[Federal Register: December 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 75706-75707]
[DOCID:fr12de08-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0008, FRL-8751-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Emergency Planning and Release Notification
Requirements Under Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
Sections 302, 303, and 304.EPA ICR No. 1395.07, OMB Control No. 2050-
0092

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on May 31, 2009. Before submitting the ICR to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2005-0008 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Superfund Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Center, EPA West Bldg, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2005-0008. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov
your e-mail 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 and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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, any form of
encryption, and 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency
Management, Mail Code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-8019; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0008, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Superfund Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number

assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your
response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register
citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0008.
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
those which have a threshold planning quantity of an extremely
hazardous substance (EHS) listed in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A and
those which have a release of any of the EHS above a reportable
quantity. Entities more likely to be affected by this action may
include chemical manufacturers, non-chemical manufacturers, retailers,
petroleum refineries, utilities, etc.
    Title: Emergency Planning and Release Notification Requirements
under Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Sections 302,
303, and 304.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1395.07, OMB Control No. 2050-0092.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on May 31,
2009. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The authority for these requirements is sections 302,
303, and 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11002, 11003, and 11004). EPCRA established
broad emergency planning and facility reporting requirements. Section
302 requires facilities to notify their state emergency response
commission (SERC) that the facility is subject to emergency planning.
This activity has been completed; this ICR covers only new facilities
that are subject to this requirement. Section 303 requires the local
emergency planning committees (LEPCs) to prepare emergency plans for
facilities that are subject to section 302. This activity has been also
completed; this ICR only covers any updates needed for these emergency
response plans. Section 304 requires facilities to report to SERCs and
LEPCs releases in excess of the reportable quantities listed for each
extremely hazardous substance (EHS). This ICR also covers the
notification and the written follow-up required under this section. The
implementing regulations and the list of substances for emergency
planning and emergency release notification are codified in 40 CFR part
355.
    On November 3, 2008 (73 FR 64452), EPA has revised some of the
requirements in 40 CFR part 355, specifically, the requirements related
to emergency planning notification. EPA is now requiring facilities to
notify their LEPC within 30 days of any changes occurring at the
facility that may be relevant to emergency planning. This revision
should not impose any additional burden on facilities subject to
emergency planning. Prior to the November 3, 2008 final rule,
facilities were required to provide any changes to the LEPC promptly.
This final rule now requires facilities to provide any changes within
30 days. Other revisions finalized on November 3, 2008 do not impose
any burden on facilities subject to Section 302 and 304 requirements.
    Burden Statement: The burden and costs stated below are from the
current approved ICR. The average reporting burden for a limited number
of existing facilities, to inform the LEPC of any changes at the
facility that may affect emergency planning (1.50 hours). The average
reporting burden for facilities reporting releases under 40 CFR 355.40
is estimated to average approximately 5 hours per release, including
the time for determining if the release is a reportable quantity,
notifying the LEPC and SERC, or the 911 operator, and developing and
submitting a written follow-up notice. There are no record keeping
requirements for facilities under EPCRA Sections 302-304. The total
burden to facilities over three years is 229,473 hours at a cost of
$11.1 million.
    The average burden for emergency planning activities is 21 hours
per plan for LEPCs, and 16 hours per plan for SERCs. Each SERC and LEPC
is also estimated to incur an annual record keeping burden of 10 hours.
The total burden to LEPC and SERC over three years is 320,568 hours at
a cost of $8.1 million.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 84,215.
    Frequency of response: Occasionally.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
Once.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 183,347.
    Estimated total annual costs: $27,000 includes annualized capital
or O&M costs.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: December 5, 2008.
Deborah Y. Dietrich,
Director, Office of Emergency Management.
 [FR Doc. E8-29469 Filed 12-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:i have not used cigarettes in over a year thanks to these products FDA has no right to take something away from the people simply because it does not support the endorsement of big tobacco companies. A 75 day period time to review the proposed regulations is insufficient and we request that the review period be extended to 180 days.


[Federal Register: June 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35826]
[DOCID:fr23jn10-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1907-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

North Dakota; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-1907-DR), dated April 30, 2010, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A.
Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Justo Hern[aacute]ndez as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-15250 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53068-53069]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-3761]

Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., LLC, et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 20
New Drug Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is
withdrawing approval of 20 new drug applications (NDAs) from multiple
applicants. The applicants notified the Agency in writing that the drug
products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the
applications be withdrawn.

