[Federal Register: October 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 206)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65938-65941]
[DOCID:fr25oc11-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0650; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-257-AD;
Amendment 39-16846; AD 2011-22-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88).
    In their letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296, dated March
4th, 2002, and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the
[Joint Aviation Authorities] JAA recommended the application of a
similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30
or more, or a payload capacity of 3,402 kg (7,500 lb) or more which
have received their certification since January 1st, 1958, are
required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is insufficient electrical bonding of the over-
wing refueling cap adapter, which could result in a possible fuel
ignition source in the fuel tanks. We are issuing this AD to require
actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 29, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 29,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-
2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 5, 2011 (76 FR
39035). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88).
    In their letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296, dated March
4th, 2002, and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the
JAA recommended the application of a similar regulation to the
National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30
or more, or a payload capacity of 3,402 kg (7,500 lb) or more which
have received their certification since January 1st, 1958, are
required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.
* * * * *
    * * * [This EASA AD] requires the additional work introduced by
Airbus SB A310-28-2142 at revision 3.

The unsafe condition is insufficient electrical bonding of the over-
wing refueling cap adapter, which could result in a possible fuel
ignition source in the fuel tanks. You may obtain further information
by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (76 FR 39035, July 5,
2011) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Revision to Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142, Revision
04, dated November 30, 2010. No additional work is included in this
revision for airplanes modified by any previous issue of this document.
We have changed paragraphs (g), (g)(1), (g)(2), (h), (k), and sub-
paragraph (1) of Note 1 of this AD to refer to Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-28-2142, Revision 04, dated November 30, 2010, and added paragraph
(i) to this AD to give credit for actions accomplished in accordance
with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142, Revision 03, dated
November 18, 2009.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 66 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $200 per product.
Where the service information lists required parts costs that are
covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge
for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected
parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based
on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators
to be $35,640, or $540 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (76 FR 39035, July 5, 2011),
the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2011-22-04 Airbus: Amendment 39-16846. FAA-2011-0650; Directorate
Identifier 2010-NM-257-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
29, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Model A310-203, A310-204, A310-221 and A310-222
airplanes (without trim tank), all serial numbers, except airplanes
on which Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2143, dated July
20, 2005; and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142,
Revision 03, dated November 18, 2009; have been done; certificated
in any category.
    (2) Model A310-304, A310-322, A310-324, and A310-325 airplanes
(fitted with trim tank), all serial numbers, except airplanes on
which Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2143, dated July 20,
2005; Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2153, dated July 20,
2005; and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 310-28-2142, Revision
03, dated November 18, 2009; have been done; certificated in any
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel
System.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88).
    In their letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296, dated March
4th, 2002, and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the
[Joint Aviation Authorities] JAA recommended the application of a
similar regulation to the National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aircraft with either a passenger capacity of 30
or more, or a payload capacity of 3,402 kg (7,500 lb) or more which
have received their certification since January 1st, 1958, are
required to conduct a design review against explosion risks.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is insufficient electrical bonding of the over-
wing refueling cap adapter, which could result in a possible fuel
ignition source in the fuel tanks.

Compliance

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

Resistance Measurement

    (g) For configuration 05 and 06 airplanes, as identified in
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142, Revision 04, dated
November 30, 2010, on which any Airbus service bulletin identified
in table 1 of this AD has been done: Within 3 months after the
effective date of this AD, do the actions in paragraph (g)(1) or
(g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

                            Table 1--Previously Accomplished Airbus Service Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Airbus Service Bulletin                  Revision                           Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142.  ................  August 26, 2005.
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142.                01  July 17, 2006.
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142.                02  September 3, 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) For configuration 05 airplanes: Do a resistance check of the
inboard and outboard over-wing refuel cap mounts between the flange
face of the refuel insert and the wing, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A310-28-2142, Revision 04, dated November 30, 2010.
    (2) For configuration 06 airplanes: Do a resistance check of the
outboard over-wing refuel cap mounts between the flange face of the
refuel insert and the wing, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142,
Revision 04, dated November 30, 2010.

Corrective Action

    (h) If during any resistance measurement required by paragraph
(g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, a resistance of 10 milliohm (mohm) or
greater is found: Before further flight, do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142,
Revision 04, dated November 30, 2010.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (i) Resistance measurements and corrective actions done in
accordance with Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142,
Revision 03, dated November 18, 2009, before the effective date of
this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
resistance measurements and corrective actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142, Revision 04,
dated November 30, 2010, specifies that if any resistance
measurement is more than 10 mohm, corrective actions must be done.
This AD specifies that if any resistance measurement is 10 mohm or
greater, corrective actions must be done.
    (2) Paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) Airworthiness Directive 2010-0199, dated September 30,
2010, include actions that are not required in this AD. These
actions are required by AD 2007-20-04, Amendment 39-15214 (72 FR
56258, October 3, 2007).

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. Send information to Attn:
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (k) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0199, dated
September 30, 2010; and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-
2142, Revision 04, dated November 30, 2010.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2142,
Revision 04, dated November 30, 2010, to do the actions

required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS-EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.airbus.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 13, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-27393 Filed 10-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48893-48896]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-2898]

Food Safety Modernization Act Voluntary Qualified Importer
Program User Fee Rate for Fiscal Year 2024

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
fiscal year (FY) 2024 annual fee rate for importers approved to
participate in the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program (VQIP) that is
authorized by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), as
amended by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This fee is
effective on August 1, 2023 and will remain in effect through September
30, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olufunmilayo Ariyo, FSMA Fee Staff,
Office of Food Policy and Response, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 302 of FSMA, VQIP, amended the FD&C Act to create a new
provision, section 806, under the same name. Section 806 of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 384b) directs FDA to establish a program to provide for
the expedited review and importation of food offered for importation by
importers who have voluntarily agreed to participate in such program,
and a process, consistent with section 808 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
384d), for the issuance of a facility certification to accompany a food
offered for importation by importers participating in VQIP.
    Section 743 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-31) authorizes FDA to
assess and collect fees from each importer participating in VQIP to
cover FDA's costs of administering the program. Each fiscal year, fees
are to be established based on an estimate of 100 percent of the costs
for the year. The fee

rates must be published in a Federal Register notice not later than 60
days before the start of each fiscal year (section 743(b)(1) of the
FD&C Act). After FDA approves a VQIP application, the user fee must be
paid before October 1, the start of the VQIP fiscal year, to begin
receiving benefits for that VQIP fiscal year.
    The FY 2024 VQIP user fee will support benefits from October 1,
2023, through September 30, 2024.

II. Estimating the Average Cost of a Supported Direct FDA Work Hour for
FY 2024

    FDA is required to estimate 100 percent of its costs for each
activity in order to establish fee rates for FY 2024. In each year, the
costs of salary (or personnel compensation) and benefits for FDA
employees account for between 50 and 60 percent of the funds available
to, and used by, FDA. Almost all of the remaining funds (operating
funds) available to FDA are used to support FDA employees for paying
rent, travel, utility, information technology (IT), and other operating
costs.

