SF-83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

	1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ)

	1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Dry Cleaners were proposed on December 14, 1982, promulgated on September 21, 1984, and amended on October 17, 2000 (65 FR 61773).  These standards apply to owners or operators of petroleum dry cleaning facilities constructed, reconstructed, or modified after December 14, 1982, with a total manufacturers’ rated dryer capacity equal to or greater than 38 kilograms (84 pounds).  This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ.

	In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests and periodic reports.  Owners or operators also are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.  These notification, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance and are required of all sources subject to NSPS.

	Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional office.

	Based on our consultations with industry representatives, there is an average of one affected facility at each plant site and that each plant site has only one respondent (i.e., the owner/operator of the plant site).

	There are approximately 342 existing sources that currently are associated with the rule, with an estimated 18 new additional sources per year over the next three years.  The rule stipulates that only new sources with one-time-only requirements are subject to this subpart.  Therefore, we concluded that the number of respondents for this renewal ICR is 18 sources per year.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the current Information Collection Request (ICR) without any “Terms of Clearance.”

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

	2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which (taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.  Section 111(a)(l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology (BDT).  Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In the Administrator's judgment, pollutant emissions from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ.

	2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure compliance with the applicable regulations which were promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information also is used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.  Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the standard at all times.  During the performance test, a record of the operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission monitor.

	The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the standards are being met.  The performance test may also be observed.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

	The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ.

	3(a)  Nonduplication

	If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication exists.

	3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

	An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 55368) on September 21, 2005.  No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

	3(c)  Consultations

Consultation with industry representatives (i.e., respondents) was conducted to determine if there is any way for EPA to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden, or improve the language in the standard to make it easier to comply.  Our contacts were: Mr. David Dawson, R. R. Street and Company Incorporated,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Mr. William Olinger, Hoyt Corporation,<PHONE_NUMBER>; and Mr. John Meijer, International Fabricare Institute (IFI)<PHONE_NUMBER>.

We also referenced the most recent ICR, consulted with the preparer of the active ICR, and used other resources to obtain the most recent data available.  We reviewed information available from the United States Census Bureau, the Air Facility System (AFS), which is the primary source of information regarding the number of existing sources, and websites covering petroleum dry cleaners.  We also consulted with EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

	Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.  Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and that emission limitations are met.  If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

	3(e)  General Guidelines

	These reporting or recordkeeping requirements do not violate any of the regulations promulgated by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

	3(f)  Confidentiality

	Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

	3(g)  Sensitive Questions

	The reporting, or recordkeeping requirements in the standard do not include sensitive questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

	4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are petroleum dry cleaners.  The United States Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for the respondents affected by the standards, which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, are listed below for source category descriptions.

Standard (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ)	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

Coin-Operating Laundry and Drycleaning	7215	812310

Drycleaning Plants, Except Rug Cleaning	7216	812320

Industrial Launderers	7218	812332

	4(b)  Information Requested

	None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violates any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

		(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data that are recorded or reported are required by NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ).

	A source must make the following reports:

Notifications	Standard Citation by Sections

Notification of construction/reconstruction	60.7(a)(1)

Notification of actual startup	60.7(a)(3)

Notification of initial performance test	60.8(d)

Notification of physical or operational change	60.7(a)(4)

Initial performance test results	60.8(a)

	A source must make the following reports:

Recordkeeping

Record of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions	60.7(b)

Initial and repeat of performance tests	60.625

Records are required to be retained for two years	60.7(f)

Electronic Reporting

	Some of the respondents are using monitoring equipment that automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the affected facility must still evaluate the data, internal automation has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping at a plant site.

	Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However, electronic reporting systems still are not widely used.  At this time, it is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

		(ii)  Respondent Activities

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Perform initial performance test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using automated monitoring equipment that provides parameter data.  Although personnel at the sources still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

	5(a)  Agency Activities

	EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports, and excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Air Facility System (AFS).

	5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

	Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated.  Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.  Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs.

	Information contained in the reports is entered into the Air Facility System (AFS), which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance.  AFS is EPA’s database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government-owned facilities.  EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters.  EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

	The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner/operator for two years.

	5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

	A majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities.  The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

	5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

	Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to this information collection are mandatory.

	6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

	The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 1,664 hours (Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  This estimate is based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of this regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

	6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

		(i)  Estimating Labor Costs

	This ICR uses the following labor rates:

		Managerial	$97.46  per hour     ($46.41 + 110%)

		Technical	$83.71  per hour     ($39.86 + 110%)

		Clerical	$42.55  per hour     ($20.26 + 110%)

	These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, “Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group.”  The rates are from column 1, “Total compensation.”  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

		(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	The only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information collection activities required by the subject standard are labor costs.  There are no capital/startup or operation and maintenance costs.

