[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22204-22207]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08508]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0105 FRL-9944-94-Region 9]

Limited Approval, Limited Disapproval of California 9+Air Plan
Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the Eastern
Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from motor vehicle and mobile
equipment refinishing operations. We are proposing action on a local
rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow
with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2016-0105 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3024<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Population

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                   Rule #               Rule title             Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EKAPCD...........................  410.4A.............  Motor Vehicle and Mobile        03/13/14        07/25/14
                                                         Equipment Refinishing
                                                         Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 11, 2014, the submittal for EKAPCD Rule 410.4A was
found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 410.4A into the SIP on
November 13, 1998 (63 FR 63410). The EKAPCD adopted revisions to the
SIP-approved version on March 13, 2014 and CARB submitted them to us on
July 25, 2014.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter
(PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC
emissions. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from
coatings and solvents used in production, repair, refinish, or
maintenance operations where motor vehicles, mobile equipment, or
associated parts and components are coated.
    The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information
about this rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of
VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see
CAA section 182(b)(2)). The EKAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment
area classified as Marginal Nonattainment for the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (40 CFR 81.305). In addition, EKAPCD is
classified as Moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305).
There is no EPA CTG for Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing
Operations and, according to CARB's facility search engine, there are
no facilities that emit VOC in the EKAPCD for this category for the
most recent database year of 2013. Therefore, Rule 410.4A is not
required to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT)
pursuant to CAA section 182(b)(2).

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the ``Bluebook,'' revised January
11, 1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the ``Little
Bluebook'').
4. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Subpart B, Table 1,
``Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile
Refinish Coatings'' (40 CFR part 59, subpart B, table 1).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    Rule 410.4A improves the SIP by establishing more stringent
emission limits, and by clarifying labeling, test methods and
recordkeeping provisions. The rule is largely consistent with CAA
requirements and relevant guidance regarding enforceability, stringency
and SIP revisions. Rule provisions that do not meet the evaluation
criteria are summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.

C. What are the rule deficiencies?

    These provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and
part D of title I of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP
revision.
     Paragraph VI(A), ``VOC Content Limits,'' provides VOC
limits for cavity wax, deadener, gasket/gasket sealing material,
lubricating wax/compounds and trunk interior coatings. However, in
conflict with long-standing guidance on enforceability such as
discussed in the Bluebook, these terms are not defined in the rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,
Deficiencies, and Deviations,'' (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May
25, 1988. P2-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA
is proposing a limited approval of the submitted rule. If finalized,
this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP,
including those provisions identified as deficient. This approval is
limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval
of the rule under section 110(k)(3).
    Neither sanctions nor a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) would be
imposed should the EPA finalize this limited disapproval. Sanctions
would not be imposed under CAA 179(b) because the submittal of Rule
410.4A is discretionary (i.e., not required to be included in the SIP),
and the EPA would not promulgate a FIP in this instance under CAA
110(c)(1) because the disapproval does not reveal a deficiency in the
SIP for the area that a FIP must correct. Specifically, there is no EPA
CTG for Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing Operations and,
according to CARB's Facility Search Engine, there are no facilities
that emit VOC in the EKAPCD for this category for the most recent
database year of 2013. Accordingly, the failure of the EKAPCD to adopt
revisions to Rule 410.4A would not adversely affect the SIP's
compliance with the CAA's requirements, such as the requirements for
section 182 ozone RACT, reasonable further progress, and attainment
demonstrations.
    Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the EKAPCD, and
the EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency
from enforcing it. The limited disapproval also would not prevent any
portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference into the
federally enforceable SIP.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference EKAPCD Rule 410.4A as described in Table 1 of this notice.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 4, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-08508 Filed 4-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 183 (Monday, September 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56491-56500]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 175 and 181

46 CFR Parts 160 and 169

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0263]
RIN 1625-AC02

Personal Flotation Devices Labeling and Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule to remove
references to type codes in its regulations on the carriage and
labeling of Coast Guard-approved personal flotation devices (PFDs).
Removing these type codes from our regulations will facilitate future
incorporation by reference of new industry consensus standards for PFD
labeling that more effectively convey safety information, and is a step
toward harmonization of our regulations with PFD requirements in Canada
and in other countries.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 22, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this rule as of May 3,
2012.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this final rule as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert
``USCG-2013-0263'' in the ``Search'' box. Click ``Search'' and then
click the ``Open Docket Folder'' icon. The following link will take you
directly to the docket: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2013-0263.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Ms. Brandi Baldwin, Lifesaving and Fire Safety Division,
Coast Guard; telephone 202-2-372-1394, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
For information about viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations
II. Basis and Purpose
III. Background
IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes
V. Discussion of the Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FR Federal Register
LEO Law enforcement officer
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NBSAC National Boating Safety Advisory Council
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PFD Personal flotation device
Pub. L. Public Law
RA Regulatory Analysis
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Basis and Purpose

    Under 46 U.S.C. 3306, 4102, and 4302, the Secretary of the
Department in which the Coast Guard is operating is charged with
prescribing safety requirements for lifesaving equipment on inspected
vessels, uninspected vessels, and recreational vessels. Type approval
and carriage requirements for personal flotation devices (PFDs) fall
under this authority. In Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1(II)(92)(b), the Secretary delegated this 46 U.S.C., Subtitle II,
authority to the Commandant. As required under 46 U.S.C. 4302(c)(4),
the Coast Guard has consulted with the National Boating Safety Advisory
Council (NBSAC) regarding the issue addressed by this final rule. See
NBSAC Resolution 2012-90-05 (available in the docket).
    The purpose of this final rule, which removes references to type
codes in our regulations on the carriage and labeling of Coast Guard-
approved PFDs, is to facilitate future adoption of new industry
consensus standards for PFD labeling that more effectively convey
safety information, and to help

harmonize our regulations with PFD requirements in Canada and in other
countries. Specifically, this final rule will enable the Standards
Technical Panel (Panel), the panel charged with the new industry
consensus standards, to complete development of a standard for wearable
PFDs without including unnecessary references to type codes. By paving
the way for the Panel to develop a new standard, this final rule
supports the efforts of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council,
a bilateral effort coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to develop a ``North American Standard for lifejackets.''

