annual burden because no foreign fund has applied under rule 7d-1 to
register under the Act in the last three years.
    As noted above, after registration, a Canadian fund may file a
supplemental application seeking special relief designed for the fund's
particular circumstances. Rule 7d-1 does not mandate these
applications. The active registrant has not filed a substantive
supplemental application in the past three years. Therefore, the
Commission has not allocated any burden hours for these applications.
    The estimates of burden hours are made solely for the purposes of
the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimates are not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of Commission
rules and forms.
    If a Canadian or other foreign fund in the future applied to
register under the Act under rule 7d-1, the fund initially might have
capital and start-up costs (not including hourly burdens) of an
estimated $17,280 to comply with the rule's initial information
collection requirements. These costs include legal and processing-
related fees for preparing the required documentation (such as the
application, charter, bylaw, and contract provisions), designations for
service of process, and the list of affiliated persons. Other related
costs would include fees for establishing arrangements with a custodian
or other agent for maintaining records in the United States, copying
and transportation costs for records, and the costs of purchasing or
leasing computer equipment, software, or other record storage equipment
for records maintained in electronic or photographic form.
    The Commission expects that a fund and its sponsors would incur
these costs immediately, and that the annualized cost of the
expenditures would be $17,280 in the first year. Some expenditures
might involve capital improvements, such as computer equipment, having
expected useful lives for which annualized figures beyond the first
year would be meaningful. These annualized figures are not provided,
however, because, in most cases, the expenses would be incurred
immediately rather than on an annual basis. The Commission is not
including these costs in its calculation of the annualized capital/
start-up costs because no fund has applied under rule 7d-1 to register
under the Act pursuant to rule 7d-1 in the last three years.
    We request written comment on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Charles Boucher, Director/
CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432
General Green Way, Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 29, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16309 Filed 7-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P