Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71635 

13 You may look up our award data for children 

under SSI by year in the SSI Annual Statistical 

Report, available at: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ 

policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2009/ssi_asr09.pdf. 

14See 404.1594(c)(3)(i), 416.994(b)(2)(iv)(A), and 

416.994a(b)(2). 

and other information in your case 

record, we will try to resolve it. * * * 

* * * * * 

(Emphasis added). We provide similar 

definitions of the terms ‘‘marked’’ and 

‘‘extreme’’ in the listings section for 

children, with criteria appropriate to 

childhood. 

Why are we providing a limited 

reopening of the public comment 

period? 

In response to the NPRM, we received 

many public comments that seemed to 

misunderstand our current policy, what 

changes we were proposing, and how 

the proposals might affect adults and 

children. We believe that much of the 

confusion was caused by our failure to 

provide sufficiently detailed 

information about our current policies 

and where our proposals came from. We 

apologize for that omission, which we 

have corrected in this notice. 

Although we received a wide variety 

of comments, we are reopening the 

public comment period on a limited 

basis to specifically address the 

misunderstanding of our current and 

proposed policy regarding the use of 

standardized tests. We are requesting 

public comment only on this issue in 

light of the clarification we are 

providing in this notice. 

Many commenters focused on two 

aspects of our proposed rule: (1) A 

definition of ‘‘marked’’ based on a 

standardized test score that is two 

standard deviations below the mean; 

and, (2) a separate definition of 

‘‘marked’’ based on functioning that 

would be the equivalent of such a score 

if there were a standardized test. As 

discussed above, neither of these 

proposals represents new policy; both 

are based on our longstanding rules. 

However, some commenters said that 

our proposal would encourage our 

adjudicators to use standardized tests. 

Many said that we should drop all 

reference to standardized tests in the 

mental illness sections of the proposed 

rules and that the change would reduce 

the number of children and adults with 

serious mental disorders who qualify for 

disability benefits. Some who are 

already beneficiaries or who have family 

members who are beneficiaries were 

concerned that they would lose their 

benefits. 

We did not intend for, and do not 

believe that, our proposed rules would 

do any of these things. The childhood 

mental disorders listings have contained 

a provision defining ‘‘marked’’ limitation 

as a score that is two standard 

deviations below the mean on a 

standardized test for 20 years. We 

developed those rules with information 

we received from a group of mental 

health experts. We did not propose to 

change that provision or the way we 

determine disability in children with 

serious mental disorders. We proposed 

only to extend the provision to adults 

since it has worked well in childhood 

claims. 

The proposed rules for adults and 

children do not state that adjudicators 

should obtain standardized tests, 

encourage them to do so, or indicate 

that there are standardized tests for all 

serious mental disorders. Rather, our 

proposed rules state only that if a person 

has a standardized test and the scores 

are two standard deviations below the 

mean, the test will show that the person 

has a ‘‘marked’’ limitation. Consistent 

with our current childhood rules, the 

proposed rules also state that 

adjudicators must not rely on the results 

of standardized tests alone but must 

consider all of the evidence in the 

person’s case record. 

Since the beginning of 2001, our 

functional equivalence regulation has 

contained an alternative rule defining 

‘‘marked’’ limitation for children based 

on functioning that would be consistent 

with a score on a standardized test that 

is two standard deviations below the 

mean, if there were such a test. As with 

the provision for actual scores from an 

actual test, the rule provides that we 

will find that the child has a marked 

limitation if the child is functioning at 

that level. The regulation section, like 

the proposed rule for the mental 

disorders listings, also provides other 

definitions for the term ‘‘marked.’’ We 

began using this regulation in 1997, 13 

years ago. The number of awards of 

children who apply for SSI has not 

fallen since that time.13 Given this 

experience, we believe that it was 

appropriate to include the rule in both 

the adult and child mental disorders 

listings. 

Perhaps most importantly, it appeared 

that many commenters did not 

understand that we do not deny a 

person’s claim merely because his or her 

impairment(s) does not meet or 

medically equal the criteria of our 

listings. As under our current rules, 

adults with mental disorders who 

cannot perform their past work or a 

significant number of jobs in the 

national economy considering their age, 

education, and work experience would 

still be able to qualify under other rules 

we have for finding persons disabled. 