III. Background

    Labeling of PFDs is an important safety matter, as it is the
primary means by which the manufacturer communicates to the end user
how to select the right PFD and use and maintain it properly. Based on
the volume of queries to the Coast Guard in recent years, including
questions from NBSAC members, we believe that the current labels on
Coast Guard-approved PFDs are confusing to the boating public and do
not effectively communicate important safety and regulatory information
to users and law enforcement personnel.
    As noted in the previous section, the Coast Guard is charged with
establishing minimum safety standards, as well as procedures and tests
required to measure compliance with those standards, for commercial and
recreational vessels, and associated equipment. Under this authority,
the Coast Guard has established requirements for the carriage of
approved PFDs that meet certain minimum safety standards.
    The minimum requirements for Coast Guard-approved PFDs are codified
in 46 CFR part 160, and include requirements for labeling. Our current
regulations require that a type code be marked on each Coast Guard-
approved PFD. The Coast Guard historically has used type codes in its
regulations to identify the level of performance of an approved PFD.
Types I, II, and III refer to wearable PFDs (lifejackets) in decreasing
order of performance; Type IV refers to throwable PFDs; and Type V
refers to any PFD that is conditionally approved as equivalent in
performance to Type I, II, III, or IV.
    Coast Guard regulations specify which Coast Guard-approved PFDs are
acceptable for particular applications. Although most of the carriage
requirements for inspected vessels identify the appropriate PFDs by the
applicable approval series \1\ (see, for example, 46 CFR 199.10 and
199.70(b)), our carriage requirements for recreational boats (33 CFR
part 175), uninspected commercial vessels (46 CFR part 25) and sailing
school vessels (46 CFR part 169) specify particular type codes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Approval series refers to the first six digits of a number
assigned by the Coast Guard to approved equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2004, the consultant Applied Safety and Ergonomics studied the
current PFD classification and labeling system through the National
Non-Profit Organization Recreational Boating Safety Grant Program. The
consultant's final report, entitled ``Revision of Labeling and
Classification for Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs)'' (available in
the docket), suggested that our current labels are inadequate and that
users do not adequately understand our PFD type codes.
    We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 14,
2013 (78 FR 49412) that proposed to remove references to type codes in
our regulations on the carriage and labeling of Coast Guard-approved
PFDs. Removing these type codes from our regulations will free the
Panel to develop improved industry consensus standards for the specific
content and format of PFD labels and facilitate future incorporation by
reference of new industry consensus standards for PFD labeling that
will more effectively convey safety information, and is a step toward
harmonization of our regulations with PFD requirements in Canada and in
other countries. Once the Panel completes their work on revising the
standards, the Coast Guard intends to evaluate those standards for
possible incorporation by reference in our regulations; any such
incorporation by reference would involve a separate notice-and-comment
rulemaking.

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received 31 written submissions to the docket. No public
meetings were requested and none were held.
    Several commenters noted that current PFD labeling is confusing,
and that most people who use PFDs do not know or do not care about type
codes. The Coast Guard agrees that current PFD labeling is not well
understood by the public.
    One commenter agreed with the Coast Guard in that the type code
system is flawed, but stated he is not sure a new system will be any
easier. Another commenter pointed out that the type codes are currently
being taught in the state boating safety education classes. Other
commenters expressed concern that the removal of type codes would leave
recreational boaters and commercial vessel operators with no
information for selecting the correct PFD. The Coast Guard notes that,
although this rule will remove the type code terminology from CFR
sections in the regulatory text, PFD labels will not change until the
industry consensus standards are revised. Although we expect that the
transition to a new system of classification and labeling would require
some re-education of the boating community, we are confident that the
public would ultimately benefit from a system of classification and
labeling that uses plain language terminology. Throughout this
transition, PFD users will have sufficient information to comply with
PFD requirements because our definition for a ``throwable PFD'' or a
``wearable PFD'' readily conveys whether a PFD with a type code on it
meets the requirement.
    Several commenters expressed concerns about the impact that
eliminating the existing type code system will have on boaters and
their existing PFDs. This final rule removes type code language from
our carriage requirements and from our regulations for labeling of new
PFDs, but does not make any changes to the number of wearable or
throwable PFDs required. Also we are not requiring any changes to any
existing approved PFDs already purchased and in use. The Coast Guard
acknowledges that PFDs are typically carried on boats for several years
and reaffirms that approved PFDs marked with type codes will still meet
carriage requirements as wearable or throwable PFDs, as appropriate, as
long as they remain in serviceable condition.
    Several commenters had specific suggestions for alternate
formatting and content of a new PFD label. Our proposed rule addressed
only the minimum information required to be present on PFD labels, not
the specific format. Therefore, these comments are beyond the scope of
this rulemaking. The Coast Guard will refer those concerns to the
Panel, so that they may be considered as appropriate during the
standards development process.
    One commenter proposed that the Coast Guard PFD performance and
labeling requirements should align exactly with International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) standards. Another
commenter suggested that instead of labeling, the Coast Guard reorient
its focus to increased performance standards. Comments regarding PFD
performance requirements are beyond the scope of