A. Estimating the Full Cost per Direct Work Hour in FY 2024

    Full-time Equivalent (FTE) reflects the total number of regular
straight-time hours--not including overtime or holiday hours--worked by
employees, divided by the number of compensable hours applicable to
each fiscal year. Annual leave, sick leave, compensatory time off, and
other approved leave categories are considered ``hours worked'' for
purposes of defining FTE employment.
    In general, the starting point for estimating the full cost per
direct work hour is to estimate the cost of an FTE or paid staff year.
Calculating an Agency-wide total cost per FTE requires three primary
cost elements: payroll, non-payroll, and rent.
    We have used an average of past year cost elements to predict the
FY 2024 cost. The FY 2024 FDA-wide average cost for payroll (salaries
and benefits) is $192,848; non-payroll--including equipment, supplies,
IT, general and administrative overhead--is $99,316 and rent, including
cost allocation analysis and adjustments for other rent and rent-
related costs, is $23,239 per paid staff year, excluding travel costs.
    Summing the average cost of an FTE for payroll, non-payroll, and
rent, brings the FY 2024 average fully supported cost to $315,403 \1\
per FTE, excluding travel costs. FDA will use this base unit fee in
determining the hourly fee rate for VQIP fees for FY 2024 prior to
including domestic or foreign travel costs as applicable for the
activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Total includes rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate an hourly rate, FDA must divide the FY 2024 average
fully supported cost of $315,403 per FTE by the average number of
supported direct FDA work hours in FY 2022--the last FY for which data
are available. See table 1.

Table 1--Supported Direct FDA Work Hours in a Paid Staff Year in FY 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number of hours in a paid staff year..............           2,080
Less:
    11 paid holidays....................................             -88
    20 days of annual leave.............................            -160
    10 days of sick leave...............................             -80
    12.5 days of training...............................            -100
    22 days of general administration...................            -176
    26.5 days of travel.................................            -212
    2 hours of meetings per week........................            -104
    Net Supported Direct FDA Work Hours Available for              1,160
     Assignments........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dividing the average fully supported FTE cost in FY 2024 ($315,403)
by the total number of supported direct work hours available for
assignment in FY 2022 (1,160) results in an average fully supported
cost of $272 (rounded to the nearest dollar), excluding inspection
travel costs, per supported direct work hour in FY 2024.

B. Adjusting FY 2022 Travel Costs for Inflation To Estimate FY 2024
Travel Costs

    To adjust the hourly rate for FY 2024, FDA must estimate the cost
of inflation in each year for FYs 2023 and 2024. FDA uses the method
prescribed for estimating inflationary costs under the Prescription
Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) provisions of the FD&C Act (section 736(c)(1)
(21 U.S.C. 379h(c)(1)), the statutory method for inflation adjustment
in the FD&C Act that FDA has used consistently. FDA previously
determined the FY 2023 inflation rate to be 1.6404 percent; this rate
was published in the FY 2023 PDUFA user fee rates notice in the Federal
Register (October 7, 2022, 87 FR 61063). Utilizing the method set forth
in section 736(c)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA has calculated an inflation
rate of 1.6404 percent for FY 2023 and 3.8896 percent for FY 2024, and
FDA intends to use these inflation rates to make inflation adjustments
for FY 2024; the derivation of this rate will be published in the
Federal Register in the FY 2024 notice for the PDUFA user fee rates.
The compounded inflation rate for FYs 2023 and 2024, therefore, is
1.055938 (or 5.5938 percent) (calculated as 1 plus 1.6404 percent times
1 plus 3.8896 percent).
    The average fully supported cost per supported direct FDA work
hour, excluding travel costs, of $272 already takes into account
inflation as the calculation above is based on FY 2024 predicted costs.
FDA will use this base unit fee in determining the hourly fee rate for
VQIP fees for FY 2024 prior to including domestic or foreign travel
costs as applicable for the activity.
    In FY 2022, FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) spent a total
of $6,566,835 for domestic regulatory inspection travel costs and
General Services Administration Vehicle costs related to FDA's Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and Center for Veterinary
Medicine (CVM) field activities programs. The total ORA domestic travel
costs spent is then divided by the 7,930 CFSAN and CVM domestic
inspections, which averages a total of $828 per inspection. These
inspections average 46.29 hours per inspection. Dividing $828 per
inspection by 46.29 hours per inspection results in a total and an
additional cost of $18 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per hour spent
for domestic inspection travel costs in FY 2022. To adjust for the $18
per hour additional domestic cost inflation increases for FY 2023 and
FY 2024, FDA must multiply the FY 2023 PDUFA

inflation rate adjustor (1.016404) by the FY 2024 PDUFA inflation rate
adjustor (1.038896) times the $18 additional domestic cost, which
results in an estimated cost of $19 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per
paid hour in addition to $272 for a total of $291 per paid hour ($272
plus $19) for each direct hour of work requiring domestic inspection
travel. FDA will use these rates in charging fees in FY 2024 when
domestic travel is required.
    In FY 2022, ORA spent a total of $802,057 on 175 foreign inspection
trips related to FDA's CFSAN and CVM field activities programs, which
averaged a total of $4,583 per foreign inspection trip. These trips
averaged 3 weeks (or 120 paid hours) per trip. Dividing $4,583 per trip
by 120 hours per trip results in a total and an additional cost of $38
(rounded to the nearest dollar) per paid hour spent for foreign
inspection travel costs in FY 2022. To adjust $38 for inflationary
increases in FY 2023 and FY 2024, FDA must multiply it by the same
inflation factors mentioned previously in this document (1.016404 and
1.038896), which results in an estimated cost of $40 (rounded to the
nearest dollar) for each direct hour of work requiring foreign
inspection travel. FDA will use these rates in charging fees in FY 2024
when foreign travel is required.

                 Table 2--FSMA Fee Schedule for FY 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fee rates for
                      Fee category                            FY 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly rate without travel..............................            $272
Hourly rate if domestic travel is required..............             291
Hourly rate if foreign travel is required...............             312
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Fees for Importers Approved To Participate in the Voluntary
Qualified Importer Program Under Section 743 of the FD&C Act

    FDA assesses fees for VQIP annually. Table 3 provides an overview
of the fees for FY 2024.