DATES: Approval is withdrawn as of November 19, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Florine P. Purdie, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6248, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The applicants listed in the table have
informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have
requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the
process described in Sec.  314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The
applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a
hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated
application under Sec.  314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Application No.                          Drug                                 Applicant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA 006002.......................  Aralen Hydrochloride (chloroquine  Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., LLC, 55 Corporate
                                    hydrochloride (HCl)) Injection,    Dr., Bridgewater, NJ 08807.
                                    Equivalent to (EQ) 40 milligram
                                    (mg) base/milliliter (mL);
                                    Aralen (chloroquine phosphate)
                                    Tablets, EQ 300 mg base.
NDA 008107.......................  Leucovorin calcium for Injection   Hospira Inc., Subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.,
                                    USP, EQ 60 mg base/vial for        235 East 42nd St., New York, NY 10017.
                                    solution, oral; EQ 3 mg base/mL
                                    injection; EQ 50 mg base/vial
                                    injection; EQ 100 mg base/vial
                                    injection; EQ 350 mg base/vial
                                    injection.
NDA 009321.......................  Cholografin Meglumine (iodipamide  Bracco Diagnostics, Inc., 259 Prospect
                                    meglumine) Injection, 10.3% and    Plains Rd., Monroe Township, NJ 08831.
                                    52% (cholografin sodium, 20%).
NDA 017566.......................  Brevicon (ethinyl estradiol;       Allergan Pharmaceuticals International,
                                    norethindrone) Tablets, 0.035 mg/  Ltd., c/o Allergan Sales, LLC, 2525
                                    0.5 mg (21-Day Regimen).           Dupont Dr., Irvine, CA 92612.
NDA 018181.......................  Mycelex (clotrimazole) Topical     Bayer HealthCare LLC, 100 Bayer Blvd., 100
                                    Solution, 1%.                      Bayer Rd., Pittsburgh, PA 15205.
NDA 018182.......................  Mycelex-7 (clotrimazole) Tablets,  Do.
                                    100 mg.
NDA 018183.......................  Mycelex (clotrimazole) Topical     Do.
                                    Cream, 1%.
NDA 018230.......................  Mycelex-7 (clotrimazole) Topical   Do.
                                    Vaginal Cream, 1%.
NDA 018856.......................  D-Xylose (xylose) Powder, 25       Lyne Laboratories, 10 Burke Dr., Brockton,
                                    grams (g)/bottle.                  MA 02301.
NDA 018874.......................  Calcijex (calcitriol) Injection,   AbbVie, Inc., 1 North Waukegan Rd., North
                                    0.001 mg/mL and 0.002 mg/mL.       Chicago, IL 60064.
NDA 020214.......................  Zemuron (rocronium bromide)        Organon USA Inc., Subsidiary of Merck &
                                    Injection, 50 mg/5 mL (10 mg/      Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Rd.,
                                    mL); 10 mg/mL (10 mg/mL); 100 mg/  Kenilworth, NJ 07033.
                                    10 mL (10 mg/mL).
NDA 020389.......................  Mycelex-7 Combination Pack         Bayer HealthCare LLC.
                                    (clotrimazole) Topical Vaginal
                                    Cream and Tablets, 1%, 100 mg.
NDA 020528.......................  Mavik (trandolapril) Tablets, 1    AbbVie, Inc.
                                    mg, 2 mg, and 4 mg.
NDA 020738.......................  Teveten (eprosartan mesylate)      Do.
                                    Tablets, 300 mg, 400 mg, and 600
                                    mg.
NDA 020863.......................  Pletal (cilostazol) Tablets, 50    Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development and
                                    mg and 100 mg.                     Commercialization, Subsidiary of Otsuka
                                                                       Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd., 2440
                                                                       Research Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850.
NDA 021268.......................  Teveten HCT (eprosartan mesylate   AbbVie, Inc.
                                    and hydrochlorothiazide)
                                    Tablets, 600/12.5 mg and 600/25
                                    mg.
NDA 021410.......................  Avandamet (rosiglitazone maleate   GlaxoSmithKline, 1250 South Collegeville
                                    and metformin hydrochloride        Rd., Collegeville, PA 19426.
                                    (HCl)) Tablets, 500 mg EQ 1 mg
                                    base; 500 mg EQ 2 mg base; 500
                                    mg EQ 4 mg base; 1 g EQ 2 mg
                                    base; 1 g EQ 4 mg base.
NDA 021511.......................  Copegus (ribavirin) Tablets, 200   Hoffmann La-Roche, Inc., Subsidiary of
                                    mg and 400 mg.                     Genentech, Inc., 1 DNA Way, South San
                                                                       Francisco, CA 94080.
NDA 021700.......................  Avandaryl (glimepiride and         SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc., Subsidiary of
                                    rosiglitazone maleate) Tablets,    GlaxoSmithKline, 1250 South Collegeville
                                    1 mg/4 mg; 2 mg/4 mg; 2 mg/8 mg;   Rd., Collegeville, PA 19426.
                                    4 mg/4 mg; 4 mg/8 mg.
NDA 205123.......................  Olysio (simeprevir sodium)         Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1000 U.S.
                                    Capsules, EQ 150 mg base.          Rte. 202 South, Raritan, NJ 08869.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, approval of the applications listed in the table, and
all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn as of
November 19, 2018. Introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications
violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in the
table that are in inventory on November 19, 2018 may continue to be
dispensed until the inventories have been depleted or the drug products
have reached their expiration dates or otherwise become violative,
whichever occurs first.