this rulemaking, which focuses only on simplifying PFD labeling and the
removal of type code language from our regulations.
    Two commenters suggested eliminating the ``throwable''
classification, as defined in our NPRM, and no longer requiring
carriage of throwable PFDs. The Coast Guard believes the ``throwable''
classification is a necessary distinction from ``wearable'' PFDs.
Wearable and throwable PFDs are evaluated to different standards, have
different purposes, and meet different carriage requirements.
Additionally, removing the carriage requirement for throwable PFDs is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter referenced the exemption from carriage requirements
for sailboats in our proposed 33 CFR 175.17(c) (existing 33 CFR
175.17(d)). Our edits to 33 CFR 175.17 remove existing paragraph (a),
which relates to labeling, and reorganize the subsequent paragraphs
accordingly. This rule does not exempt sailboats or any other vessels--
changes to the current carriage requirements are beyond the scope of
this rulemaking.
    One commenter suggested breaking the proposed ``wearable'' category
further into ``active'' and ``passive.'' The Coast Guard notes that
delineating between active and passive PFDs would be of no consequence
without a change to the carriage requirements, which is beyond the
scope of this rulemaking. However, the Coast Guard acknowledges that
the activation mechanism of the PFD can help the user make an informed
decision when selecting an appropriate PFD for a particular activity
and will refer this comment to the Panel for consideration in future
standard development efforts.
    One commenter suggested that ``PFD'' is confusing as a term, and
that the Coast Guard should refer to PFDs as ``lifejackets.'' The Coast
Guard agrees that the term lifejacket is more widely understood by the
public, and uses the term lifejacket to refer to wearable PFDs in media
and other public outreach materials. However, the Coast Guard prefers
to use the term PFD in regulatory and standards language because it
appropriately captures both wearable devices (e.g., lifejackets,
buoyancy aids) and throwable devices (e.g., ring buoys, buoyant
cushions).
    One commenter stated that there may be ``unintended complications''
from our efforts to harmonize terminology with Canada and to simplify
the labeling of PFDs. The Panel consists of both U.S. and Canadian
stakeholders, including representatives of the Coast Guard and
Transport Canada, and both countries have agreed in principle to adopt
this harmonized standard. The Coast Guard has worked with, and will
continue to work with, our Canadian counterparts to resolve any
complications to which the commenter alludes. Once the Panel completes
their work, the Coast Guard will evaluate the new standard for
incorporation by reference into our regulations; we would publish an
NPRM soliciting public comment if we seek to incorporate the Panel
standard by reference. The potential adoption or regulatory
incorporation of a harmonized standard into Coast Guard regulations
would be subject to notice-and-public-comment procedures, providing an
additional venue for identifying and resolving complications.
    Several commenters acknowledged this rulemaking as a step towards
harmonization, but expressed concern over the current process for PFD
approval and the availability of recognized independent laboratories
for testing and factory follow-up. This rulemaking does not address
approval or testing, and does not affect the existing requirements for
recognized independent laboratories, and thus these comments are
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    Some State agency commenters requested more time to comply with the
changes introduced by this rule. They noted that costs will be incurred
when updating and revising not only State laws and regulations, as
applicable, but also written material--such as guide books or
educational pamphlets. As discussed above, this rulemaking is a
necessary step to permit the transition to a new PFD labeling format.
This final rule does not affect existing PFDs previously purchased or
currently in use, because our definition for a ``throwable PFD'' or a
``wearable PFD'' readily conveys whether a PFD with a type code on it
meets the requirement. Additionally, we believe that, even after a new
label standard is completed, it will take industry time to exhaust its
supplies of type labels and to begin printing the new labels.
Therefore, we expect a prolonged transition to a new label format,
during which time both label formats would be present in the market.
Likewise, we anticipate that it will take time for States and other
entities to update their outreach and education materials, which will
result in an overlap period. States may choose not to update their
training materials immediately since existing PFDs, with type codes on
them, may still be used. However, this final rule must be effective to
permit a transition phase to begin. This rule will become effective
October 22, 2014, and we encourage all affected agencies to update
their outreach materials as the market transitions over the next few
years.
    One commenter suggested that the Coast Guard reach out to authors
of other voluntary consensus standards regarding possible impacts of
this rule. As discussed in the NPRM, we reviewed material from other
Federal and State regulatory agencies, particularly existing regulatory
text, for potential impacts from the removal of the type codes from the
Coast Guard's regulations. We also noted there may be other entities
interested. We acknowledge the comment and note no additional entities
identified their organizations during the proposal's comment period or
in response to the proposal's public affairs material. We would expect
that others affected may emerge as they review the Federal Register and
other public affairs materials and will work with them as the Panel
develops the new standard.
    One commenter pointed out several additional sections of regulatory
text where references to type codes still appear in marking
requirements and suggested that we amend these as well. The Coast Guard
acknowledges that it did miss some references to type codes that should
have been removed when we drafted the NPRM. To correct that omission,
we made two changes to the regulatory text. We amended the regulatory
text related to PFD marking requirements in 46 CFR 160.053-5 and
160.077-31. These changes are consistent with our proposed changes in
the NPRM. However, the Coast Guard notes that it cannot remove every
reference to type codes at this time. The industry consensus standards
which are currently incorporated by reference into the regulations as
the basis for Coast Guard approval of PFDs, which include requirements
for materials, construction, and testing, as well as labeling, still
use type codes. Therefore, the PFDs tested to these standards still are
assigned a type code, even if that type code is no longer required to
be printed on the label. But these remaining references to type codes
will not hinder the Panel's efforts to develop improved industry
consensus standards.
    In addition to the changes noted above based on comments, we made a
few editorial, non-substantive changes from the regulatory text
proposed in the NPRM. For example, in 33 CFR 175.17 we changed our
qualifier for canoes and kayaks from ``16 feet in length and over'' to
``16 feet or more in length'' to make it consistent with preferred
language used in 33 CFR 175.15(b).

V. Discussion of the Rule

    In this final rule, the Coast Guard removes references to
longstanding PFD type codes from its regulations for the carriage and
marking of Coast Guard-approved PFDs. Under these amendments, the
number and kind of PFDs required to be carried on a vessel will not
change, but the terminology used to refer to approved PFDs will. Our
current assignment of a type code to a PFD does not affect the PFD's
suitability for meeting the applicable vessel carriage requirements.
This final rule removes regulatory barriers to the development of a new
industry consensus standard for PFD labels, which would potentially
allow manufacturers to produce a more user-friendly label format on
Coast Guard-approved PFDs in the future. For a detailed description of
the proposed rule, see the NPRM (78 FR 49413, August 14, 2013).

VI. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 14 of these statutes or E.O.s.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and 13563
(``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'') direct agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and,
if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility.
    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
not reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we developed a
regulatory analysis (RA) describing the costs and benefits of the rule
to ascertain its probable impacts on industry. A final RA follows.
    The RA provides an evaluation of the economic impacts associated
with this final rule. The table which follows provides a summary of the
final rule's costs and benefits.

                 Table 1--Summary of the Rule's Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                              Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population...............  66 PFD manufacturers.
                                    6 Federal agencies.
                                    Up to 56 State/territorial
                                     jurisdictions.
Costs ($, 7% discount rate).......  $15,224 (annualized: $692 private
                                     sector, $14,532 government).
                                    $106,928 (10-year: $4,857 private
                                     sector, $102,071 government).
Unquantified Benefits.............  * Improve effectiveness of PFD
                                     marking/labels without compromising
                                     safety.
                                    * Prevent misuse and
                                     misunderstandings of PFDs.
                                    * Remove impediment to future
                                     harmonization with international
                                     standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule revises the existing regulations regarding labeling
of PFDs, by removing requirements for type codes to be included on PFD
labels.
Affected Population
    Based on the Coast Guard Guard's Marine Information for Safety and
Law Enforcement database, we estimate that this final rule affects
approximately 66 PFD manufacturers. Up to 56 State and territorial
jurisdictions may be impacted. There are six Federal governmental
agencies--the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA); the Department of the Interior's Bureau of
Reclamation, National Park Service, and United States Fish and Wildlife
Service; the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service; and the
Department of Defense--which may have to adjust their regulations or
policy documents because they incorporate Coast Guard standards that
mention PFD type codes. Of these six, OSHA is the only agency we have
identified that specifically references Coast Guard type codes in its
regulations. We have coordinated with the OSHA Directorate of Standards
and Guidance to ensure that OSHA's PFD-related regulations can be
aligned readily with the revisions to the Coast Guard regulations. We
also have reached out via the Interagency Working Group for Visitor
Safety to the National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Forest
Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, and they have not expressed any objections to our
proposed action. We received no comments on the estimated affected
population in the public comment period.
Costs
    The Coast Guard expects that this rule will result in one-time
costs of approximately $114,413 ($111,209 at 7% a discount rate). See
Table 2 below. The Coast Guard estimates that $5,197 ($4,857 at 7% a
discount rate) is attributable to the private sector. We estimate that
this final rule affects 66 manufacturers of PFDs. No additional
equipment will be required by the rule; however some labor may be
required. PFD manufacturers may need to reprogram stitching machines or
silk screen machines to conform with the new label requirements. This
rule only affects labeling on PFDs manufactured after the effective
date of this rule.