            Table 3--FSMA VQIP User Fee Schedule for FY 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fee rates for
                      Fee category                           FY 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VQIP User Fee..........................................         $14,975
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 743 of the FD&C Act requires that each importer
participating in VQIP pay a fee to cover FDA's costs of administering
the program. This fee represents the estimated average cost of the work
FDA performs in reviewing and evaluating a VQIP importer. At this time,
FDA is not offering an adjusted fee for small businesses. As required
by section 743(b)(2)(B)(iii) of the FD&C Act, FDA previously published
a set of guidelines in consideration of the burden of the VQIP fee on
small businesses and provided for a period of public comment on the
guidelines (80 FR 32136, June 5, 2015). While we did receive some
comments in response, they did not address the questions posed, i.e.,
how a small business fee reduction should be structured, what
percentage of fee reduction would be appropriate, or what alternative
structures FDA might consider to indirectly reduce fees for small
businesses by charging different fee amounts to different VQIP
participants. We plan on monitoring costs and collecting data to
determine if, in future fiscal years, we will provide for a small
business fee reduction. Consistent with section 743(b)(2)(B)(iii) of
the FD&C Act, we will adjust the fee schedule for small businesses only
through notice and comment rulemaking.
    The fee is based on the fully supported FTE hourly rates and
estimates of the number of hours it would take FDA to perform relevant
activities. These estimates represent FDA's current thinking, and as
the program evolves, FDA will reconsider the estimated hours. We
estimate that it would take, on average, 39 person-hours to review a
new VQIP application (including communication provided through the VQIP
Importer's Help Desk), 28 person-hours to review a returning VQIP
application (including communication provided through the VQIP
Importer's Help Desk), 16 person-hours for an onsite performance
evaluation of a domestic VQIP importer (including travel and other
steps necessary for a fully supported FTE to complete and document an
onsite assessment), and 34 person-hours for an onsite performance
evaluation of a foreign VQIP importer (including travel and other steps
necessary for a fully supported FTE to complete and document an onsite
assessment). Additional costs include maintenance and support costs of
information technology of administering benefits of the program. These
costs are estimated to be $4,359 per VQIP importer.
    Based on updated data, FDA anticipates that there may be up to six
returning VQIP applicants and up to two new applicants this fiscal
year. FDA employees are likely to review new VQIP applications from
their worksites, so we use the fully supported FTE hourly rate
excluding travel, $272/hour, to calculate the portion of the user fee
attributable to those activities: $272/hour x (39 hours) = $10,608. FDA
employees are likely to review returning VQIP applications from their
worksites, so we use the fully supported FTE hourly rate excluding
travel, $272/hour, to calculate the portion of the user fee
attributable to those activities: $272/hour x (28 hours) = $7,616.
    FDA employees will conduct a VQIP inspection to verify the
eligibility criteria and full implementation of the food safety and
food defense systems established in the Quality Assurance Program. A
VQIP importer may be located inside or outside of the United States.
However, this fiscal year, all VQIP importers will be located inside
the United States. Four VQIP applicants may have an associated VQIP
inspection.
    FDA employees are likely to prepare for and report on the
performance evaluation of a domestic VQIP importer at an FTE's
worksite, so we use the fully supported FTE hourly rate excluding
travel, $272/hour, to calculate the portion of the user fee
attributable to those activities: $272/hour x (8 hours) = $2,176. For
the portion of the fee covering onsite evaluation of a domestic VQIP
importer, we use the fully supported FTE hourly rate for work requiring
domestic travel, $291/hour, to calculate the portion of the user fee
attributable to those activities: $291/hour x 8 hours (i.e., one fully
supported FTE x (1 day onsite x 8 hours)) = $2,328. Therefore, the
total cost of conducting the domestic performance evaluation of a VQIP
importer is determined to be $2,176 + $2,328 = $4,504.
    Coordination of the onsite performance evaluation of a foreign VQIP
importer is estimated to take place at an FTE's worksite, so we use the
fully supported FTE hourly rate excluding travel, $272/hour, to
calculate the portion of the user fee attributable to those activities:
$272/hour x (10 hours) = $2,720. For the portion of the fee covering
onsite evaluation of a foreign VQIP importer, we use the fully
supported FTE hourly rate for work requiring foreign travel, $312/hour,
to calculate the portion of the user fee attributable to those
activities: $312/hour x 24 hours (i.e., one fully supported FTE x ((2
travel days x 8 hours) + (1 day onsite x 8 hours))) = $7,488.
Therefore, the total cost of conducting the foreign performance
evaluation of a VQIP importer is determined to be $2,720 + $7,488 =
$10,208.
    Therefore, the estimated average cost of the work FDA performs in
total for approving an application for a VQIP

importer in FY 2024 based on these figures would be $4,359 + ($10,608 x
\1/4\) + ($7,616 x \3/4\) + ($4,504 x \1/2\) = $14,975.

IV. How must the fee be paid?

    An invoice will be sent to VQIP importers approved to participate
in the program. Payment must be made prior to October 1, 2023, to be
eligible for VQIP participation for the benefit year beginning October
1, 2023. FDA will not refund the VQIP user fee for any reason.
    The payment must be made in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank by one
of the following methods: wire transfer, electronically, check, bank
draft, or U.S. postal money order made payable to the Food and Drug
Administration. The preferred payment method is online using an
electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH), also known as eCheck)
or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). Secure
electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal
at https://userfees.fda.gov/pay. (Note: only full payments are
accepted. No partial payments can be made online.) Once you have found
your invoice, select ``Pay Now'' to be redirected to Pay.gov.
Electronic payment options are based on the balance due. Payment by
credit card is available only for balances less than $25,000. If the
balance exceeds this amount, only the ACH option is available. Payments
must be made using U.S. bank accounts as well as U.S. credit cards.
    When paying by check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order,
please include the invoice number in the check stub. Also write the FDA
post office box number (P.O. Box 979108) on the enclosed check, bank
draft, or money order. Mail the payment including the invoice number on
the check stub to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979108, St.
Louis, MO 63197-9000.
    When paying by wire transfer, it is required that the invoice
number is included; without the invoice number the payment may not be
applied. The originating financial institution may charge a wire
transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee,
it is required to add that amount to the payment to ensure that the
invoice is paid in full. For international wire transfers, please
inquire with the financial institutions prior to submitting the
payment. Use the following account information when sending a wire
transfer: U.S. Department of the Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St.,
New York, NY 10045, Account Name: Food and Drug Administration, Account
No.: 75060099, Routing No.: 021030004, Swift No.: FRNYUS33.
    To send a check by a courier such as Federal Express, the courier
must deliver the check to: U.S. Bank, Attn: Government Lockbox 979108,
1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (Note: This address is for
courier delivery only. If you have any questions concerning courier
delivery, contact U.S. Bank at<PHONE_NUMBER>. This phone number is only
for questions about courier delivery.)
    The tax identification number of FDA is 53-0196965. (Note: Invoice
copies do not need to be submitted to FDA with the payments.)

V. What are the consequences of not paying this fee?

    The consequences of not paying these fees are outlined in Section J
of ``FDA's Voluntary Qualified Importer Program; Guidance for
Industry'' document (available at https://www.fda.gov/media/92196/download). If the user fee is not paid before October 1, a VQIP
importer will not be eligible to participate in VQIP. For the first
year a VQIP application is approved, if the user fee is not paid before
October 1, 2023, you are not eligible to participate in VQIP. If you
subsequently pay the user fee, FDA will begin your benefits after we
receive the full payment. The user fee may not be paid after December
31, 2023. For a subsequent year, if you do not pay the user fee before
October 1, FDA will send a Notice of Intent to Revoke your
participation in VQIP. If you do not pay the user fee within 30 days of
the date of the Notice of Intent to Revoke, we will revoke your
participation in VQIP.