We also want to make clear that we 

do not reexamine the entitlement of 

beneficiaries when we revise listings. 

When we periodically perform 

continuing disability reviews to 

determine if beneficiaries are still 

disabled, we continue to use the same 

listing section we used to make our 

most recent favorable decision.14 Thus, 

beneficiaries who qualified under a 

current listing would continue to 

qualify as long as their impairments 

continued to meet or medically equal 

the current listing. 

In light of the importance of this issue 

and the widespread misunderstanding 

of our proposed rules, we are reopening 

the comment period for the limited 

purpose of allowing interested persons 

to provide any additional comments 

they may have on our proposed policy 

regarding the use of standardized tests. 

Michael J. Astrue, 

Commissioner of Social Security. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29577 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

21 CFR Part 1308 

[Docket No. DEA–345N] 

Schedules of Controlled Substances: 

Temporary Placement of Five 

Synthetic Cannabinoids Into 

Schedule I 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: The Deputy Administrator of 

the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) is issuing this notice of intent to 

temporarily place five synthetic 

cannabinoids into the Controlled 

Substances Act (CSA) pursuant to the 

temporary scheduling provisions under 

21 U.S.C. 811(h) of the CSA. The 

substances are 1-pentyl-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole (JWH–018), 1-butyl-3- 

(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–073), 1-[2-(4- 

morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole (JWH–200), 5-(1,1- 

dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3- 

hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP– 

47,497), and 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2- 

[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol 

(cannabicyclohexanol; CP–47,497 C8 

homologue). This intended action is 

based on a finding by the DEA Deputy 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71636 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Administrator that the placement of 

these synthetic cannabinoids into 

Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to 

avoid an imminent hazard to the public 

safety. Finalization of this action will 

impose criminal sanctions and 

regulatory controls of Schedule I 

substances under the CSA on the 

manufacture, distribution, possession, 

importation, and exportation of these 

synthetic cannabinoids. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine A. Sannerud, Ph.D., Chief, 

Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, 

Office of Diversion Control, Drug 

Enforcement Administration, 8701 

Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 

22152, telephone (202) 307–7183, fax 

(202) 353–1263, or e-mail 

ode@dea.usdoj.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Comprehensive Crime Control 

Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–473), which was 

signed into law on October 12, 1984, 

amended section 201 of the CSA (21 

U.S.C. 811) to give the Attorney General 

the authority to temporarily place a 

substance into Schedule I of the CSA for 

one year without regard to the 

requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he 

finds that such action is necessary to 

avoid imminent hazard to the public 

safety. The Attorney General may 

extend the temporary scheduling up to 

six months. A substance may be 

temporarily scheduled under the 

emergency provisions of the CSA if it is 

not listed in any other schedule under 

section 202 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 812) 

or if there is no exemption or approval 

in effect under 21 U.S.C. 355 for the 

substance. The Attorney General has 

delegated his authority under 21 U.S.C. 

811 to the Administrator of DEA (28 

CFR 0.100). The Administrator has 

redelegated this function to the Deputy 

Administrator, pursuant to 28 CFR, 

appendix to subpart R, section 12. 

Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA (21 

U.S.C. 811(h)(4)) requires the Deputy 

Administrator to notify the Assistant 

Secretary for Health, delegate of the 

Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, of her intention to temporarily 

place a substance into Schedule I of the 

CSA. Comments submitted by the 

Assistant Secretary for Health in 

response to this notification, including 

whether there is an exemption or 

approval in effect for the substance in 

question under the Federal Food, Drug 

and Cosmetic Act, shall be taken into 

consideration before a final order is 

published. 

In making a finding that placing a 

substance temporarily into Schedule I of 

the CSA is necessary to avoid an 

imminent hazard to the public safety, 

the Deputy Administrator is required to 

consider three of the eight factors set 

forth in section 201(c) of the CSA (21 

U.S.C. 811(c)). These factors are as 

follows: (4) History and current pattern 

of abuse; (5) The scope, duration and 

significance of abuse; and (6) What, if 

any, risk there is to the public health. 