                                       Table 2--Regulatory Cost Breakdown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Duration                        Affected
                                                      (hours)       Loaded wage      entities          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private Sector Costs............................               1          $78.74              66          $5,197
Federal Regulatory Review.......................             0.5           79.38               6             238
Federal Policy Document Update..................              10           79.38               6           4,763
Federal Stakeholder Notification................             0.5           79.38               6             238

State Regulatory Review.........................             0.5           73.43              56           2,056
State Stakeholder Notification..................             0.5           73.43              56           2,056
State Policy Update by Legislature..............              10           73.43              36          26,435
State Policy Update by Commission...............             100           73.43              10          73,430
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............         114,413
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Federal agencies that incorporate by reference the Coast Guard
regulations amended by this final rule may need to review their
regulations to assure consistency with the change. Some States and
Federal agencies may want to initiate rulemakings or legislation to
update their regulations or statutes to remove unnecessary references
to type codes. States and Federal agencies may need to communicate to
law enforcement personnel the changes of the final rule and some
authorities may need to update their boating safety training materials
to reflect the changes. These costs are described in the following
passages.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges the States' concerns regarding the
alignment of their statutes and regulations with Coast Guard
requirements. However, our revised regulatory text includes the
relevant type codes in the definitions of ``wearable PFD'' and
``throwable PFD.'' Therefore, language that references type codes would
still be considered not inconsistent with these regulations at this
time.
    Recreational boaters will not experience a cost increase because of
this rulemaking. Existing PFDs may continue to be used. No action is
required by recreational boaters.
    The table which follows presents the estimated cost associated with
the rulemaking.

                          Table 3--Total Estimated Cost Associated With the Rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discounted 7%   Discounted 3%   Undiscounted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1..........................................................        $106,928        $111,081        $114,413
Year 2..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 3..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 4..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 5..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 6..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 7..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 8..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 9..........................................................               0               0               0
Year 10.........................................................               0               0               0
Total...........................................................         106,928         111,081         114,413
Annualized......................................................          15,224          13,022          11,441
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard estimates that reprogramming stitching machines or
silk screen machines takes approximately 1 hour per manufacturer. This
estimate comports with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's)
estimated cost of compliance for relabeling of sunscreens to comply
with new labeling requirements.\2\ This is the most similar Federal
rulemaking we found in our research that involves a regulatory
requirement on labels. Both the FDA's and this rulemaking involve
changes to labeling. The FDA estimated that it would take 0.5 hour to
prepare, complete, and review the labeling for each product. The Coast
Guard used a higher value than FDA: 1 Hour per product to prepare,
complete and review the new labeling. The higher value accounts for
possible involvement of more than one type of machine (i.e., stitching
or silk screen), more complex machinery for PFD labels and the need for
management communication to multiple factories or stitching machine
designers. The Coast Guard sought comment from PFD manufacturers
regarding the costs associated with changing PFD labels in response to
the proposed rule; however, no comments were provided by PFD
manufacturers in response to the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See SPF Labeling and Testing Requirements and Drug Facts
Labeling for Over-the-Counter Sunscreen Drug Products; Agency
Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection (76 FR 35678,
June 17, 2011); and Labeling and Effectiveness Testing; Sunscreen
Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use Final rule (76 FR
35620, June 17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Labor costs for a PFD manufacturer are estimated at $78.74 per hour
(fully loaded) for a manager based on a mean wage rate of $46.87; this
estimate is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data Occupational
Employment Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, for
Industrial Production Managers (11-3051, May 2012).\3\ From there, we
applied a load factor (or benefits multiplier) of 1.68, to determine
the actual cost of employment to employers and industry.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The reader may review the source data at http://www.bls.gov/oes/2012/may/oessrci.htm.
    \4\ This was calculated using data found on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics' Web site. The load factor is calculated specifically for
Production, transportation and material moving occupations, Full-
time, Private Industry (Series ID: CMU2010000520610D, 2012, 2nd
Quarter). This category was used as it was the closest available
corresponding to the industry being analyzed in this regulatory
analysis. Total cost of compensation per hour worked: $26.61, of
which $15.84 is wages, resulting in a load factor of 1.6799 ($26.61/
$15.84). We rounded this factor to 1.68. (Source: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv) Using similar applicable industry groups
and time periods results in the same estimate of load factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other costs, States will need to review their laws and
regulations to assure conformity with the change, as some have, based
on comments received on the NPRM. In turn, some States may need to
initiate rulemakings or make statutory changes to remove references to
type codes; we discuss this further in