    Dated: October 15, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-22805 Filed 10-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57002-57007]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22619]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 594

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0052; Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AL51

Schedule of Fees

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document adopts fees for Fiscal Year 2015 relating to the
registration of importers and the importation of motor vehicles not
certified as conforming to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards
(FMVSS). These fees will also apply beyond Fiscal Year 2015 until
further notice. These fees are needed to maintain the registered
importer (RI) program. We are increasing the fees for the registration
of a new RI from $805 to $844 and the annual fee for renewing an
existing registration from $676 to $726. The fee to reimburse Customs
for conformance bond processing costs will increase from $9.09 to $9.34
per bond. The fee for the review, processing, handling, and
disbursement of cash deposits that are submitted in lieu of a
conformance bond will increase from $495 to $499. We are increasing the
fees for the importation of a vehicle covered by an import eligibility
decision made on an individual model and model year basis. For vehicles
determined eligible based on their substantial similarity to a U.S.
certified vehicle, the fee will increase from $101 to $138. For
vehicles determined eligible based on their capability of being
modified to comply with all applicable FMVSS, the fee will also
increase from $101 to $138. The fee for the inspection of a vehicle
will remain $827. The fee for processing a conformity package will
decrease from $12 to $10. If the vehicle has been entered
electronically with Customs through the Automated Broker Interface
(ABI) and the RI has an email address, the fee for processing the
conformity package will continue to be $6, provided the fee is paid by
credit card. If NHTSA finds that the information in the entry or the
conformity package is incorrect, the processing fee will increase from
$57 to $59, representing a $2 increase in the fee that is currently
charged when there are one or more errors in the ABI entry or omissions
in the statement of conformity.

DATES: The amendments established by this final rule will become
effective on October 1, 2014. Petitions for reconsideration must be
received by NHTSA not later than November 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule should
refer to the docket and notice numbers identified above and be
submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590. It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies of the
petition be submitted. The petition must be received not later than 45
days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
Petitions filed after that time will be considered petitions filed by
interested persons to initiate rulemaking pursuant to 49 U.S.C. chapter
301. The petition must contain a brief statement of the complaint and
an explanation as to why compliance with the final rule is not
practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest. Unless
otherwise specified in the final rule, the statement and explanation
together may not exceed 15 pages in length, but necessary attachments
may be appended to the submission without regard to the 15-page limit.
If it is requested that additional facts be considered, the petitioner
must state the reason why they were not presented to the Administrator
within the prescribed time. The Administrator does not consider
repetitious petitions and unless the Administrator otherwise provides,
the filing of a petition does not stay the effectiveness of the final
rule.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    This rule was preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that NHTSA published on July 31, 2014 (79 FR 44363).
    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended by
the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, and recodified at
49 U.S.C. 30141-30147 (``the Act''), provides for fees to cover the
costs of the importer registration program, the cost of making import
eligibility decisions, and the cost of processing the bonds furnished
to Customs. Certain fees became effective on January 31, 1990, and have
been in effect, with modifications, since then. On June 24, 1996, we
published a document in the Federal Register at 61 FR 32411 that
discussed the rulemaking history of 49 CFR part 594 and the fees
authorized by the Act. The reader is referred to that document for
background information relating to this rulemaking action.
    We are required to review and make appropriate adjustments at least
every two years in the fees established for the administration of the
RI program. See 49 U.S.C. 30141(e). The fees applicable in any fiscal
year (FY) are to be established before the beginning of such year.
Ibid. We last amended the fee schedule in 2012. See final rule
published on August 22, 2012 at 77 FR 50637. Those fees apply to Fiscal
Years 2013 and 2014. The fees adopted in this final rule are based on
time expenditures and costs associated with the tasks for which the
fees are assessed.
    The fees proposed in this document reflect the one percent increase
in General Schedule salary rates that were effective January 1, 2014
and the slight increases in indirect costs attributed to the agency's
overhead costs since the fees were last adjusted.

Comments

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

Requirements of the Fee Regulation

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

    Section 30141(a)(3) of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that RIs must
pay the annual fees established ``to pay for the costs of carrying out
the registration program for importers. . . .'' This fee is payable
both by new applicants and by existing RIs. To maintain its
registration, each RI, at the time it submits its annual fee, must also
file a statement affirming that the information it furnished in its
registration application (or in later submissions amending that
information) remains correct. 49 CFR 592.5(f).
    To comply with the statutory directive, we reviewed the existing
fees and their bases in an attempt to establish fees that would be
sufficient to recover the costs of carrying out the registration
program for importers for at least the next two fiscal years. The
initial component of the Registration Program Fee is the fee
attributable to