	6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

	The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of the reported information.  EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program includes activities such as the examination of records maintained by the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emission, and the publication and distribution of collected information.

	The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $26,936.  This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$57.20   per hour    (GS-13, Step 5, $35.75 x 1.6)

		Technical	$42.45   per hour    (GS-12, Step 1, $26.53 x 1.6)

		Clerical	$22.96   per hour    (GS-6, Step 3, $14.35 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2006 General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ).

	6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	Based on our research for this ICR, over the next three years, approximately 18 respondents per year will be subject to the standard.  The rule stipulates that only new sources with one-time-only requirements are subject to this subpart.

	The number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

	Respondents That Submit Reports	Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports

	Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	18	0	0	0	18

2	18	0	0	0	18

3	18	0	0	0	18

Average	18	0	0	0	18

	To avoid double-counting respondents column D is subtracted.  As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of this ICR is 18 per year.  This number appears on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(a), Number of respondents.

	The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of construction/reconstruction	18	1	0	18

Notification of actual startup	18	1	0	18

Notification of initial performance test	18	1	0	18

Report of performance test	18	1	0	18

Report of repeat of performance test	3.6	1	0	3.6

	Total	75

	The number of Total Annual Responses is 75.  This number is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(b), Total annual responses.

	6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden and Cost Tables

	The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, and summarized below.

		(i) Respondent Tally

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 13(c).  The total annual labor costs are $134,355.  The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83-I form.  Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ).  Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 22 hours per response.

	The total annual capital/startup and O&M costs to the regulated entity are $0.  This number is shown on the OMB 83-I form in block 14(c), Total annualized cost requested.  The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

		(ii) The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over the next three years is estimated to be 646 labor hours at a cost of $26,736.  See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ).

	6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

	The increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to the fact that we are accounting for not only technical person-hours but also management and clerical person-hours.

	There are no capital/startup and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with this ICR.

	6(g)  Burden Statement

	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0066, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.  Use FDMS to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0066 and OMB Control Number 2060-0079 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

	This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ)

Burden item

(A)

Person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No.  of

occurrences

per respondent

per year

(C)

Person-

hours per

respondent

per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Respondents

per year  a

(E)

Technical

person-

hours per

year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $  b

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting Requirements

   A.  Read instructions 	Included in 4E

	   B.  Required activities

       Initial performance test c, d	61	1	61	18	1,098	54.9	109.8 $101,936.12

       Repeat of performance test c, d, e	61	1	61	3.6	219.6	10.98	21.96 $20,387.23

   C.  Create information	See 3B

	   D.  Gather existing information	See 3B

	   E.   Write report

       Notification of construction/                     modification c, f	2	1	2	18	36	1.8	3.6	$3,342.17

       Notification of actual startup c, f	2	1	2	18	36	1.8	3.6	$3,342.17

       Notification of initial performance           test c, f	2	1	2	18 36	1.8	3.6	$3,342.17

       Report of performance test	Included in 3B

	4.  Recordkeeping requirements

   A.  Read instructions 	Included in 3A

	   B.  Plan activities	Included in 4C

	   C.  Implement activities 	Included in 3B

	   D.  Develop record system	N/A

   E.  Time to enter information

       Record of all performance tests c, g	1	1.2	1.2	18	21.6	1.08	2.16 $2,005.30

   F. Time for audits 	N/A

	Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	1,447.2	72.36	144.72	$134,355.16

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	1,664	$134,355

Assumptions:

    a  We have assumed that there are approximately 342 existing sources that are currently subject to the rule with an estimated 18 new additional sources per year over the         next three years.  The rule stipulates that only new sources with one-time-only requirements are subject to this subpart.  We therefore, concluded that the number of                respondents for this renewal ICR is 18 sources per year.

    b  This ICR uses the following labor rates: $97.46 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $83.71 per hour for Technical labor, and $42.55 per hour     for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, (Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational

    and industry group.(  The rates are from column 1, (Total compensation.(  The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those         employed by private industry.

    c  This is a one-time only activity.

    d  We have assumed that it will take 61 hours for each respondent to complete the required activity.

    e  We have assumed that 20 percent of respondents will have to repeat initial performance tests due to failure.

    f  We have assumed that it will take 2 hours for respondents to write report.