this section. The Coast Guard estimates that these agencies will take
approximately 0.5 hour to review their laws and regulations. Their
review task is estimated by the loaded wage rate of $73.43 per hour
(from an unloaded hourly mean wage rate of $44.50 for a manager from
Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2012, 11-1021 General and
Operations Managers Local Government). The average cost for a State to
perform this task would be approximately $36.71.
    Some commenters to the NPRM suggested that there may be additional
tasks required of States; commenters stated that training materials
would need to be updated. One commenter believed that ``The vast
majority of PFD users have no idea of one type of PFD from another . .
. they don't know and they don't care. For those who do care they will
be without guidance. Several years ago the USCG started to allow some
traditional type V PFD to be called and used as type III. I have to
decide now to issue citations to PFD users who think they are legal but
in fact are not legal.'' The Coast Guard does not intend for State law
enforcement officers (LEOs) to issue citations based on this final
rule's changes. Existing PFDs may continue to be used. In response to
the comment, the Coast Guard has added a cost to its estimate to
reflect some labor that States may expend to communicate the change to
law enforcement officials and to explain what will be expected of them
as a result of the final rule. The Coast Guard estimates that the labor
required for this task to be approximately 30 minutes (0.5 hour) to
prepare an email and/or electronic bulletin board notice to LEOs. The
Coast Guard anticipates that more than one layer of authority may be
involved in disseminating this information and has estimated the task's
duration accordingly. In addition, although the Coast Guard anticipates
that most States do not have training manuals for LEOs which cover this
topic, we acknowledge that there may be some States that have a
training manual which may need to be updated to reflect the final
rule's changes.\5\ For this reason, although they are not included in
the total cost of the final rule, we estimate the cost of updating a
training manual. If a State were to update their training manual, we
estimate that it may take a given State 1 hour of labor time. The Coast
Guard acknowledges that States may choose not to update their training
materials immediately since existing PFDs, with type codes on them, may
still be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We estimate the number of States needing to update their
training manuals would be fewer than 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, this final rule impacts some Federal agencies and they
will need to review their regulations or policy documents to determine
if any changes are needed. The Coast Guard estimates that it would take
0.5 hour to do this task. The Coast Guard estimates the labor cost to
be $79.38 per hour for a Federal manager (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
``Occupational Employment and Wages, First-Line Supervisors of
Transportation and Material-Moving Machine and Vehicle Operators, 53-
1031 Federal Executive Branch and a load factor of 1.65) \6\ and there
are an estimated six Federal agencies potentially impacted. Based on
these data, this task costs each affected Federal agency less than $50
to review regulations or policy documents. To update a policy document,
we estimate that 10 hours would be expended by a Federal agency to do
so. We also estimate that Federal governmental agencies may expend 30
minutes (0.5 hour) to communicate the change to Federal LEOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This load factor is calculated specifically for Public
Administration, State and Local Government occupations, Full-time
(Series ID: CMU3019200000000D,CMU3019200000000P, 2012, 2nd Quarter.
Total cost of compensation per hour worked: $39.642, of which $23.97
is wages, resulting in a load factor of 1.653734 ($39.64/$23.97). We
rounded this factor to 1.65 (rounded to the nearest hundredth).
(Source: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/data.htm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional costs may occur as a result of this rule; these costs
arise from labor expended for rulemaking. More specifically, some State
and Federal agencies may require a rulemaking to update their
regulations to incorporate this proposed change into their regulations,
policy documents or statutes.
    To assess these costs, we first note the rulemaking process varies
greatly across State and territorial governmental units. The reader
should note that not all impacted governmental units are expected to
incur a cost associated with this task because some States incorporate
by reference Coast Guard standards and will not need to take action.
Some agencies may be able to update their regulations for this change
by incorporating this change into an existing or planned rulemaking.
Some also may choose not to pursue a rulemaking immediately.
    To estimate a cost for this step, we reviewed publicly available
data on the Internet for States and territories. Based on that review,
we estimated the number of States and territories which would fall into
the various categories of rulemaking. In the first category, we
estimate that there would be six States and territories which
incorporate by reference Coast Guard regulations and, therefore, would
incur no costs. Next, we estimate another 36 States and territories
engage in rulemaking activities by State agencies. In the next
category, an estimated 10 States and territories will update their
regulations by more lengthy processes; either by statute change via a
legislative vote, or by a rulemaking process involving the legislative
branch of government or the State-level executive branch of government.
The change may be a stand-alone proposed rule or legislation, or the
change may be part of an omnibus set of changes. In the last category,
we estimate that four States and territories would take no rulemaking
action; for these, their regulations or statutes may not need revision
because of how they are written. The table which follows presents a
summary of this data.

                       Table 4--Estimated Rulemaking Activities for States and Territories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Number of States     Level of effort
                  Level of activity                     or territories     required (hours)       Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporate by Reference............................                   6                   0                  $0
State Policy Update by Legislature..................                  36                  10              26,435
State Policy Update by Commission...................                  10                 100              73,430
No change necessary.................................                   4                   0                   0
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................................  ..................  ..................              99,865
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that costs to a given State or territory for this step
range from no cost to $7,343. Some costs may be offset because some
States may have already started this process in anticipation of the new
industry consensus standard for PFD labeling through the Panel.
    During the public comment period, the Coast Guard received two
comments on its cost estimates. One commenter wrote ``Florida is one of
the ten states referenced where making appropriate changes in state law
will require legislative action. Both the estimated number of hours and
associated cost as provided . . . are considered to be reasonable
estimates . . . the benefit of the intended outcomes outweigh the
challenge of making changes to state law.'' Another commenter suggested
that our estimate of 100 hours for a legislative change may be too low
but acknowledged that ``it is difficult to define what would be an
accurate number of hours'' due to extraneous factors, and further
acknowledged that the commenter's State authorities may not take action
immediately to implement the change since existing PFDs are still
useable. The Coast Guard has not changed its estimates for the cost of
legislative changes since no data are available to refine its estimates
and some States may not act immediately. The commenter similarly noted
that boater education manuals and Web site materials may need to be
updated. The Coast Guard agrees that boater education material may need
to be updated for some States and notes that some States may choose not
to do so immediately since existing PFDs are still useable.
    As noted earlier, the Coast Guard received a comment on the need of
State (and Federal) governmental agencies to update training manuals on
the subject. The Coast Guard agreed, but it is unknown if Federal
agencies have training manuals for their LEOs which cover PFDs. In the
case of any Federal agency which has a training manual which covers PFD
types, we estimate that Federal governmental agencies may expend one
hour to do so. We also estimate that Federal governmental agencies may
expend 30 minutes (0.5 hour) to communicate the change to Federal LEOs.
In addition to the costs noted in the previous paragraphs, the Coast
Guard may experience some costs in subsequent years to augment existing
boater education efforts to include information associated with this
final rule. However, the Coast Guard may be able to use existing
partnerships, Internet resources, and other technologies which offer
more cost effective solutions.
Benefits
    The final rule amends existing regulations regarding labeling of
PFDs. The rulemaking promotes maritime safety by eliminating confusion
associated with type codes, and by improving the understanding of PFD
performance and use. The Coast Guard is pursuing this amendment to
allow the Panel to develop new labeling standards that better prevent
misuse, misunderstandings, and inappropriate selection of PFDs without
compromising the existing level of safety.
    The rulemaking improves the relevance of markings on PFDs. The
Coast Guard believes that removing irrelevant information increases the
likelihood that the user will read and understand the label, and thus
select the proper PFD and be able to use it correctly. This also would
provide benefits by reducing confusion among enforcement officers and
the boating public over whether a particular PFD is approved and meets
the relevant carriage requirements.
    The rulemaking also allows for the harmonization of our regulations
with other countries, and allows for the adoption of future industry
consensus standards for label requirements. For recreational PFDs,
which comprise about 97 percent of the U.S. PFD market, the approvals
are based on industry consensus standards that contain marking
requirements. By referring to those standards directly, the Coast Guard
reduces regulatory redundancy and minimizes the risk of conflict
between regulatory requirements and industry consensus standards.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard expects that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on small entities. As described in the ``Regulatory
Planning and Review'' section, the Coast Guard expects this rule to
result in costs to industry (approximately $78 per PFD manufacturer).
An estimated 92.4 percent of the 66 PFD manufacturers are considered
small by the Small Business Administration size standards. The
compliance costs for this rulemaking amount to less than 1 percent of
revenue for all small entities. Costs will be incurred in the first
year of the final rule's enactment for PFD manufacturers. No additional
costs for labor or equipment will be incurred in future years. No small
governmental jurisdictions are impacted by the rulemaking.
    Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offered to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

D. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. As defined in 5
CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar
actions. The final rule will not require a change to existing OMB-
approved collection of information (1625-0035 Title 46 CFR Subchapter
Q: Lifesaving, Electrical, Engineering and Navigation Equipment,
Construction and Materials & Marine Sanitation Devices (33 CFR part
159)). The final rule will not require relabeling of PFDs, but instead
will remove minor data elements from existing labeling requirements.
Labeling of PFDs is an automated process, and the change in content
will not result in any change in burden hours.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132
(``Federalism'') if it has 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. We have analyzed this final rule under that order
and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in the
Executive Order. Our analysis follows.