    Dated: July 24, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-15920 Filed 7-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35890-35892]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15316]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1623; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-10]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tracy, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Tracy Municipal Airport,
Tracy, CA. After a review, and the decommissioning of the Manteca VHF
omnidirectional radio range and distance measuring equipment (VOR/DME),
the FAA found it necessary to amend the airspace areas for the safety
and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 7, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-
1623; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-10, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone
1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above
address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202)
741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Riedl, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace at Tracy Municipal Airport, Tracy,
CA.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-1623/
Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-10.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective
September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tracy Municipal Airport,
Tracy, CA. Decommissioning of the Manteca VOR/DME and subsequent review
of the airspace revealed that airspace redesign is necessary for the
safety and management of IFR operations for standard instrument
approach procedures at the airport. Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to within a 3.9-mile
radius of Tracy Municipal Airport with segments extending from the 3.9-
mile radius to 11 miles northwest, 6.4 miles east, and 9 miles
southeast, of the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005,
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective
September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Tracy, CA (Modified)

Tracy Municipal Airport, CA
    (lat. 37[deg]41'21'' N., long. 121[deg]26'31'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 3.9-mile radius of Tracy Municipal Airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 326[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 3.9-mile radius to 11 miles northwest of the airport, and
that airspace 1.8 miles either side of the airport 132[deg] bearing
from the 3.9-mile radius to 9 miles southeast of the airport, and
that airspace 2.2 miles either side of the airport 097[deg] bearing
from the 3.9-mile radius to 6 miles east of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 11, 2015.
Christopher Ramirez,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-15316 Filed 6-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 179 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 56839]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22667]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. EL12-40-001]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of
Filing

    Take notice that on July 9, 2012, California Independent System
Operator Corporation submitted their compliance filing in response to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) June 8, 2012
Order, California Independent System Operator Corporation, Order
Granting Complaint And Directing A Compliance Filing, 139 FERC ] 61,198
(2012).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 20, 2012.

    Dated: September 10, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22667 Filed 9-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


COMMENT AND RESPONSE DOCUMENT

SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE

Extension of Compliance Dates

FINAL RULEMAKING

40 CFR Part 112

May 10, 2007

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Emergency Management

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Comment and Response Document for the Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure, Extension of Compliance Dates Final Rulemaking

Introduction

Summary of Comments

EPA Response

Comment Excerpts

Support

Oppose

Suggested Alternate Dates

I.	INTRODUCTION

Purpose of This Document

On December 26, 2006, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking to
amend the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule (40
CFR part 112), promulgated under the Clean Water Act.  This action
proposed to extend the compliance dates for owners and operators of
facilities to prepare or amend and implement SPCC Plans from October 31,
2007 to July 1, 2009.   The Agency expects to propose further revisions
to the SPCC rule in 2007, and the proposed extension would allow the
Agency the time to promulgate further regulatory revisions before the
compliance dates.  These further amendments would address additional
areas where regulatory reform may be appropriate, including but not
limited to, oil and natural gas exploration and production, farms,
animal fats and vegetable oils, and a subset of qualified facilities.

The purpose of this document is to summarize comments and provide
responses to comments for the 2006 proposal (71 FR 77357, December 26,
2006) to extend the compliance dates for the Oil Pollution Prevention
and Response rule.

Development of Comment and Response Document

To develop this document, EPA reviewed the submissions made to public
docket number EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-0949.  EPA organized the comments based on
the topics they addressed in the proposed rule, which had been published
in the Federal Register on December 26, 2006 (71 FR 77357).  Comments
submitted to the public docket for this rulemaking appear in their
entirety at http://www.regulations.gov, identified by docket number
“EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-0949.”

EPA organized the comments into three categories: 1) support, 2) oppose,
and 3) suggested alternate dates.  Excerpts from each submission are
provided in the corresponding categories. The comment excerpts that are
included in this document are taken verbatim from the submissions
received by the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS).

EPA appreciates but will not respond as part of this action to comments
received that addressed issues outside the scope of the proposed rule
and the associated request for comment.

The table below, Table 1, lists all submissions received by FDMS for
docket EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-0949.  Each submission is provided a unique
document number by FDMS.  The document numbering begins at the number 2;
the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule is included in the
docket as document number 1.  The table also lists each commenter’s
name and the organization with which the commenter is affiliated, if
provided.  Multiple signatories to a single document are listed in the
last column.

Table 1.  Summary of submissions to FDMS by document number, commenter
name and affiliation.

No.	Name1	Organization

2	Josh Cashatt	Schwab

3	G.H. Holliday	Holliday Environmental Services

4	G.H. Holliday	Holliday Environmental Services

5	Pamela Faggert	Dominion Resources, Inc.

6	Jeff Spillyards	Entergy Services, Inc.

7	Terry Behrman	Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

8	Matt Grant	Wyoming Mining Association

9	Jerry Schwartz	The American Forest & Paper Association

10	Stuart Sanderson	The Colorado Mining Association

11	Robert Fronczak	Association of American Railroads

12	Angie Burckhalter	Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association

13	 	Independent Petroleum Association, International Association of

Drilling Contractors, the International Association of

Geophysical Contractors, the National Stripper Well Association,

the Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association, California

Independent Petroleum Association, Coalbed Methane Association

of Alabama, Colorado Oil & Gas Association, East Texas Producers

& Royalty Owners Association, Eastern Kansas Oil & Gas

Association, Florida Independent Petroleum Association, Illinois

Oil & Gas Association, Independent Oil & Gas Association of New

York, Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania,

Independent Oil & Gas Association of West Virginia, Independent

Oil Producers Agency, Independent Oil Producers Association

Tri-State, Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain

States, Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, Indiana

Oil & Gas Association, Kansas Independent Oil & Gas

Association, Kentucky Oil & Gas Association, Louisiana Independent

Oil & Gas Association, Michigan Oil & Gas Association,

Mississippi Independent Producers & Royalty Association,

Montana Petroleum Association, National Association of

Royalty Owners, Nebraska Independent Oil & Gas Association,

New Mexico Oil & Gas Association, New York State Oil

Producers Association, North Dakota Petroleum Council,

Northern Alliance of Independent Producers, Ohio Oil &

Gas Association, Oklahoma Independent Petroleum

Association, Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners

Association, Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Association, Permian Basin Petroleum
Association, Petroleum Association of

Wyoming, Tennessee Oil & Gas Association, Texas Alliance of

Energy Producers, Texas Independent Producers and Royalty

Owners Association, Virginia Oil and Gas Association,

Wyoming Independent Producers Association

14	Kirk Johnson	National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

15	Robert Fronczak	Association of American Railroads

16	Roger Claff	American Petroleum Institute

17	Steve Hensley	USA Rice Federation

18	Karen Bennett	National Mining Association

19	Sahar Osman-Sypher	Association Connecting Electronics Industries

20	Scott Davis	Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

21	Bill Verner	Georgia Electric Membership Corporation

22	Bridgette Ellis	Tennessee Valley Authority

23	Pamela Lacey	American Gas Association

24	Jeff Bunnulfsen	Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association

25	Karen Bennett	National Mining Association

26	 	American Forest & Paper Association, American Trucking
Associations, Automotive Oil Change Association, Automotive Service
Association, Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, Inc, Independent
Lubricant Manufacturers Association, IPC - Association Connecting
Electronics Industries, National Association of Fleet Administrators,
National Automobile Dealers Association, National Federation of
Independent Business Legal Foundation, National Paint and Coatings
Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Printing
Industries of America/Graphic Arts Technical Foundation, Specialty
Graphic Imaging Association, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers
Association

27	Tim Pohle	Air Transport Association

28	Chris Keyser	New England Fuel Institute

29	Mark Morgan	Petroleum Transportation and Storage Association

30	Tim Crouch	Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric
Cooperatives

31	Eric Byer	National Air Transportation Association

32	John Hopewell	National Paint and Coatings Association

1 FDMS reports submission of comments from G.H. Holliday.  However,
comments were not uploaded to the system.  See “Note to File Regarding
George Holliday” in the docket for further information.