Synthetic Cannabinoids 

Synthetic cannabinoids have been 

developed over the last 30 years for 

research purposes to investigate the 

cannabinoid system. No legitimate nonresearch uses have been identified for 

these synthetic cannabinoids. They have 

not been approved by the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration for human 

consumption. These THC-like synthetic 

cannabinoids, 1-pentyl-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole (JWH–018), 1-butyl-3- 

(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH–073), 1-[2-(4- 

morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole (JWH–200), 5-(1,1- 

dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3- 

hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP– 

47,497), and 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2- 

[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol 

(cannabicyclohexanol; CP–47,497 C8 

homologue), are so termed for their 

THC-like pharmacological properties. 

Though they have similar properties to 

delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) 

found in marijuana and have been 

found to be more potent than THC in 

animal studies. Numerous herbal 

products have been analyzed and JWH– 

073, JWH–018, JWH–200, CP–47,497, 

and cannabicyclohexanol have been 

identified in varying mixture profiles 

and amounts spiked on plant material. 

Factor 4. History and Current Pattern of 

Abuse 

The emergence of these synthetic 

cannabinoids represents a recent 

phenomenon in the designer drug 

market. Since the initial identification 

of JWH–018 in December 2008, many 

additional synthetic cannabinoids with 

purported psychotropic effects have 

been identified in related products. The 

popularity of these THC-like synthetic 

cannabinoids has greatly increased in 

the United States and they are being 

abused for their psychoactive 

properties. Primarily found laced on 

plant material, these synthetic 

cannabinoids are also being abused 

alone as self-reported on Internet 

discussion boards. This abuse has been 

characterized by both acute and long 

term public health and safety problems. 

Even though there is no accepted use for 

these synthetic cannabinoids, multiple 

shipments of JWH–018 and JWH–073 

have been intercepted by U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection in 2010, with one 

being in excess of 50 kilograms. 

Additionally, bulk loads of JWH–018 

and JWH–200 have been seized by law 

enforcement in 2010. In Casper, 

Wyoming, products seized in a raid, 

which were laced with synthetic 

cannabinoids, were found in 

conjunction with illicit drugs. 

The products containing these THClike synthetic cannabinoids are 

marketed as ‘‘legal’’ alternatives to 

marijuana and are being sold over the 

Internet and in tobacco and smoke 

shops, drug paraphernalia shops, and 

convenience stores. These synthetic 

cannabinoids alone or spiked on plant 

material have the potential to be 

extremely harmful due to their method 

of manufacture and high 

pharmacological potency. DEA has been 

made aware that smoking these 

synthetic cannabinoids for the purpose 

of achieving intoxication and 

experiencing the psychoactive effects is 

identified as a reason for emergency 

room visits and calls to poison control 

centers. 

As of October 15, 2010, 15 states in 

the United States, European and 

Scandinavian countries have controlled 

one or more of the synthetic 

cannabinoids DEA is temporarily 

scheduling here. 

Factor 5. Scope, Duration and 

Significance of Abuse 

According to forensic laboratory 

reports, the first appearance of these 

synthetic cannabinoids in the United 

States occurred in November 2008, 

when U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection analyzed ‘‘Spice’’ products. 

From January 2010 through September 

2010, the National Forensic Laboratory 

Information System, a national 

repository of drug evidence analyses 

from forensic laboratories across the 

United States, reported over 500 

exhibits relating to these synthetic 

cannabinoids from various States 

including Alabama, Arkansas, 

California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, 

Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, 

Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, and Virginia. Additionally, 

the American Association of Poison 

Control Centers (AAPCC) has reported 

receiving over 1,500 calls as of 

September 27, 2010, relating to products 

spiked with these synthetic 

cannabinoids from 48 states and the 

District of Columbia. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71637 

Factor 6. What, if Any, Risk There Is to 

the Public Health 

JWH–018, JWH–073, JWH–200, CP– 

47,497, and cannabicyclohexanol share 

pharmacological similarities with the 

Schedule I substance THC. Health 

warnings have been issued by numerous 

state public health departments and 

poison control centers describing the 

adverse health effects associated with 

these synthetic cannabinoids and their 

related products including agitation, 

anxiety, vomiting, tachycardia, elevated 

blood pressure, seizures, hallucinations 

and non-responsiveness. Case reports 

describe psychotic episodes, 

withdrawal, and dependence associated 

with use of these synthetic 

cannabinoids, similar to syndromes 

observed in cannabis abuse. Emergency 

room physicians have reported 

admissions connected to the abuse of 

these synthetic cannabinoids. 