    It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled
that all of the categories covered for inspected vessels in 46 U.S.C.
3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair,
maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning
of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other
category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole
source of a vessel's obligations are within the field foreclosed from
regulation by the States. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in the
consolidated cases of United States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,
529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 2000).) In this final rule, the
Coast Guard replaces unnecessary references to type codes in labeling
and carriage requirements for Coast Guard-approved PFDs on inspected
vessels and recreational vessels. With regard to these regulations
promulgated under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 3306 concerning inspected
vessels, they fall within fields foreclosed from regulation by State or
local governments. Therefore, this final rule is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described
in E.O. 13132.
    With regard to regulations promulgated under 46 U.S.C. 4302
concerning recreational vessels, under 46 U.S.C. 4306, those Federal
regulations that establish minimum safety standards for recreational
vessels and their associated equipment, as well as regulations that
establish procedures and tests required to measure conformance with
those standards, preempt State law, unless the State law is identical
to a Federal regulation or a State is specifically provided an
exemption to those regulations, or permitted to regulate marine safety
articles carried or used to address a hazardous condition or
circumstance unique to that State. As an exemption has not been
granted, and because the States may not issue regulations that differ
from Coast Guard regulations within these categories for recreational
vessels, this final rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    In the NPRM, we invited affected State and local governments and
their representative national organizations to indicate their desire
for participation and consultation in this rulemaking process by
submitting comments on the proposed rule. We also noted we would
document the extent of our consultation with State and local officials
that submit comments, summarize the nature of concerns raised by State
or local governments and our response, and state the extent to which
the concerns of State and local officials have been met.
    Our consultation with State and local governments and their
representative national organizations who submitted comments has been
reflected in our responses to those comments in the preamble of this
final rule. In the Discussion of Comments and Changes section above, we
summarized all comments received and provided our responses to those
comments, which included comments from State or local governments.
    We believe we have met the concerns expressed by State and local
officials. Outside the preamble of this final rule, we did not respond
separately in writing to submissions from State agencies.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under E.O. 12630 (``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'').

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988, (``Civil Justice Reform''), to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13045 (``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks''). This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

 J. Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175
(``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''),
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribal governments.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211 (``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use''). We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy
action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under E.O. 12866 and is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f, and have concluded that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(a) of the Instruction and under section 6(a) of the
``Appendix to National Environmental Policy Act: Coast Guard Procedures
for Categorical Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency Policy'' (67 FR
48244, July 23, 2002). This rule involves regulations which are
editorial and concern carriage requirements and vessel operation safety
standards. An environmental analysis checklist and a

categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 175

    Marine safety.

33 CFR Part 181

    Labeling, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 160

    Incorporation by reference, Marine safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

46 CFR Part 169

    Fire prevention, Marine safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools, Vessels.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR parts 175 and 181, and 46 CFR parts 160 and 169 as follows:

Title 33--Navigation and Navigable Waters

PART 175--EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 175 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 4302; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  175.13 to read as follows:

Sec.  175.13  Definitions.

    As used in this subpart:
    Personal flotation device or PFD means a device that is approved by
the Commandant under 46 CFR part 160.
    Throwable PFD means a PFD that is intended to be thrown to a person
in the water. A PFD marked as Type IV or Type V with Type IV
performance is considered a throwable PFD. Unless specifically marked
otherwise, a wearable PFD is not a throwable PFD.
    Wearable PFD means a PFD that is intended to be worn or otherwise
attached to the body. A PFD marked as Type I, Type II, Type III, or
Type V with Type (I, II or III) performance is considered a wearable
PFD.

0
3. Amend Sec.  175.15 by revising the introductory text and paragraphs
(a) and (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  175.15  Personal flotation devices required.

    Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  175.17 and 175.25:
    (a) No person may use a recreational vessel unless--
    (1) At least one wearable PFD is on board for each person;
    (2) Each PFD is used in accordance with any requirements on the
approval label; and
    (3) Each PFD is used in accordance with any requirements in its
owner's manual, if the approval label makes reference to such a manual.
    (b) No person may use a recreational vessel 16 feet or more in
length unless one throwable PFD is onboard in addition to the total
number of wearable PFDs required in paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec.  175.17 to read as follows:

Sec.  175.17  Exemptions.

    (a) Canoes and kayaks 16 feet or more in length are exempted from
the requirements for carriage of the additional throwable PFD required
under Sec.  175.15(b).
    (b) Racing shells, rowing sculls, racing canoes, and racing kayaks
are exempted from the requirements for carriage of any PFD required
under Sec.  175.15.
    (c) Sailboards are exempted from the requirements for carriage of
any PFD required under Sec.  175.15.
    (d) Vessels of the United States used by foreign competitors while
practicing for or racing in competition are exempted from the carriage
of any PFD required under Sec.  175.15, provided the vessel carries one
of the sponsoring foreign country's acceptable flotation devices for
each foreign competitor onboard.

0
5. Revise Sec.  175.19 to read as follows:

Sec.  175.19  Stowage.

    (a) No person may use a recreational boat unless each wearable PFD
required by Sec.  175.15 is readily accessible.
    (b) No person may use a recreational boat unless each throwable PFD
required by Sec.  175.15 is immediately available.

0
6. Amend Sec.  175.21 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:

Sec.  175.21  Condition; size and fit; approval marking.

    No person may use a recreational boat unless each PFD required by
Sec.  175.15 is--
* * * * *

PART 181--MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS

0
7. The authority citation for part 181 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 4302; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1 (92).

Sec.  181.702  [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  181.702(a) and (b) by removing, wherever they appear,
the words ``Type I, II, III, IV, or V''.