II.	SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

EPA received a total of 28 unique submissions in response to the request
for comments in the notice of proposed rulemaking, published in the
Federal Register on December 26, 2006.   The majority of commenters (19)
expressed complete support for the proposed extension of dates for
preparation or amendment and implementation of facility SPCC Plans.  A
small group of commenters (9) suggested a different date for the
proposed extension.  No comments opposing the proposal were officially
logged with the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS).  However, one
of the commenters listed on the FDMS had attempted to submit official
comments but no document appeared included in the system; this comment
is included as the commenter had attempted to use the FDMS system and
had also contacted the Agency to express opposition to the proposed
extension.

The majority of commenters support extension of the compliance deadline.
They generally agree that the extension would allow the Agency time to
promulgate further regulatory revisions before the compliance dates.
Many commenters also noted that the proposed extension would allow those
potentially affected in the regulated community an opportunity to make
changes to their facilities and to their SPCC Plans necessary to comply
with the revised requirements expected to be proposed in 2007, rather
than with the existing requirements. Several commenters urged the Agency
to confirm that the new compliance deadline applies to "new or more
stringent compliance obligations" imposed by or subsequent to the July
2002 SPCC amendments and not to provisions in the amendments that
provide regulatory relief to regulated facilities.

A second group of commenters supports the proposed extension but
suggests alternate schedules, arguing that EPA’s proposed compliance
date was premature given the Agency’s intent to propose further
changes to the SPCC rule in 2007.  Several schedules were suggested:

Tie the proposed deadline for compliance to the promulgation of a final
SPCC rule following the 2007 proposal or, in the event that EPA
unexpectedly decides not to go forward with a final rule, 12 months
after publication of a notice in the Federal Register terminating that
rulemaking effort.

Provide an extension of 18 months from the date of promulgation of any
final amendments to the SPCC rule, thereby providing adequate
implementation time for regulated facilities (i.e. review amendments,
develop and /or modify existing Plans, and comply with any final changes
to the rule or guidance).

Set the date for preparing and amending Plans to one year following
publication of the final amendments, maintaining the six-month
separation between the deadline for amending and implementing Plans.

Set a compliance date deadline of July 1, 2009, and an implementation
compliance deadline of January 1, 2010, thereby allowing facility
owners/operators adequate time after Plan amendment to modify their
facilities, properly train employees, on the amended plan requirements,
and allow for full implementation of the amended Plan requirements.

The opposing comment in FDMS argued that an extension would not
effectively address the problems with the regulation, and he saw a need
for a complete re-write of the rule.  Please see “Note to File
Regarding George Holliday” in the docket for further information.
Excerpts from all comments submitted to the FDMS are provided in Section
IV and presented in the following order: Support; Oppose; Suggested
Alternate Dates.

The Agency also received many calls inquiring about the proposed
extension.  One such caller saw no need for a compliance date extension
for this regulation, which has been in effect since 1974 (see 38 FR
34164, December 11, 1973), and was concerned that further compliance
date extensions could have a potentially detrimental effect on the
environment.  The caller declined to formally submit comments in
FDMS.III.	EPA RESPONSE

The Agency agrees with commenters who expressed full support of the
proposed rule. This action will allow EPA time to promulgate additional
revisions to the SPCC rule before owners or operators are required to
meet current requirements of the rule related to preparing or amending,
and implementing SPCC Plans.

This extension would allow those potentially affected in the regulated
community an opportunity to make the changes to their facilities and to
their SPCC Plans necessary to comply with the revised requirements
expected to be proposed in 2007, rather than with the existing
requirements.  Further, the Agency believes that this proposed extension
of the compliance dates would also provide facilities additional time to
fully understand the regulatory relief offered by revisions to the 2002
SPCC rule as finalized in December 2006 (71 FR 77266).

In addition, the Agency intends to issue revisions to the SPCC Guidance
for Regional Inspectors, to address both the revisions finalized in
December 2006 (71 FR 77266), and any additional revisions based on an
upcoming proposal expected in 2007.  An extension of the compliance
dates will allow the regulated community sufficient time to properly
understand and implement any new rule modifications, and to take
advantage of the revised guidance.

In response to the alternate schedules for amendment and implementation
proposed by several commenters, the Agency is reluctant to proceed as
these commenters suggested to either set uncertain compliance dates in
Sec. 112.3 or to further extend the time period for the compliance
deadlines. At the same time, the Agency recognizes that the regulated
community needs adequate time after EPA takes final action on any
additional proposed amendments to the SPCC Plan requirements to amend or
prepare their SPCC Plans and to implement them. The Agency still
believes that one year is a reasonable period of time to allow for
preparing, amending, and implementing SPCC Plans following final Agency
action on any additional proposed amendments to the SPCC rule. The
Agency plans to develop and publish Federal Register notices proposing
and then taking final action on further amendments to the SPCC
regulatory requirements as soon as possible. The Agency believes that
extending the compliance dates in Sec. 112.3 until July 1, 2009 will
allow those potentially affected in the regulated community an
opportunity to make changes to their facilities and to their SPCC Plans
necessary to comply with any new revised requirements, rather than with
the existing requirements.

The Agency also disagrees with commenters that requested a revised date
for implementing amended SPCC Plans to include a six-month period after
the July 1, 2009 date for Plan amendment. For the reasons discussed
above, the Agency believes the July 1, 2009 date for Plan implementation
is adequate. The Agency's decision to eliminate the gap between Plan
preparation or amendment and implementation will allow additional time
for Plan preparation or amendment.

The Agency believes that it is in the best interest of the regulated
community to address areas of confusion that arose after promulgation of
the 2002 amendments. By promulgating a proposal intended to clarify
requirements and tailor requirements, particularly for small businesses,
and by making the SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors available to the
regulated community, the Agency believes that a more effective and
complete implementation of the SPCC regulation and improved compliance
will result in enhanced environmental protection. The Agency also
believes that the regulated community needs the additional time allowed
by the extension to be able to consider taking advantage of the
alternative compliance options provided by the 2006 amendments.  For
example, the owner or operator of a facility that stores 10,000 gallons
of oil or less and meets other qualifying criteria may choose to
self-certify their SPCC Plan in lieu of review and certification by a
Professional Engineer.  An extension will also allow the regulated
community the opportunity to take advantage of further amendments that
are expected to be proposed in 2007.  The Agency believes that the
benefits of this extension outweigh the concerns raised by commenters of
increased administrative burdens.