Additionally, when responding to 

incidents involving individuals who 

have reportedly smoked these synthetic 

cannabinoids, first responders report 

that these individuals suffer from 

intense hallucinations. Detailed 

chemical analysis by DEA and other 

investigators have found these synthetic 

cannabinoids spiked on plant material 

in products marketed to the general 

public. The risk of adverse health effects 

is further increased by the fact that 

similar products vary in the 

composition and concentration of 

synthetic cannabinoids(s) spiked on the 

plant material. 

Self-reported abuse of these THC-like 

synthetic cannabinoids alone and 

spiked on plant material appear on 

Internet discussion boards. According to 

self-reports, these substances are 

cannabis-like (or THC-like) in their 

psychoactive effects and are more 

potent than THC in this regard. The 

most common route of administration of 

these synthetic cannabinoids is by 

smoking, using a pipe, water pipe, or 

rolling the drug-spiked plant material in 

cigarette papers. 

The marketing of products that 

contain one or more of these synthetic 

cannabinoids is geared towards teens 

and young adults. Despite disclaimers 

that the products are not intended for 

human consumption, retailers promote 

that routine urinalysis tests will not 

typically detect the presence of these 

synthetic cannabinoids. 

Furthermore, a number of the 

products and synthetic cannabinoids 

appear to originate from foreign sources 

and are manufactured in the absence of 

quality controls and devoid of 

regulatory oversight. These products 

and associated synthetic cannabinoids 

are readily accessible via the Internet. 

DEA has considered the three criteria 

for placing a substance into Schedule I 

of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 812). The data 

available and reviewed for JWH–073, 

JWH–018, JWH–200, CP–47,497, and 

cannabicyclohexanol indicate that these 

synthetic cannabinoids each have a high 

potential for abuse, no currently 

accepted medical use in treatment in the 

United States and are not safe for use 

under medical supervision. 

Based on the above data, the 

continued uncontrolled manufacture, 

distribution, importation, exportation, 

and abuse of JWH–018, JWH–073, JWH– 

200, CP–47,497, and 

cannabicyclohexanol pose an imminent 

hazard to the public safety. DEA is not 

aware of any recognized therapeutic 

uses of these synthetic cannabinoids in 

the United States. As required by 

section 201(h)(4) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 

811(h)), the Deputy Administrator in a 

letter dated October 6, 2010, notified the 

Assistant Secretary of Health of the 

intention to temporarily place five 

synthetic cannabinoids in Schedule I. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

section 201(h) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 

811(h)) and 28 CFR 0.100, the Deputy 

Administrator has considered the 

available data and the three factors 

required to support a determination to 

temporarily schedule five synthetic 

cannabinoids: 1-butyl-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole, 1-pentyl-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole, 1-[2-(4- 

morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole, 5-(1,1- 

dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3- 

hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol, and 5-(1,1- 

dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3- 

hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol in Schedule 

I of the CSA and finds that placement 

of these synthetic cannabinoids into 

Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to 

avoid an imminent hazard to the public 

safety. 

Because the Deputy Administrator 

finds that it is necessary to temporarily 

place these synthetic cannabinoids into 

Schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard 

to the public safety, the final order, if 

issued, will be effective on the date of 

publication of the order in the Federal 

Register. JWH–018, JWH–073, JWH– 

200, CP–47,497, and 

cannabicyclohexanol will be subject to 

the regulatory controls and 

administrative, civil and criminal 

sanctions applicable to the manufacture, 

distribution, possession, importing and 

exporting of a Schedule I controlled 

substance under the CSA. Further, it is 

the intention of the Deputy 

Administrator to issue such a final order 

as soon as possible after the expiration 

of thirty days from the date of 

publication of this notice and the date 

that notification was transmitted to the 

Assistant Secretary for Health. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Deputy Administrator hereby 

certifies that this rulemaking has been 

drafted in accordance with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601–612), has reviewed this regulation, 

and by approving it certifies that this 

regulation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This action 

provides a notice of intent to 

temporarily place 1-butyl-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole, 1-pentyl-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole, 1-[2-(4- 

morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole, 5-(1,1- 

dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3- 

hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol, and 5-(1,1- 

dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3- 

hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol into 

Schedule I of the CSA. DEA is not aware 

of any legitimate non-research uses for 

these synthetic cannabinoids in the 

United States. 