    g  We have assumed that it will take each respondent one hour to enter information on all performance tests.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NSPS for Petroleum Dry Cleaners (40 CFR part 60, subpart JJJ)

	Activity

(A)

EPA person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No. of

occurrences

per plant

per year

(C)

EPA person

hours per

plant  per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Plants per year  a

(E)

Technical

person-hours

per year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $ b

1.   Initial performance test 	16	1	16	18	288	14.4	28.8	$13,710.52

2    Repeat performance test c, d	16	1	16	3.6	57.6	2.88	5.76	$2,742.11

3.   Report review

        Notification of  construction/                  reconstruction c 2	1	2	18	36	1.8	3.6	$1,713.82

        Notification of actual startup c	1	1	1	18	18	0.9	1.8	$856.91

        Initial performance test c, e	7.5	1	7.5	18	135	6.75	13.5 $6,426.81

        Repeat performance test c, f	7.5	1	7.5	3.6	27	1.35	2.7	$1,285.36

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	561.6	28.08	56.16	$26,735.53

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	646	$26,736

Assumptions:

    a  We have assumed that there are approximately 342 existing sources that are currently subject to the rule with an estimated 18 new additional sources per year over the         next three years.  The rule stipulates that only new sources with one-time-only requirements are subject to this subpart.  We therefore, concluded that the number of                respondents for this renewal ICR is 18 sources per year.

b  This cost is based on the following labor rates which incorporates a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses:  Managerial rate of $57.20 (GS-13, Step 5, $35.75 x 1.6), Technical rate of $42.45 (GS-12, Step 1, $26.53 x 1.6), and Clerical rate of $22.96 (GS-6, Step 3, $14.35 x 1.6).  These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (2006 General Schedule( which excludes locality rates of pay.

c  This is a one-time only activity.

d  We have assumed that 20 percent of respondents will have to repeat performance test

e  We have assumed that each respondent will take 7.5 hours to review the initial performance test report.

f  We have assumed that 20 percent of respondents will have to review the repeat performance test report.

 PAGE   8

 PAGE   9


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45526-45528]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0901; Product Identifier 2017-NM-106-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 757-300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by reports of scribe line damage on fuselage skin. This
proposed AD would require detailed inspections of fuselage skin for the
presence of scribe lines, and applicable on-condition actions. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 13,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0901.

Examining the AD Docket

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

www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0901; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Truong, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0901;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-106-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report indicating that scribe line damage,
caused by sharp tools used during fuselage maintenance, has been found
on the fuselage skin of a number of Boeing Model 757-300 series
airplanes. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the
development of cracks in fuselage skin that can potentially lead to
rapid decompression and the inability of the principal structural
element to sustain limit load.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July
20, 2017. The service information describes procedures for detailed
inspections of fuselage skin for the presence of scribe lines, and
applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions
identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July
20, 2017, described previously, except for any differences identified
as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0901.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
           Action                  Labor cost         Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections................  Up to 149 work-hours               $0  Up to $12,665 per      Up to $468,605 per
                              x $85 per hour =                       inspection cycle.      inspection cycle.
                              $12,665 per
                              inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0901; Product Identifier
2017-NM-106-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 13, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

 (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-300 series
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of scribe line damage on
fuselage skin, caused by sharp tools used during fuselage
maintenance. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct scribe
line damage. Failure to detect and completely remove scribe lines
may lead to fatigue cracking, rapid decompression, and inability of
the principal structural element to sustain limit load.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July 20, 2017, do
all applicable actions identified as ``RC'' (required for
compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated
July 20, 2017.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD, the phrase ``the effective date of this AD'' may be
substituted for ``the original issue date of this service
bulletin,'' as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-
53A0107, dated July 20, 2017.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0107, dated July
20, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as
RC: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the
provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 20, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-20830 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36596-36598]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15553]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64686; File No. SR-CHX-2011-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Minor Rule Plan