The Agency is providing an extension from the requirements in both the
2002 and 2006 amendments to those facilities that were in compliance
with the SPCC regulation and those facilities that became subject to the
SPCC regulation after the 2002 amendments effective date. The compliance
date provision (40 C.F.R. 112.3(a)) means that components of both the
2002 and 2006 SPCC rule that imposed new or more stringent requirements
than the 1973 SPCC rule must be met by this date. Because facilities
with SPCC Plans meeting the requirements of the 1973 SPCC rule would
already be in compliance with those provisions of the July 2002 rule
that are less stringent than the 1973 rule, those aspects of the
facility’s SPCC plan would not have to be amended in order to meet the
requirements of the 2002 SPCC rule (although there may be other reasons,
such as material changes at the facility, which would require the plan
to be amended). The compliance dates in §112.3 are independent of the
requirement to review the SPCC Plan at least once every five years as
required by §112.5(b).

The Agency disagrees that an extension will have an adverse effect on
environmental protection.  The extension of the compliance deadlines
does not eliminate the requirement for facilities to continue to
maintain their existing SPCC Plans.  Facilities subject to SPCC continue
to be responsible for ensuring that their operations are conducted in a
manner that safeguards human health and the environment by preventing
oil discharges to navigable waters and by effectively responding in the
event of an accidental discharge.  Finally, all facilities have an
incentive to prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining
shorelines as they are liable under 40 CRF 110.

The Agency recognizes the concerns of the commentor opposing the
extension.  The Agency is considering additional revisions to further
clarify the regulation, which is the reason for the extension.

IV. 	COMMENT EXCERPTS

A.	SUPPORT

Submitted by - Josh Cashatt of Schwab

Comment Text:

I wish to support the extension of the SPCC implementation date.

Submitted by - Terry Behrman of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

Comment Text:

The Alliance supports EPA's proposal to extend the deadlines to amend
and implement SPCC plan changes required as a result of the December
2006 Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures amendments. This will
allow sufficient time for EPA to resolve the remaining issues and
implement the required rulemaking. Additionally, it allows the regulated
community sufficient time to properly understand and implement the new
rule modifications.

Submitted by - Matt Grant of Wyoming Mining Association

Comment Text:

WMA members support the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal
to extend the compliance date to July 1, 2009 by which facilities must
comply with the 2002 Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
(SPCC) regulations.

Submitted by - Stuart Sanderson of The Colorado Mining Association

Comment Text:

The Colorado Mining Association appreciates the opportunity to submit
these comments supporting the proposed extension of the date that
facilities must prepare or amend and implement the new Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan requirements until July 1, 2009.

Submitted by - Robert Fronczak of Association of American Railroads

Comment Text:

AAR supports this proposed rulemaking. It makes no sense to implement
new requirements to SPCC plans at a time when EPA is in the process of
making further revisions to the regulations.

Submitted by - Angie Burckhalter of Oklahoma Independent Petroleum
Association (OIPA)

Comment Text:

We strongly support EPA's proposed extension. We agree the proposed
extension will allow EPA time to conduct future rulemakings that could
result in changes to the 2002 rule that would make current costly and
unnecessary expenditures by small oil and gas operators unnecessary,
allow time to update the guidance document in accordance with any new
rules, and allow operators time to fully understand and comply with
those changes.

Submitted by - of Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)

Comment Text:

We strongly support EPA's proposal to extend these compliance dates...
The extension will also allow time to address a series of issues that
have been raised repeatedly in the past and have not yet been addressed.

Submitted by - Kirk Johnson of National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association

Comment Text:

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) submits
these comments in support of EPA's proposal (71 Fed. Reg. 77357 (Dec.
26, 2006)) to extend the deadline to July 1, 2009 for facilities to
amend and implement their Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
("SPCC") plans to comply with the SPCC regulations published in July,
2002, the SPCC amendments published in 2006 and the SPCC amendments EPA
is planning to issue in the near future.

Submitted by - Roger Claff of American Petroleum Institute

Comment Text:

The extension of the compliance date would allow the Agency time to
clarify and amend the July 17,2002 final SPCC rule and provide affected
facility owners and operators adequate time to meet the amended
requirements.

Submitted by - Steve Hensley of USA Rice Federation

Comment Text:

USA Rice is pleased to support the proposed extension. Although the
extension does not apply directly to farms, it does apply to other
members of the Federation as well as many farm-support services. The
effects on those services from this rule will be felt downstream with
their farm customers and any burden reduction is welcome.

Submitted by - Karen Bennett of National Mining Association (NMA)

Comment Text:

The National Mining Association (NMA) appreciates this opportunity to
submit comments in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) proposal to extend the dates by which facilities must comply with
the 2002 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations
from Oct. 31, 2007 to July 1, 2009. 67 Fed. Reg. 47,042 (Dec. 26, 2006).

Submitted by - Bill Verner of Georgia Electric Membership Corporation
(GEMC)

Comment Text:

This new extension is needed, therefore, to give the Georgia EMCs the
opportunity [to] make changes to their facilities and to amend/prepare
their SPCC plans as needed to comply with the new requirements
forthcoming in 2007. In addition, the extensions would give the EMCs
more time to understand and address the revisions to the SPCC program
made in 2002 and in 2006. For all of these reasons, GEMC and the Georgia
EMCs support EPA's proposal to extend the compliance deadlines until
July 1,2009.

Submitted by - Jeff Gunnulfsen of Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturers Association (SOCMA)

Comment Text:

Under the proposal, EPA would extend the compliance date for preparing
(or revising) SPCC plans and for implementing plans from October 31,
2007 to July 1, 2009. SOCMA strongly supports this extension and
believes that it is warranted.

Submitted by - Jessica Steinhilber of Aviation Coalition

Comment Text:

The Aviation Coalition strongly supports the Proposed Compliance Date
Extension and strongly agrees with the Agency's rationales for the
extension.

Submitted by - Chris Keyser of New England Fuel Institute

Comment Text:

NEFI strongly supports the Agency's proposal for an extension of the
compliance date for amending and implementing SPCC Plans to July 1,
2009.

Submitted by - Mark Morgan of Petroleum Transportation and Storage
Association

Comment Text:

PTSA strongly supports the Agency's proposal for an extension of the
compliance date for amending and implementing SPCC Plans to July 1,
2009.

Submitted by - Tim Crouch of Indiana Statewide Association of Rural
Electric Cooperatives

Comment Text:

Regulatory Program members wish to express their support for US EPA's
proposal to extend the compliance deadline to July 1, 2009 for covered
facilities to amend their SPCC plans and the recent revised amendments
allowing for regulatory relief in several key areas affecting our
members including Oil filled Operational Equipment, Qualified and Small
facilities.

Submitted by - Eric Byer of National Air Transportation Association

Comment Text:

The association is very supportive of the EPA's proposal to extend the
compliance deadline until July 1, 2009, and commends the agency for its
flexibility in allowing facilities affected by the rule appropriate time
to comply with the new regulations.