Executive Order 12988 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil 

Justice Reform. 

Executive Order 13132 

This rulemaking does not preempt or 

modify any provision of State law; nor 

does it impose enforcement 

responsibilities on any State; nor does it 

diminish the power of any State to 

enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this 

rulemaking does not have federalism 

implications warranting the application 

of Executive Order 13132. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $126,400,000 or more 

(adjusting for inflation) in any one year, 

and it will not significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. Therefore, no 

actions were deemed necessary under 

the provisions of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

Congressional Review Act 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by 804 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (Congressional Review Act). This 

rule will not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100,000,000 or 

more; a major increase in costs or prices; 

or significant adverse effects on 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71638 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug traffic control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Under the authority vested in the 

Attorney General by section 201(h) of 

the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811(h)), and 

delegated to the Deputy Administrator 

of the DEA by Department of Justice 

regulations (28 CFR 0.100, and section 

12 of the Appendix to Subpart R), the 

Deputy Administrator hereby intends to 

order that 21 CFR part 1308 be amended 

as follows: 

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

1. The authority citation for part 1308 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 

unless otherwise noted. 

2. Section 1308.11 is amended by 

adding new paragraphs (g)(1), (2), (3), 

(4), and (5) to read as follows: 

§ 1308.11 Schedule I. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) 5-(1,1-Dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)- 

3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol-7297 

(Other names: CP-47,497) 

(2) 5-(1,1-Dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3- 

hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol-7298 

(Other names: cannabicyclohexanol 

and CP-47,497 C8 homologue) 

(3) 1-Butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole7173 

(Other names: JWH-073) 

(4) 1-[2-(4-Morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1- 

naphthoyl)indole-7200 

(Other names: JWH-200) 

(5) 1-Pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole7118 

(Other names: JWH-018 and AM678) 

Dated: November 15, 2010. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29600 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0062] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Fleet Week Maritime 

Festival, Pier 66, Elliot Bay, Seattle, 

WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

amend its regulation establishing a 

permanent safety zone extending 100 

yards from Pier 66, Elliot Bay, WA to 

ensure adequate safety during the 

parade of ships and aerial 

demonstration for Fleet Week. This 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking introduces revisions to 

enforcement dates, times and location of 

this safety zone. This safety zone is 

necessary in order to restrict vessel 

movement for participant and spectator 

safety in the proximity of Pier 66, Elliot 

Bay, WA to provide unencumbered 

access for response craft in the event of 

an emergency during the annual parade 

of ships and aerial demonstration. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before December 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2010–0062 using any one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

(2) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility 

(M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

(4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail 

address above, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

is 202–366–9329. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or e-mail LTJG Ashley M. 

Wanzer, Sector Puget Sound Waterways 

Management Division, Coast Guard; 

telephone 206–217–6175, e-mail 

SectorSeattleWWM@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We encourage you to participate in 

this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. 

Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (USCG–2010–0062), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online (via http:// 

www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or 

hand delivery, but please use only one 

of these means. If you submit a 

comment online via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, it will be 

considered received by the Coast Guard 

when you successfully transmit the 

comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or 

mail your comment, it will be 

considered as having been received by 

the Coast Guard when it is received at 

the Docket Management Facility. We 

recommend that you include your name 

and a mailing address, an e-mail 

address, or a telephone number in the 

body of your document so that we can 

contact you if we have questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will 

then become highlighted in blue. In the 

‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu 

select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert 

‘‘USCG–2010–0062’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the 

balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. 

If you submit your comments by mail or 

hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2; by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the Facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. We will consider 

all comments and material received 

during the comment period and may 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1