 June 16, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On April 20, 2011, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change amending CHX Article 12, Rule 8 (Minor Rule Plan)
(``MRP'') to incorporate additional violations into the MRP, increase
the sanctions for certain violations, add censure authority to the MRP,
eliminate the Minor Rule Violation Panel, clarify pleading requirements
of a Respondent seeking to challenge a sanction by instituting a formal
disciplinary proceeding, and make other minor changes. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 5,
2011.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed
rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64370 (April 29,
2011); 76 FR 25727 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The Exchange proposed to make additional rules subject to
punishment under its MRP. These rules relate to: (1) Failure to notify
the Exchange of a request to withdraw capital contribution (Article 3,
Rule 6(b)); (2) failure to request Exchange approval of the transfer of
equity securities of a participant firm (Article 3, Rule 11); (3)
reporting of loans (Article 3, Rule 12); (4) failure to provide the
Exchange with information (Article 6, Rule 7); (5) impeding or delaying
an Exchange examination, inquiry, or investigation (Article 6, Rule 9);
(6) designation of e-mail addresses (Article 3, Rule 13); (7)
registration and approval of personnel (Article 6, Rule 2(a)); (8)
written supervisory procedures (Article 6, Rule 5(b)); (9) failure to
report short positions (Article 7, Rule 9); (10) furnishing of records
(Article 11, Rule 1); (11) maintenance of books and records (Article
11, Rule 2); (12) participant

communications (Article 11, Rule 4); (13) market maker registration and
appointment (Article 16, Rule 1); (14) market maker reporting of
position information (Article 16, Rule 10); (15) institutional broker
registration and appointment (Article 17, Rule 1); (16) reporting of
transactions (Article 9, Rule 13); (17) institutional broker
obligations for entry of orders into an automated system (Article 17,
Rule 3(a)); and (18) institutional broker responsibilities for handling
orders within an integrated system (Article 17, Rule 3(b)). The
Exchange believes that it will be able to carry out its regulatory
responsibility more quickly and efficiently by incorporating these
violations into its MRP.
    The Exchange also proposed to increase the fine levels for certain
violations. The Exchange proposed to increase the maximum fine pursuant
to the MRP from $2,500 to $5,000 and to increase the fines in the Fine
Schedule in order to better deter violative activity and more closely
adhere to the fine schedules of other self-regulatory organizations.
For most reporting and recordkeeping rule violations and certain
trading rule violations, the recommended fines were increased from
$100/$500/$1000 for first, second, and third tier fines, respectively,
to $250/$750/$1500. The Exchange also proposed recommended fines of
$500/$1000/$2500 for other, more serious trading rule violations (i.e.,
ones which involve the potential for customer harm), as well as
violations of the obligation to establish, maintain, and enforce
written supervisory procedures, and to provide information to the
Exchange in connection with regulatory inquiries or other matters. The
Exchange recommended fines of $1000/$2500/$5000 for the most serious
violations contained within the Plan (Trading Ahead). Finally, the
Exchange proposed to expand the rolling time period in which violations
would result in escalation to the next highest tier from 12 to 24
months, which is consistent with the minor rule plans of other
exchanges.
    In conjunction with altering the fine levels, the Exchange proposed
to add a censure authority to the MRP to provide additional flexibility
in imposing sanctions in particular cases. A censure could be used in
the initial findings of a violation where the Exchange wants to put the
Respondent on notice that certain conduct violates CHX rules or in
other circumstances in which a monetary fine is not appropriate or
necessary.
    The Exchange proposed to eliminate the role of the Minor Rule
Violation Panel in issuing sanctions pursuant to the MRP, and to
authorize certain members of the Exchange's Market Regulation staff to
issue MRP sanctions. Specifically, MRP sanctions would be imposed
either by the Exchange's Chief Enforcement Counsel or Chief Regulatory
Officer. The Exchange noted that allowing members of its staff to issue
MRP fines was consistent with the practice at other exchanges regarding
MRPs and was also similar to the method by which formal disciplinary
actions are instituted by the CHX under Article 12, Rule 1.\4\ The
Exchange stated that the proposed change would help to expedite the
process of issuing MRP sanctions and would eliminate an inherent source
of potential conflicts (or appearance thereof) whenever Participants
determine disciplinary sanctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') Rule
17.50(a), Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule Violations (provides
for fines to be issued by ``the Exchange''); BATS Exchange Rule
8.15(a), Imposition of Fines for Minor Violation(s) of Rules,
(provides for fines to be issued by ``the Exchange''); International
Stock Exchange Rule 1614(a), Imposition of Fines for Minor Rule
Violations (provides for fines to be issued by ``the Exchange'').
Formal disciplinary actions under CHX Article 12, Rule 1 are
authorized by the Exchange's Chief Regulatory Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposed to clarify the pleading requirements of
a Respondent who seeks to challenge a sanction by instituting a formal
disciplinary proceeding. The proposed changes would require a
Respondent challenging an MRP sanction to file an answer that meets the
standards for an answer under Article 12, Rule 5(b). The proposal would
authorize the Secretary of the Exchange (the person to whom such
responses are directed) to deny the answer for a failure to meet these
standards. Under the proposal, the denial of the answer by the
Secretary without leave to amend and refile would be considered the
final action of the Exchange, and the MRP fine would become due and
payable and/or a censure would be imposed. The Exchange also added
language incorporating the requirement of Exchange Act Rule 19d-1
relating to the reporting of Exchange disciplinary actions to the
Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange's proposed language is based upon language in
the Minor Rule Violation Plan of the CBOE. See CBOE Rule 17.50(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposed to make certain non-substantive,
clarifying changes to some of the current rules referenced in the MRP.
For example, the filing proposed to clarify that the short sale rule
(Article 9, Rule 23) applied to all sell orders and not just those of a
proprietary nature.\6\ In addition, the filing proposed to make changes
to address proper rule cites and/or description of rules. For example,
the filing proposed to clarify that an institutional broker's best
execution obligations under Article 17, Rule 3 specifically fall under
paragraph (d) of such rule. In addition, rather than describing the
rule as ``Failure to meet best execution obligations'', the rule will
be titled ``Institutional Broker obligations in handling orders (best
execution).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Currently, the Plan only addresses a Participant's duty to
comply with the short sale rule when selling short for its own
account (e.g., proprietarily). See Article 12, Rule 8(h)(ii)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\ In particular, the
Commission believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be
designed to, among other things, protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission also believes that the proposal is consistent
with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ which require that the
rules of an exchange enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate
discipline for, violations of Commission and Exchange rules. The
Commission notes that because CHX Article 12 provides procedural rights
to a person fined under the MRP to contest the fine and permits a
hearing on the matter, the Commission believes that the MRP provides a
fair procedure for the disciplining of members and persons associated
with members, consistent with Sections 6(b)(7) and 6(d)(1) of the
Act.\10\ Furthermore, the Commission believes that the proposed changes
to the MRP should strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its
oversight and enforcement responsibilities as a self-regulatory
organization in cases where full disciplinary proceedings are
unsuitable in view of the minor nature of the particular violation.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
the public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act,