processing and acting upon registration applications. We will increase
this fee from $330 to $333 for new applications. We have also
determined that the fee for the review of the annual statement
submitted by existing RIs who wish to renew their registrations will be
increased from $201 to $215. These fee adjustments reflect our time
expenditures in reviewing both new applications and annual statements
with accompanying documentation, and the small increases in indirect
costs attributed to the agency's overhead costs in the two years since
the fees were last adjusted, the increase in direct costs relating to
the one percent raise in salaries of employees on the General Schedule
that became effective on January 1, 2014, and the increase in
contractor costs to the agency.
    We must also recover costs attributable to maintenance of the
registration program that arise from the need for us to review a
registrant's annual statement and to verify the continuing validity of
information already submitted. These costs also include anticipated
costs attributable to the possible revocation or suspension of
registrations and reflect the amount of time that we have devoted to
those matters in the past two years.
    Based upon our review of these costs, the portion of the fee
attributable to the maintenance of the registration program is
approximately $511 for each RI. When this $511 is added to the $333
representing the registration application component, the cost to an
applicant for RI status comes to $844, which is the fee we are
adopting. This represents an increase of $39 over the existing fee.
When the $511 is added to the $215 representing the annual statement
component, the total cost to an RI for renewing its registration comes
to $726, which represents an increase of $50.
    Section 594.6(h) enumerates indirect costs associated with
processing the annual renewal of RI registrations. The provision states
that these costs represent a pro rata allocation of the average salary
and benefits of employees who process the annual statements and perform
related functions, and ``a pro rata allocation of the costs
attributable to maintaining the office space, and the computer or word
processor.'' For the purpose of establishing the fees that are
currently in existence, indirect costs are $21.66 per man-hour. We are
increasing this figure by $4.07, to $25.73. This increase is based on
the difference between enacted budgetary costs within the Department of
Transportation for the last two fiscal years, which were higher than
the estimates used when the fee schedule was last amended, and takes
into account other projected increases over the next two fiscal years.

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

    Section 30141(a)(3)(B) also requires registered importers to pay
other fees the Secretary of Transportation establishes to cover the
costs of ``making the decisions under this subchapter.'' This includes
decisions on whether the vehicle sought to be imported is substantially
similar to a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for
importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its
original manufacturer as complying with all applicable FMVSS, and
whether the vehicle is capable of being readily altered to meet those
standards. Alternatively, where there is no substantially similar U.S.-
certified motor vehicle, the decision is whether the safety features of
the vehicle comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply
with, the FMVSS based on destructive test information or such other
evidence that NHTSA deems to be adequate. These decisions are made in
response to petitions submitted by RIs or manufacturers, or on the
Administrator's own initiative.
    The fee for a vehicle imported under an eligibility decision made
in response to a petition is payable in part by the petitioner and in
part by other importers. The fee to be charged for each vehicle is the
estimated pro rata share of the costs in making all the eligibility
decisions in a fiscal year. The agency's direct and indirect costs must
be taken into account in the computation of these costs.
    Since we last amended the fee schedule, the overall number of
vehicle imports by RIs has increased, while the number of petitions has
remained approximately the same. The total number of vehicles that RIs
imported between 2009 and 2013 was 117,512 or approximately 23,502
vehicles each year. Over the same period, the number of vehicles
imported under an import eligibility petition that was submitted by an
RI (as opposed to an import eligibility decision initiated by the
agency) increased to 1,987 or approximately 397 vehicles each year.
Over the past five years, RIs submitted 83 petitions to NHTSA,
averaging 17 per year and the agency has devoted more staff time
reviewing and processing import eligibility petitions since we last
revised the fees.
    Based on these trends, the pro rata share of petition costs
assessed against the importer of each vehicle covered by the
eligibility decision will increase. We project that for FY 2015 and
2016, the agency's costs for processing these 17 petitions will be
$60,095. The petitioners will pay $5,300 of that amount in the
processing fees that accompany the filing of their petitions, leaving
the remaining $54,795 to be recovered from the importers of the
approximately 397 vehicles projected to be imported under petition-
based import eligibility decisions. Dividing $54,795 by 397 yields a
pro rata fee of $138 for each vehicle imported under an eligibility
decision that results from the granting of a petition. We are therefore
increasing the pro rata share of petition costs that are to be assessed
against the importer of each vehicle from $101 to $138, which
represents an increase of $37. The same $138 fee would be paid
regardless of whether the vehicle was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(a),
based on the substantial similarity of the vehicle to a U.S.-certified
model, or was petitioned under 49 CFR 593.6(b), based on the safety
features of the vehicle complying with, or being capable of being
modified to comply with, all applicable FMVSS.
    We are not increasing the current fee of $175 that covers the
initial processing of a ``substantially similar'' petition. Likewise,
we are also maintaining the existing fee of $800 to cover the initial
costs for processing petitions for vehicles that have no substantially
similar U.S.-certified counterpart. In the event that a petitioner
requests an inspection of a vehicle, the fee for such an inspection
will remain $827 for vehicles that are the subject of either type of
petition.
    The importation fee varies depending upon the basis on which the
vehicle is determined to be eligible. For vehicles covered by an
eligibility decision on the agency's own initiative (other than
vehicles imported from Canada that are covered by import eligibility
numbers VSA-80 through 83, for which no eligibility decision fee is
assessed), the fee remains $125. NHTSA determined that the costs
associated with previous eligibility determinations on the agency's own
initiative would be fully recovered by October 1, 2014. We will apply
the fee of $125 per vehicle only to vehicles covered by determinations
made by the agency on its own initiative on or after October 1, 2014.