Title 46--Shipping

PART 160--LIFESAVING EQUIPMENT

0
9. The authority citation for part 160 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703 and 4302; E.O. 12234; 45
FR 58801; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  160.001-1  [Amended]

0
10. Amend Sec.  160.001-1(a)(1) by removing the words ``(Type I
personal flotation devices (PFDs))''.

Sec.  160.001-3  [Amended]

0
11. Amend Sec.  160.001-3(d) as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (d)(4); and
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(5), (6), (7), and (8) as paragraphs
(d)(4), (5), (6), and (7), respectively.

Sec.  160.002-6  [Amended]

0
12. Amend Sec.  160.002-6(b) by removing the words ``Type I Personal
Flotation Device.''.

Sec.  160.005-6  [Amended]

0
13. Amend Sec.  160.005-6(b) by removing the words ``Type I-Personal
Flotation Device.''.

Sec.  160.047-6  [Amended]

0
14. Amend Sec.  160.047-6(a) by removing the words ``Type II Personal
Flotation Device.''.

Sec.  160.052-8  [Amended]

0
15. Amend Sec.  160.052-8(a) by removing the words ``Type II-Personal
flotation device.''.

Sec.  160.053-5  [Amended]

0
16. Amend Sec.  160.053-5(a) by removing the words ``Type V--Personal
flotation device.''.

Sec.  160.055-8  [Amended]

0
17. Amend Sec.  160.055-8(b) by removing the words ``Type I or Type V
Personal Flotation Device.''.

Sec.  160.060-8  [Amended]

0
18. Amend Sec.  160.060-8(a) by removing the words ``Type II Personal
Flotation Device.''.

0
19. Revise Sec.  160.064-4 to read as follows:

Sec.  160.064-4  Marking.

    (a) Labels. Each water safety buoyant device must be marked in
accordance with the recognized laboratory's listing

and labeling requirements in accordance with Sec.  160.064-3(a). At a
minimum, all labels must include--
    (1) Size information, as appropriate;
    (2) The Coast Guard approval number;
    (3) Manufacturer's contact information;
    (4) Model name/number;
    (5) Lot number, manufacturer date; and
    (6) Any limitations or restrictions on approval or special
instructions for use.
    (b) Durability of marking. Marking must be of a type which will be
durable and legible for the expected life of the device.

0
20. Amend Sec.  160.076-5 as follows:
0
a. Remove the parenthecial ``(I, II, or III)'' from the definition of
``Performance type'';
0
b. Remove the definition of ``PFD Approval Type''; and
0
c. Revise the definitions of ``Conditional approval'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  160.076-5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Conditional approval means a PFD approval which has condition(s)
with which the user must comply in order for the PFD to be counted
toward meeting the carriage requirements for the vessel on which it is
being used.
* * * * *

Sec.  160.076-7  [Removed and Reserved]

0
21. Remove and reserve Sec.  160.076-7.
0
22. Amend Sec.  160.076-9 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``is categorized as a Type V PFD
and''; and
0
b. Revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  160.076-9  Conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (b) PFDs not meeting the performance specifications in UL 1180
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  160.076-11) may be conditionally
approved when the Commandant determines that the performance or design
characteristics of the PFD make such classification appropriate.

Sec.  160.076-13  [Amended]

0
23. Amend Sec.  160.076-13 as follows:
0
a. Remove paragraph (c)(3); and
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4), (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) as
paragraphs (c)(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8), respectively.

Sec.  160.076-23  [Amended]

0
24. Amend Sec.  160.076-23(a)(1) by removing the words ``applicable to
the PFD performance type for which approval is sought''.

Sec.  160.076-25  [Amended]

0
25. Amend Sec.  160.076-25(b) by removing the words ``that are
applicable to the PFD performance type for which approval is sought''.
0
26. Revise Sec.  160.076-39 to read as follows:

Sec.  160.076-39  Marking.

    Each inflatable PFD must be marked as specified in UL 1180
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  160.076-11). At a minimum, all
labels must include--
    (a) Size information, as appropriate;
    (b) The Coast Guard approval number;
    (c) Manufacturer's contact information;
    (d) Model name/number;
    (e) Lot number, manufacturer date; and
    (f) Any limitations or restrictions on approval or special
instructions for use.

Sec.  160.077-31  [Amended]

0
27. Amend Sec.  160.077-31 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``Type [II, III, or V, as
applicable] PFD''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d), remove the words ``Type [``I'', ``V'', or ``V Work
Vest Only'', as applicable] PFD''.

Sec.  160.176-23  [Amended]

0
28. Amend Sec.  160.176-23 as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c), remove the words ``Type V PFD-'' and ``in lieu of
(see paragraph (f) of this section for exact text to be used here)'';
and
0
b. Remove paragraph (f).

PART 169--SAILING SCHOOL VESSELS

0
29. The authority citation for part 169 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(j); 46 U.S.C. 3306, 6101; Pub. L.
103-206, 107 Stat. 2439; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975
Comp., p. 793; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1; Sec.  169.117 also issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C.
3507.

0
30. Amend Sec.  169.539 as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text, remove the word ``either'';
0
b. In paragraph (a), remove the words ``A Type I approved'' and add, in
their place, the word ``Approved'', and remove the second use of the
word ``or'';
0
c. In paragraph (b), remove the words ``a Type V approved'' and add, in
their place, the word ``Approved''; and
0
d. Revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  169.539  Type required.

* * * * *
    (c) Approved under subparts 160.047, 160.052, or 160.060 of this
chapter or approved under subpart 160.064 of this chapter if the vessel
carries exposure suits or exposure PFDs, in accordance with Sec.
169.551.

    Dated: September 15, 2014.
J. G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2014-22373 Filed 9-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 7484-7485]
[DOCID:fr15fe07-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension: Rule 23c-3, and Form N-23c-3, SEC File No. 270-373 OMB
Control No. 3235-0422