as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\11\ which governs minor
rule violation plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d)(1).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission in no way
minimizes the importance of compliance with CHX rules and all other
rules subject to the imposition of fines under the MRP. The Commission
believes that the violation of any self-regulatory organization's
rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious matter. However, the
MRP provides a reasonable means of addressing rule violations that do
not rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings,
while providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations. The
Commission expects that CHX will continue to conduct surveillance with
due diligence and make a determination based on its findings, on a
case-by-case basis, whether a fine of more or less than the recommended
amount is appropriate for a violation under the MRP or whether a
violation requires formal disciplinary action under CHX Article 12.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\12\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\13\ that the proposed rule
change (SR-CHX-2011-07) be, and hereby is, approved and declared
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-15553 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 9, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-21165

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC. (SPIRIT) filed 5/3/05 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the terminal point Orlando, Florida, and the terminal point
Cancun, Mexico.  Spirit anticipates beginning its proposed service on
December 31, 2006.

Applicant rep: Anita M. Mosner<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst: Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: December 9, 2005, through
December 9, 2007.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.  (See remarks, below.)

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

   	XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Regarding the issue of the start-up deadline, we have
determined that, in the circumstances presented, we will require Spirit
to institute the proposed service no later than December 31, 2006.

Remarks:  Under the current U.S.-Mexico aviation agreement, two U.S. air
carriers may be designated to provide direct carrier (own-aircraft)
combination service in the Orlando-Cancun market. Currently, no U.S.
carrier is designated to provide such services.  Thus, two designations
are available on this route.  Four applications were filed for the
Orlando-Cancun market, i.e., Spirit’s exemption application here,
Boston-Maine Airways Corp.’s certificate application in Docket
OST-2003-14985, AirTran Airways’ exemption application in Docket
OST-2005-21134, and Delta Air Lines’ exemption application in Docket
OST-2005-21284.

By letter dated August 2, 2005, the Department stated its intent to
defer action on all pending Boston-Maine applications until the Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) completes an investigation into a number
of matters raised in Boston-Maine’s applications and the Department
has fully reviewed the OIG report.  That investigation remains ongoing.
On October 17, 2005, AirTran withdrew its application to serve the
Orlando-Cancun market.  On November 22, 2005, Delta withdrew its
application to serve the Orlando-Cancun market.  Consequently, Spirit is
the only remaining applicant now situated such as to be eligible for an
award of authority at this time in the Orlando-Cancun market.  We will
accordingly grant Spirit’s request for exemption authority to serve
the subject market.