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

    Section 30141(a)(3) also requires a registered importer to pay any
other fees the Secretary of Transportation

establishes ``to pay for the costs of . . . processing bonds provided
to the Secretary of the Treasury . . .'' upon the importation of a
nonconforming vehicle to ensure that the vehicle would be brought into
compliance within a reasonable time, or if it is not brought into
compliance within such time, that it be exported, without cost to the
United States, or abandoned to the United States.
    The Department of Homeland Security (Customs) exercises the
functions associated with the processing of these bonds. To carry out
the statute, we make a reasonable determination of the costs that
Department incurs in processing the bonds. In essence, the cost to
Customs is based upon an estimate of the time that a GS-9, Step 5
employee spends on each entry, which Customs has judged to be 20
minutes.
    When the fee schedule was last amended, we projected General
Schedule salary raises to be effective in January 2013 and 2014. Based
on the increase in hourly costs attributable to the approximately one
percent raises in salaries of employees on the General Schedule that
became effective on January 1, 2014, we are increasing the processing
fee by $0.25, from $9.09 per bond to $9.34. This increase reflects the
fact that GS-9 salaries have been increased since we last amended the
fee schedule in 2012. The $9.34 fee will more closely reflect the
direct and indirect costs that are actually associated with processing
the bonds.
    In lieu of sureties on a DOT conformance bond, an importer may
offer United States money, United States bonds (except for savings
bonds), United States certificates of indebtedness, Treasury notes, or
Treasury bills (collectively referred to as ``cash deposits'') in an
amount equal to the amount of the bond. 49 CFR 591.10(a). The receipt,
processing, handling, and disbursement of the cash deposits that have
been tendered by RIs cause the agency to consume a considerable amount
of staff time and material resources. NHTSA has concluded that the
expense incurred by the agency to receive, process, handle, and
disburse cash deposits may be treated as part of the bond processing
cost, which NHTSA is authorized to set a fee under 49 U.S.C.
30141(a)(3)(A). We first established a fee of $459 for each vehicle
imported on and after October 1, 2008, for which cash deposits or
obligations of the United States are furnished in lieu of a conformance
bond. See the Final Rule published on July 11, 2008 at 73 FR 39890.
    The agency considered its direct and indirect costs in calculating
the fee for the review, processing, handling, and disbursement of cash
deposits submitted by importers and RIs in lieu of sureties on a DOT
conformance bond. We are increasing the fee from $495 to $499, which
represents an increase of $4. The factors that the agency has taken
into account in proposing the fee include time expended by agency
personnel, the slight increase in overhead and contractor costs, and
the increase in projected salary costs based on the General Schedule
increase on January 1, 2014.

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

    Each RI is currently required to pay $12 per vehicle to cover the
costs the agency incurs in reviewing a certificate of conformity. We
have found that these costs have decreased from $12 to an average of
$10 per vehicle. Although our overhead and contractor costs increased
and the salary and benefit costs are slightly greater based on the
General Schedule salary increase, the number of certificates of
conformity submitted for agency review has increased. This has
decreased the agency's cost attributed to the review of each
certificate of conformity. Based on these costs, we are decreasing the
fee charged for vehicles for which a paper entry and fee payment is
made, from $12 to $10, a difference of $2 per vehicle. However, if an
RI enters a vehicle through the Automated Broker Interface (ABI)
system, has an email address to receive communications from NHTSA, and
pays the fee by credit card, the cost savings that we realize allow us
to significantly reduce the fee to $6. We are maintaining the fee of $6
per vehicle if all the information in the ABI entry is correct.
    Errors in ABI entries not only eliminate any time savings, but also
require additional staff time to be expended in reconciling the
erroneous ABI entry information to the conformity data that is
ultimately submitted. Our experience with these errors has shown that
staff members must examine records, make time-consuming long distance
telephone calls, and often consult supervisory personnel to resolve the
conflicts in the data. We have calculated this staff and supervisory
time, as well as the telephone charges, to amount to approximately $59
for each erroneous ABI entry. Adding this to the $6 fee for the review
of conformity packages on automated entries yields a total of $65,
representing a $2 increase in the fee that is currently charged when
there are one or more errors in the ABI entry or in the statement of
conformity.