Submitted by – John Hopewell of National Paint and Coatings
Association

Comment Text:

Given EPA's recent amendments to provide SPCC regulatory relief, the
pending update of its SPCC Guidance for Regional Inspectors, and the
agency's intent to propose further SPCC rule amendments in 2007, the
extension is appropriate and very welcomed. The extension of the SPCC
deadline should provide regulated facilities adequate time to review the
amendments, develop and/or modify existing plans, and comply with any
final changes to the rule or guidance. Without this additional time,
facilities' compliance efforts would be unnecessarily burdensome and
compromised.

B.	OPPOSE

No comments opposing the Agency’s proposal to extend the dates for
owners and operators of facilities to prepare or amend and implement
SPCC Plans from October 31, 2007 to July 1, 2009 were officially logged
with the Federal Docket Management System.

C.	SUGGESTED ALTERNATE DATES

Submitted by - Pamela Faggert of Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

Comment Text:

Dominion... appreciates the opportunity to express support for a
proposed extension... At the same time, however, because the EPA cannot
guarantee a certain date for promulgation of the 'loose ends' rule, the
proposed deadline of July 1, 2009, does not ensure that adequate time to
meet the amended requirements will be provided. We recommend that EPA
establish a compliance deadline of 12 months following promulgation of a
final 'loose ends' rule, or notice of termination of the rulemaking, in
order to allow facility owners/operators adequate time for plan
amendment and full implementation of the amended plan requirements.

Submitted by - Jeff Spillyards of Entergy Corporation

Comment Text:

Entergy Corporation ("Entergy") endorses EPA's proposed rule, Docket No.
EPA-OPA-2006-0949, 71 Fed. Reg. 77357 (Dec. 26, 2006), to extend the
deadline to July 1, 2009 for facilities to amend and implement their
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans in accordance
with requirements associated with the July 2002, December 2006 and
forthcoming "loose ends" spill prevention control and countermeasure
amendments. Additionally, Entergy supports suggestion by the Utility
Solid Waste Activities Group ("USWAG") that repetition of compliance
extension rulemakings can be avoided by tying the proposed deadline to
promulgation of the final “loose ends” rule or, in the event that
EPA unexpectedly decides not to go forward with the rule, 12 months
after publication of a notice in the Federal Register terminating that
rulemaking. Likewise, Entergy supports the USWAG suggestion that, as EPA
stated in the 2004 and 2006 final extension notices (see 69 Fed. Reg. at
48796; 71 Fed. Reg. at 8463), EPA reaffirm in the preamble to this final
compliance extension rule that the new compliance deadline applies to
"new or more stringent compliance obligations" imposed by or subsequent
to the July 2002 SPCC amendments and not to provisions in the amendments
that provide regulatory relief to regulated facilities.

Submitted by - Jerry Schwartz of The American Forest & Paper Association
(AF&PA)

Comment Text:

AF&PA strongly supports an extension of the compliance date for
preparing or amending and implementing SPCC Plans...

Rather than setting an exact date, however, AF&PA recommends that EPA
set the date for preparing and amending Plans to one year following
publication of the final amendments. As noted in the federal register
announcement, this is the fourth proposal to extend the compliance date
following publication of the 2002 amendments. Linking the compliance
date to the publication of the final amendments would streamline the
process, and guarantee facility owners and operators adequate time to
amend existing plans.

Additionally, AF&PA recommends that a six month separation be maintained
between the deadline for amending plans and implementing plans. Thus,
AF&PA recommends that SPCC Plans be amended one year after promulgation
of the final amendments and implemented six months later.

Submitted by - Roger Claff of American Petroleum Institute

Comment Text:

API strongly supports the proposed extension of the compliance deadlines
for amending and implementing SPCC Plans; however, API also recommends
EPA maintain the separation of six months between the deadline for SPCC
Plan amendment and implementation, to allow facility owners/operators
adequate time after plan amendment to modify their facilities, properly
train employees on the amended plan requirements, and allow for full
implementation of the amended plan requirements.

Accordingly, API recommends a SPCC Plan amendment compliance deadline of
July 1, 2009 and an implementation compliance deadline of January l,
2010. Our recommendation is contingent on EPA finalizing no later than
July 1,2008 all rule amendments as well as its responses to all
outstanding requests for clarification submitted by API and other
industry members. Should EPA not be able to meet this timeline, API
recommends the Plan amendment deadline be set at least one full year
after finalizing all clarifications and making the necessary rule
amendments. This year would allow industry time to prepare its amended
plans and to budget and plan for the required facility modifications.
The deadline for implementation of amended plans would follow at least
six months after that date.

Submitted by - Sahar Osman-Sypher of IPC - Association Connecting
Electronics Industries

Comment Text:

IPC supports EPA's proposal to extend the deadline for
preparing/amending and implementing facility SPCC Plans... However,
EPA's proposed compliance date to July 1, 2009 is premature given EPA's
intent to propose further changes to the SPCC rule this year. IPC asks
EPA to consider an extension of 18 months from promulgation of the final
amendments to the SPCC rule, rather than prematurely setting a specific
compliance date. IPC believes this alternative to EPA's proposed
compliance date of July 1, 2009 is a more suitable extension and will
provide regulated facilities adequate time to review the amendments,
develop and/or modify existing plans, and comply with any final changes
to the rule or guidance. Without this additional time, facilities'
compliance efforts would be unnecessarily burdensome.

Submitted by - Scott Davis of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
("USWAG")

Comment Text:

The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) submits these comments
in support of EPA's proposal (71 Fed. Reg. 77357 (Dec. 26, 2006))...

Unfortunately, given the uncertainties of the rulemaking process and the
inability of EPA to guarantee promulgation of the "loose ends" rule by a
date certain, the proposal to defer the compliance deadline to a
specific date creates the real possibility that yet another extension
after this one will be necessary to provide the regulated community with
the promised 12 month compliance period. EPA can avoid this needless
repetition of compliance extension rulemakings by simply tying the
proposed deadline to promulgation of the final "loose ends" rule or, in
the event that EPA unexpectedly decides not to go forward with the rule,
12 months after publication of a notice in the Federal Register
terminating that rulemaking. We know of no legal barrier to EPA linking
the new compliance deadline to the completion of another rulemaking
aimed at amending the rules for which compliance has been temporarily
deferred.

Also, as EPA stated in the 2004 and 2006 final extension notices (see 69
Fed. Reg. at 48796; 71 Fed. Reg. at 8463), we ask EPA to reaffirm in the
preamble to the final compliance extension that the new compliance
deadline applies to “new or more stringent compliance obligations”
imposed by or subsequent to the July 2002 SPCC amendments and not to
provisions in the amendments that provide regulatory relief to regulated
facilities.

Submitted by - Bridgette Ellis of Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

Comment Text:

TVA supports EPA's proposal to extend the compliance dates for the very
reasons stated in the preamble text... We feel that EPA should tie the
compliance extension deadline to the promulgation date of the final
"loose ends" rulemaking or, in the event that this rulemaking does not
go forward, tie the compliance date to a time period 12 months after
publication of a notice in the Federal Register terminating that
rulemaking. This would allow adequate time to comment on the "loose
ends" and to assess and implement any required changes without having to
expend unnecessary resources on a changing regulation.