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 350 et. seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit these existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 23c-3 (17 CFR 270.23c-3) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) is entitled: ``Repurchase of Securities
of Closed-End Companies.'' The rule permits certain closed-end
investment companies (``closed-end funds'' or ``funds'') periodically
to offer to repurchase from shareholders a limited number of shares at
net asset value. The rule includes several reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. The fund must send shareholders a notification that
contains specified information each time the fund makes a repurchase
offer (on a quarterly, semi-annual, or annual basis, or for certain
funds, on a discretionary basis not more often than every two years).
The fund also must file copies of the shareholder notification with the
Commission (electronically through the Commission's Electronic Data
Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval System (``EDGAR'')) attached to Form
N-23c-3 (17 CFR 274.221), a cover sheet that provides limited
information about the fund and the type of offer the fund is making.\1\
The fund must

describe in its annual report to shareholders the fund's policy
concerning repurchase offers and the results of any repurchase offers
made during the reporting period. The fund's board of directors must
adopt written procedures designed to ensure that the fund's investment
portfolio is sufficiently liquid to meet its repurchase obligations and
other obligations under the rule. The board periodically must review
the composition of the fund's portfolio and change the liquidity
procedures as necessary. The fund also must file copies of
advertisements and other sales literature with the Commission as if it
were an open-end investment company subject to section 24 of the
Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-24) and the rules that implement
section 24.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Form N-23c-3 requires the fund to state its registration
number, its full name and address, the date of the accompanying
shareholder notification, and the type of offer being made
(periodic, discretionary, or both).
    \2\ Rule 24b-3 under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.24b-
3), however, would generally exempt the fund from that requirement
when the materials are filed instead with the NASD, as nearly always
occurs under NASD procedures, which apply to the underwriter of
every fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement that the fund send a notification to shareholders
of each offer is intended to ensure that a fund provides material
information to shareholders about the terms of each offer, which may
differ from previous offers on such matters as the maximum amount of
shares to be repurchased (the maximum repurchase amount may range from
5% to 25% of outstanding shares). The requirement that copies be sent
to the Commission is intended to enable the Commission to monitor the
fund's compliance with the notification requirement. The requirement
that the shareholder notification be attached to Form N-23c-3 is
intended to ensure that the fund provides basic information necessary
for the Commission to process the notification and to monitor the
fund's use of repurchase offers. The requirement that the fund describe
its current policy on repurchase offers and the results of recent
offers in the annual shareholder report is intended to provide
shareholders current information about the fund's repurchase policies
and its recent experience. The requirement that the board approve and
review written procedures designed to maintain portfolio liquidity is
intended to ensure that the fund has enough cash or liquid securities
to meet its repurchase obligations, and that written procedures are
available for review by shareholders and examination by the Commission.
The requirement that the fund file advertisements and sales literature
as if it were an open-end investment company is intended to facilitate
the review of these materials by the Commission or the NASD to prevent
incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading disclosure about the special
characteristics of a closed-end fund that makes periodic repurchase
offers.
    Complying with the collection of information requirements of the
rule is mandatory only for those funds that rely on the rule in order
to repurchase shares of the fund. The information provided to the
Commission on Form N-23c-3 will not be kept confidential.
    The Commission staff estimates that approximately 34 funds make use
of rule 23c-3, and that on average a fund spends approximately 126
hours annually in complying with the requirements of the rule and Form
N-23c-3. The Commission staff therefore estimates the total annual
burden of the rule's and form's paperwork requirements to be 4284
hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burdens
of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312;
or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 6, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-2613 Filed 2-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35701-35702]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15695]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 17a-4, SEC File No. 270-198, OMB Control No. 3235-0279.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information provided for in Rule 17a-4 (17 CFR 240.17a-4), under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17a-4 requires exchange members, brokers, and dealers
(``broker-dealers'') to preserve for prescribed periods of time certain
records required to be made by Rule 17a-3. In addition, Rule 17a-4
requires the preservation of records required to be made by other
Commission rules and other kinds of records which firms make or receive
in the ordinary course of business. These include, but are not limited
to, bank statements, cancelled checks, bills receivable and payable,
originals of communications, and descriptions of various transactions.
Rule 17a-4 also permits broker-dealers to employ, under certain
conditions, electronic storage media to maintain records required to be
maintained under Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4.
    There are approximately 3,764 active, registered broker-dealers.
The staff estimates that the average amount of time necessary to
preserve the books and records as required by Rule 17a-4 is 254 hours
per broker-dealer per year. Additionally, the Commission estimates that
paragraph (b)(11) of Rule 17a-4 imposes an annual burden of 3 hours per
year to maintain the requisite records. The Commission estimates that
there are approximately 200 internal broker-dealer systems, resulting
in an annual recordkeeping burden of 600 hours. Therefore, the
Commission estimates that compliance with Rule 17a-4 requires 956,656
hours each year ((3,764 broker-dealers x 254 hours) + (200 broker-
dealers x 3 hours)). These burdens are recordkeeping burdens.
    The staff believes that compliance personnel would be charged with
ensuring compliance with Commission regulation, including Rule 17a-4.
The staff estimates that the hourly salary of a Compliance Clerk is $70
per hour.\1\ Based upon these numbers, the total internal cost of
compliance for 3,764 respondents is the dollar cost of approximately
$67 million ((956,056 yearly hours x $70) + (600 x $70)). The total
burden hour decrease of 86,210 hours is due to a decrease in the number
of respondents from 4,104 to 3,764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This figure is based on SIFMA's Office Salaries in the
Securities Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to account
for inflation and an 1,800-hour work-year multiplied by 2.93 to
account for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on conversations with members of the securities industry and
the Commission's experience in the area, the staff estimates that the
average broker-dealer spends approximately $5,000 each year to store
documents required to be retained under Rule 17a-4. Costs include the
cost of physical space, computer hardware and software, etc., which
vary widely depending on the size of the broker-dealer and the type of
storage media employed. The Commission estimates that the annual
reporting and recordkeeping cost burden is $18,820,000. This cost is
calculated by the number of active, registered broker-dealers
multiplied by the reporting and recordkeeping cost for each respondent
(3,764 registered broker-dealers x $5,000).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15695 Filed 7-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 From:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> To:
Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
 Date:
06/18/2010 12:05 PM
 Subject:
Fw: ShortLongTermVariabilityModel.xls

Keith

this is what i being talking about

during our meeting RTI was assuming that variance of means is better
because variances get smaller with time (or as sample size increases) but
that is not true

this attached spreadsheet show how variance change as sample size increases

that is why proportional variance needs to be used

_____________________

Hector Ybanez
Corporate Manager, Environmental
122 West Carpenter Freeway
Suite 485
Irving, Texas 75039
Phone (214) 524 - 2814
Cell<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.holcim.com/us
This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the use of the above
named addressee. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete
it immediately and notify us by e-mail or telephone.
----- Forwarded by Hector Ybanez/USA/Holcim on 06/18/2010 11:00 AM -----

                   Hector
                   Ybanez/USA/
                   Holcim                                               To
                                       William Mills
                   06/17/2010                                           cc
                   10:45 AM
                                                                   Subject
                                       ShortLongTermVariabilityModel.xls

 fyi

_____________________

Hector Ybanez
Corporate Manager, Environmental
122 West Carpenter Freeway
Suite 485
Irving, Texas 75039
Phone (214) 524 - 2814
Cell<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.holcim.com/us
This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the use of the above
named addressee. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete
it immediately and notify us by e-mail or telephone.
(See attached file: ShortLongTermVariabilityModel.xls)