Statutory Basis for the Final Rule and Effective Date

    NHTSA is required under 49 U.S.C. 30141(e) to ``review and make
appropriate adjustments at least every 2 years in the amounts of the
fees'' relating to the registration of importers, the processing of
bonds, and making decisions concerning the importation of nonconforming
vehicles. The statute further requires the agency to ``establish the
fees for each fiscal year before the beginning of that year.'' This
final rule implements the statutory provisions.
    According to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) a final rule
generally cannot become effective until thirty days after the date on
which the rule was issued. The APA contains an exemption that allows a
rule to become effective prior to thirty days after the rule is issued
if the agency finds that there is good cause for an earlier effective
date and the good cause finding is published with the final rule.
    Because 49 U.S.C. 30141(e) requires the agency to establish the new
fee schedule before the beginning of the next fiscal year, we believe
that there is good cause for this final rule to become effective prior
to thirty days after the date of publication of today's final rule.
Allowing today's final rule to become effective prior to a date thirty
dates after this rule is published will allow the new fee schedule to
be in place at the beginning of the new fiscal year as required by the
statute.
    In the NPRM, we proposed to make this rule effective October 1,
2014, and did not receive any comments on this issue. Accordingly, the
effective date of this final rule is October 1, 2014.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;

    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is
not significant. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has
not reviewed this rulemaking document under Executive Order 12886 or
13563. Further, NHTSA has determined that the rulemaking is not
significant under Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. Based on the level of the fees and the volume of
affected vehicles, NHTSA currently anticipates that the costs of the
final rule would be so minimal as not to warrant preparation of a full
regulatory evaluation. The action does not involve any substantial
public interest or controversy. The rule will have no substantial
effect upon State and local governments. There will be no substantial
impacts upon a major transportation safety program. A regulatory
evaluation analyzing the economic impact of the final rule establishing
the registered importer program, adopted on September 29, 1989, was
prepared, and is available for review in the docket.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    The agency has considered the effects of this rulemaking under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and certifies that the rules being adopted
will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number
of small entities.
    The following is NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for
the certification (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The adopted amendments will
primarily affect entities that currently modify nonconforming vehicles
and that are small businesses within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act; however, the agency has no reason to believe that
these companies would be unable to pay the fees proposed by this
action. In most instances, these fees would not be changed or would be
only modestly increased (and in some instances decreased) from the fees
now being paid by these entities. Moreover, consistent with prevailing
industry practices, these fees should be passed through to the ultimate
purchasers of the vehicles that are altered and, in most instances,
sold by the affected registered importers. The cost to owners or
purchasers of nonconforming vehicles that are altered to conform to the
FMVSS may be expected to increase (or decrease) to the extent necessary
to reimburse the registered importer for the fees payable to the agency
for the cost of carrying out the registration program and making
eligibility decisions, and to compensate Customs for its bond
processing costs.
    Governmental jurisdictions will not be affected at all since they
are generally neither importers nor purchasers of nonconforming motor
vehicles.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 on ``Federalism'' requires NHTSA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
Federalism implications.'' Executive Order 13132 defines the term
``policies that have federalism implications'' to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, NHTSA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that the rule does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Moreover, NHTSA is required by
statute to impose fees for the administration of the RI program and to
review and make necessary adjustments in those fees at least every two
years. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do
not apply to this rulemaking action.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The final rule would not have a significant
effect upon the environment because it is anticipated that the annual
volume of motor vehicles imported through registered importers would
not vary significantly from that existing before promulgation of the
rule.

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988 ``Civil Justice Reform,'' the
agency has considered whether the amendments adopted in this final rule
will have any retroactive effect. NHTSA concludes that those amendments
will not have any retroactive effect. Judicial review of the rule may
be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702. That section does not require
that a petition for reconsideration be filed prior to seeking judicial
review.

F. Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part that the regulatory approaches taken by foreign
governments may differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to
address similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the
regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
American businesses to export and compete internationally. In meeting
shared challenges involving health,

safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international
regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as
protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. In its NPRM, NHTSA requested public comment on whether
(a) ``regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments'' concerning
the subject matter of this rulemaking and (b) the above policy
statement has any implications for this rulemaking. No comments were
received. NHTSA concludes that the registered importer fees that are
established by this final rule relate to program costs incurred by the
agency in administering the vehicle importation program. Consistent
with the statutory authority for the collection of these fees, they are
set at a level that is appropriate for the agency to recover no more
than its actual costs in administering the program. Because it
establishes no standards for imported products, this rulemaking has no
impact on the ability of American businesses to export and compete
internationally. The desirability of achieving international regulatory
cooperation therefore has no bearing on this rulemaking.

G. Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined
to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. If the regulatory action meets either
criterion, we must evaluate the adverse energy effects of the proposed
rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by NHTSA. As noted above, this final rule is not significant under E.O.
12866. NHTSA also believes that this final rule has no effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with the base year
of 1995). Before promulgating a rule for which a written assessment is
needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to
adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, Section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation
why that alternative was not adopted. Because this final rule will not
require the expenditure of resources beyond $100 million annually, this
action is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Part 594 includes
collections of information for which NHTSA has obtained OMB Clearance
No. 2127-0002, a consolidated collection of information for
``Importation of Vehicles and Equipment Subject to the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety, Bumper and Theft Prevention Standards,'' approved
through April 30, 2017. This final rule will not affect the burden
hours associated with Clearance No. 2127-0002 because we are only
adjusting the fees associated with participating in the registered
importer program. The new fees that we are adopting will not impose new
collection of information requirements or otherwise affect the scope of
the program.

J. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us. This rulemaking is not
economically significant and does not concern an environmental, health,
or safety risk.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs NHTSA
to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE). The NTTAA directs the agency to provide Congress, through the
OMB, with explanations when it decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    In this final rule, we are adjusting the fees associated with the
registered importer program. We are making no substantive changes to
the program nor did we adopt any technical standards. For these
reasons, Section 12(d) of the NTTAA does not apply.

L. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all submissions
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment or petition (or signing the comment or petition,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

M. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

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

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 594

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

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

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

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

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141, 31 U.S.C. 9701; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

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

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

    (a) Each person filing an application to be granted the status of a
Registered Importer pursuant to part 592 of this chapter on or after
October 1, 2014, must pay an annual fee of $844, as calculated below,
based upon the direct and indirect costs attributable to:
* * * * *
    (b) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the
processing of the application for applications filed on and after
October 1, 2014, is $333. The sum of $333, representing this portion,
shall not be refundable if the application is denied or withdrawn.
* * * * *
    (d) That portion of the initial annual fee attributable to the
remaining activities of administering the registration program on and
after October 1, 2014, is set forth in paragraph (i) of this section. *
* *
* * * * *
    (h) * * * This cost is $25.73 per man-hour for the period beginning
October 1, 2014.
    (i) Based upon the elements and indirect costs of paragraphs (f),
(g), and (h) of this section, the component of the initial annual fee
attributable to administration of the registration program, covering
the period beginning October 1, 2014, is $511. When added to the costs
of registration of $333, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section,
the costs per applicant to be recovered through the annual fee are
$844. The annual renewal registration fee for the period beginning
October 1, 2014, is $726.

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

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

* * * * *
    (e) For petitions filed on and after October 1, 2014, the fee
payable for seeking a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section is $175. * * *
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  594.8 by revising the first sentences of paragraphs (b)
and (c) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) If a determination has been made pursuant to a petition, the
fee for each vehicle is $138. * * *
    (c) If a determination has been made on or after October 1, 2014,
pursuant to the Administrator's initiative, the fee for each vehicle is
$125. * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  594.9 by revising paragraphs (c) and (e) to read as
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (c) The bond processing fee for each vehicle imported on and after
October 1, 2014, for which a certificate of conformity is furnished, is
$9.34.
* * * * *
    (e) The fee for each vehicle imported on and after October 1, 2014,
for which cash deposits or obligations of the United States are
furnished in lieu of a conformance bond, is $499.

0
6. Amend Sec.  594.10 by revising the first sentence of paragraph (d)
to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (d) The review and processing fee for each certificate of
conformity submitted on and after October 1, 2014 is $10. * * *

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95.

    Dated: September 17, 2014.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2014-22619 Filed 9-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23475]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9371]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ12-9-000]

Buckeye Power, Inc.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 4, 2012, Buckeye Power, Inc. submitted
its tariff filing per 35.28(e): 2012 TRBAA Update Filing, to be
effective 6/1/2012.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 23, 2012.

    Dated: April 12, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9371 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5444-5445]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-2238]

Human Gene Therapy for Hemophilia; Guidance for Industry;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance entitled ``Human Gene Therapy for
Hemophilia; Guidance for Industry.'' The guidance document provides
recommendations to stakeholders developing human gene therapy (GT)
products for the treatment of hemophilia. The guidance provides
recommendations on the clinical trial design and related development of
coagulation factor VIII (hemophilia A) and IX (hemophilia B) activity
assays, including how to address discrepancies in factor VIII and
factor IX activity assays. The guidance also includes recommendations
regarding preclinical considerations to support development of GT
products for the treatment of hemophilia. The guidance announced in
this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the same title dated July
2018.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on January 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-D-2238 for ``Human Gene Therapy for Hemophilia; Guidance for
Industry.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing
your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling
CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Walker Udechukwu, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
240-402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled ``Human
Gene Therapy for Hemophilia; Guidance for Industry.'' The guidance
document provides recommendations to stakeholders developing GT
products for the treatment of hemophilia. The guidance provides
recommendations on the clinical trial design and related development of
coagulation factor VIII (hemophilia A) and IX (hemophilia B) activity
assays, including how to address discrepancies in factor VIII and
factor IX activity assays. The guidance also includes recommendations
regarding preclinical considerations to support development of GT
products for the treatment of hemophilia.
    Hemophilia therapy in the United States has progressed from
replacement