Submitted by - Pamela Lacey of American Gas Association

Comment Text:

The American Gas Association (AGA) supports EPA's proposal to extend the
deadline to July 1, 2009 for facilities to amend and implement their
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans to comply
with the 2002, 2006 and soon to be proposed 2007 SPCC amendments...

AGA is a member of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), and
we support USWAG's comments on the proposed SPCC deadline extension...

To avoid the needless repetition of compliance extension rulemakings, we
urge you to implement USWAG's suggestion. EPA could simply tie the
proposed deadline to the promulgation of the "loose ends" rule by
setting the deadline 12 months after promulgation of the loose ends rule
or -- in the event that EPA unexpectedly decides not to proceed with the
rule -- 12 months after to the date of a notice terminating the
rulemaking.

Submitted by - Douglas Greenhaus

Comment Text:

As an alternative to that proposal, we urge EPA to consider an extension
tied to 18 months after the final rule is published, thereby ensuring
that enough time is allowed for implementation regardless of when final
publication occurs.

 This comment was submitted on behalf of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors (IADC), the International Association of
Geophysical Contractors (IAGC), the National Stripper Well Association
(NSWA), the Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association (PESA), California
Independent Petroleum Association, Coalbed Methane Association of
Alabama, Colorado Oil & Gas Association, East Texas Producers & Royalty
Owners Association, Eastern Kansas Oil & Gas Association, Florida
Independent Petroleum Association, Illinois Oil & Gas Association,
Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York, Independent Oil & Gas
Association of Pennsylvania, Independent Oil & Gas Association of West
Virginia, Independent Oil Producers Agency, Independent Oil Producers
Association Tri-State, Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain
States, Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, Indiana Oil &
Gas Association, Kansas Independent Oil & Gas Association, Kentucky Oil
& Gas Association, Louisiana Independent Oil & Gas Association, Michigan
Oil & Gas Association, Mississippi Independent Producers & Royalty
Association, Montana Petroleum Association, National Association of
Royalty Owners, Nebraska Independent Oil & Gas Association, New Mexico
Oil & Gas Association, New York State Oil Producers Association, North
Dakota Petroleum Council, Northern Alliance of Independent Producers,
Ohio Oil & Gas Association, Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association,
Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Association, Pennsylvania Oil & Gas
Association, Permian Basin Petroleum Association, Petroleum Association
of Wyoming, Tennessee Oil & Gas Association, Texas Alliance of Energy
Producers, Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association,
Virginia Oil and Gas Association, Wyoming Independent Producers
Association

 This comment was submitted on behalf of the Air Transport Association
of America, Inc. (ATA), American Association of Airport Executives
(AAAE), Airports Council International - North American (ACI-NA), and
National Air Transportation Association (NATA).

 This comment was submitted on behalf of the American Forest & Paper
Association, American Trucking Associations, Automotive Oil Change
Association, Automotive Service Association, Copper and Brass
Fabricators Council, Inc., Independent Lubricant Manufacturers
Association, IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries,
National Association of Fleet Administrators, National Automobile
Dealers Association, National Federation of Independent Business Legal
Foundation, National Paint and Coatings Association, National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association, Printing Industries of America/Graphic
Arts Technical Foundation, Specialty Graphic Imaging Association,
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

12/13/2006

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


   DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES default		         		Public
Health Service

 ADVANCE \r360  ADVANCE \d3 	Food and Drug Administration

 ADVANCE \r360 	Rockville, MD  20857

April 7, 2006

James S. Turner, Esq.

Chairman, Citizen for Health

c/o Swankin & Turner

1400 16th Street # 101

Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Turner:

Your petition requesting the Food and Drug Administration to revoke
regulations that provided for the inclusion and addition of sucralose as
a non-nutritive sweetener in food, was received by this office on
04/07/2006.  It was assigned docket number 2006P-0158/CP1 and it was
filed on 04/07/2006. Please refer to this docket number in future
correspondence on this subject with the Agency.

Please note that the acceptance of the petition for filing is a
procedural matter in that it in no way reflects an agency decision on
the substantive merits of the petition.

Sincerely,

Gloria Ortega

Division of Dockets Management

Office of Management Programs

Office of Management


[Federal Register: April 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 75)]
[Notices]
[Page 20608]
[DOCID:fr20ap10-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Risk Communication Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Risk Communication Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on May 6, 2010, from 8 a.m.
to 5 p.m. and May 7, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31,
Conference Center (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Please note that
all visitors must park in the visitors' parking lot near Building 22
(for a campus map, see http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/
BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/default.htm). The
Campus is also served by several bus lines connecting to metro rail
(see http://www.wmata.com/).
    Contact Person: Lee L. Zwanziger, Office of the Commissioner,
Office of Policy, Planning and Preparedness, Office of Planning, Food
and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 14-90, Rockville, MD
20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>, or
FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER>
in the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On May 6 and 7, 2010, the Committee will review the state
of current research in a range of fields relevant to improving risk
communication at FDA, and discuss applications or gaps for strategic
planning of risk communication at FDA. For more specific agenda
information, please visit the following Web site and scroll down to the
appropriate advisory committee link (http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm), or call FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line as listed above in the Contact Person
section of the notice. FDA intends to make agenda information available
at both these locations no later than 15 days before the meeting.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Visitors to the White Oak Campus must have a valid
driver's license or other picture ID, and must enter through Building
1. In order to help speed entrance through security, we request that
attendees send an email giving their full names to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with the word ``registration'' in the subject line, or telephone Lee
Zwanziger (see Contact Person), by April 27, 2010.
    Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally
or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written
submissions may be made to the contact person on or before May 3, 2010.
Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 3:15 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. on May 6, 2010, and between 1
p.m. and 1:30 p.m. on May 7, 2010. Those desiring to make formal oral
presentations should notify Lee Zwanziger and submit a brief statement
of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to
present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before April 27, 2010. Time allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 28,
2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Lee Zwanziger at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: April 14, 2010.
Jill H. Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-9056 Filed 4-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75559-75560]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29601]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1510-017]

Kaukauna Utilities; Notice of Intent To File License Application,
Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of the
Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 1510-017.
    c. Date Filed: October 7, 2013.
    d. Submitted By: Kaukauna Utilities.
    e. Name of Project: Kaukauna City Plant Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Lower Fox River, in Outagamie County,
Wisconsin. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or
located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mike Pedersen, Manager of
Generation and Operations, Kaukauna Utilities, 777 Island Street,
Kaukauna, WI 54130; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Isis Johnson at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Kaukauna Utilities filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on October 7, 2013. Kaukauna utilities provided
public notice of its request on September 25, 2013. In a letter dated
December 05, 2013, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing
approved Kaukauna Utilities' request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c)
the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by
section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Kaukauna Utilities as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management

Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Kaukauna Utilities filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 1510. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by March 31,
2017.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: December 5, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29601 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P