therapies for on-demand treatment of bleeding to prophylaxis to reduce
the frequency of bleeding. GT products for the treatment of hemophilia
are being developed as single-dose treatments that may provide long-
term expression of the deficient coagulation factor at steady levels to
reduce or eliminate the need for exogenous factor replacement.
    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing
the availability of two other human gene therapy guidance documents
entitled ``Human Gene Therapy for Retinal Disorders; Guidance for
Industry'' and ``Human Gene Therapy for Rare Diseases; Guidance for
Industry.''
    In the Federal Register of July 12, 2018 (83 FR 32306), FDA
announced the availability of the draft guidance of the same title. FDA
received several comments on the draft guidance, and those comments
were considered as the guidance was finalized. The guidance announced
in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated July 2018.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Human Gene Therapy for Hemophilia.'' It
does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA
or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 58 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0119; the collections of information in 21 CFR
part 211 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139; the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR
part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; the
collections of information in the guidance entitled ``Expedited
Programs for Serious Conditions--Drugs and Biologics'' have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0765; and the collections of
information in the guidance entitled ``Formal Meetings Between the FDA
and Sponsors or Applicants'' have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0429.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: January 27, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-01702 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74352-74354]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9300; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-124-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model DC-6, DC-6A, C-118A, R6D-1, DC-6B, and R6D-1Z
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a fuel leak in
a Model C-118A airplane that resulted from a crack in the wing lower
skin. This proposed AD would require repetitive radiographic,
electromagnetic testing high frequency (ETHF), and electromagnetic
testing low frequency (ETLF) inspections for cracking of the wing lower
skin, and repairs if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking in the wing lower skin, which could adversely
affect the structural integrity of the wing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 12,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9300.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9300; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Haytham Alaidy, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5224; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9300;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-124-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report of a fuel leak in a Model C-118A
airplane. The fuel leak, discovered during a post-flight inspection,
resulted from a crack in the wing lower skin just inboard of the number
2 nacelle attach angle at wing station 175.
    Related AD 80-12-02 R1, Amendment 39-5499, applies to Model DC-6,
DC-6A, DC-6B, R6D, and C-118 series airplanes. AD 80-12-02 R1 requires
repetitive inspections for cracking of the left and right wing lower
skin at certain locations. Although wing station 175 is covered by the
inspection mandated in AD 80-12-02 R1, the crack was missed during an
AD-required inspection.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC6-57A001, dated April 28, 2016
(``ASB DC6-57A001, Revision 0'') is an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) to the inspections required by paragraph (c)(1) of AD 80-12-02
R1. This AMOC only applies to the areas inspected in accordance with
ASB DC6-57A001, Revision 0. The service information referenced in this
NPRM contains revised inspection procedures for crack detection in the
area around wing station 175. Such cracking in the

wing lower skin could adversely affect the structural integrity of the
wing.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed ASB DC6-57A001, Revision 0. The service information
describes procedures for radiographic, ETHF, and ETLF inspections for
cracking of the wing lower skin at station 175, and repairs. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information.'' For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9300.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    ASB DC6-57A001, Revision 0, specifies to contact the manufacturer
for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require
accomplishment of repair methods, modification deviations, and
alteration deviations in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 36 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections.....................  17 work-hours x $85              $0   $1,445 per           $52,020 per
                                   per hour = $1,445                     inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                   per inspection
                                   cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9300; Directorate Identifier
2016-NM-124-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 12, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model DC-6, DC-6A, DC-
6B, C-118A, R6D-1, and R6D-1Z airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a fuel leak in a Model C-
118A airplane that resulted from a crack in the wing lower skin just
inboard of the number 2 nacelle attach angle at wing station 175. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the
wing lower skin, which could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the wing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    Except as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: At the
applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC6-57A001, dated April 28, 2016
(``ASB DC6-57A001, Revision 0''), do radiographic, electromagnetic
testing high frequency (ETHF), and electromagnetic testing low
frequency (ETLF) inspections for cracking of the wing lower skin at
station 175, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
ASB DC6-57A001, Revision 0. Repeat the radiographic, ETHF, and ETLF
inspections of any unrepaired areas thereafter at the applicable
intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of ASB DC6-
57A001, Revision 0.

(h) Repairs

    If any cracking is found during any inspection required by this
AD: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.

(i) Service information Exception

    Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of ASB DC6-57A001,
Revision 0, specifies a compliance time ``after the original issue
date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within
the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (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 paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration 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. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Haytham Alaidy,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5224; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 13, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-25663 Filed 10-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P