________________________________________________________________________
______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										  05/2004

 By Notice of Action Taken dated June 24, 2005, in the instant docket,
we granted Spirit’s request for exemption authority to serve the
Tampa-Cancun market and deferred action on the carrier’s request for
authority to serve the Orlando-Cancun market in light of the competing
applications we have received with respect to the Orlando-Cancun portion
of Spirit’s application (see remarks).  This Notice of Action Taken
addresses the still-pending portion of the applicant’s request.

 By letter dated November 30, 2005, Spirit notified the Department that
it revised the start-up date for Orlando-Cancun service due to the
extensive infrastructure damage caused by Hurricane Wilma in Cancun.

 See letter dated December 5, 2005 from Michael W. Reynolds, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, to David a.
Fink, President of Boston-Maine Airways Corp., copied in Docket
OST-2003-14985.


           Pesticide Reregistration Performance Measures and Goals;
                            Annual Progress Report;
                               Fiscal Year 2011
           Docket identification (ID) number:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0959

I.  Introduction
      The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires EPA to publish information about EPA's annual achievements in meeting its performance measures and goals for pesticide reregistration.  This report addresses EPA's achievements in this area during fiscal year 2011.  This report discusses the integration of tolerance reassessment with the reregistration process, and describes the status of various regulatory activities associated with reregistration and tolerance reassessment.  The report also gives total numbers of products reregistered and products registered under the "fast-track" provisions of  FIFRA.
II.  Background
      EPA must establish and publish in the Federal Register its annual performance measures and goals for pesticide reregistration, tolerance reassessment, and expedited registration, under section 4(l) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136a-1(l).  Specifically, such measures and goals are to include:
   * The status of reregistration.
   * The number of products reregistered, canceled, or amended.
   * The number and type of data requests of Data Call-In (DCI) notices under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) issued to support product reregistration by active ingredient.
   * Progress in reducing the number of unreviewed, required reregistration studies.
   * The aggregate status of tolerances reassessed.
   * The number of applications for registration submitted under FIFRA section 4(k)(3) (which provides for expedited processing and review of certain applications) that were approved or disapproved.
   * The future schedule for reregistrations in the current and succeeding fiscal year.
   * The projected year of completion of the reregistrations under FIFRA section 4.
	FIFRA authorized EPA to conduct a comprehensive pesticide reregistration program -- a complete review of the human health and environmental effects of older pesticides originally registered before November 1, 1984.  Pesticides meeting today's scientific and regulatory standards could be declared "eligible" for reregistration.  To be eligible, an older pesticide must have a substantially complete data base, and must not cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment when used according to Agency approved label directions and precautions.
	In addition, all pesticides with food uses must meet the safety standard of section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 21 U.S.C. 346a.  Under FFDCA, EPA must make a determination that pesticide residues remaining in or on food are "safe"; that is, "that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue" from dietary and other sources.  In determining allowable levels of pesticide residues in food, EPA must, among other requirements, perform a comprehensive assessment of each pesticide's risks, considering:
   * Aggregate exposure (from food, drinking water, and residential uses).
   * Cumulative effects from all pesticides sharing a common mechanism of toxicity.
   * Possible increased susceptibility of infants and children.
   * Possible endocrine or estrogenic effects.
	The 1996 FFDCA amendments also required the reassessment of all existing tolerances (pesticide residue limits in food) and tolerance exemptions within 10 years, to ensure that they met the safety standard of the law.  EPA was directed to give priority to the review of those pesticides that appeared to pose the greatest risk to public health. The Agency completed the last of 9,721 required tolerance reassessment decisions in September 2007, ensuring that all pesticides used on food in the United States meet the law's safety standard.  EPA's approach to tolerance reassessment under FFDCA was described fully in the Agency's document, "Raw and Processed Food Schedule for Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment" (62 FR 42020, August 4, 1997) (FRL-5734-6).
	The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003 became effective on March 23, 2004 (Pub. Law 108-199, Div. G, Title V, Sec. 501, 118 Stat. 419). Among other things, PRIA amended FIFRA section 4(g)(2) to require EPA to complete Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) for pesticides with food uses/tolerances by August 3, 2006, and to complete all non-food use REDs by October 3, 2008.  The Agency completed decisions for the last of 613 reregistration pesticide cases in September 2008, meeting the PRIA deadline.  REDs are available on the Agency's Pesticide Reregistration Status web page, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.
III.  Program Accountability
	Through this summary of performance measures and goals for pesticide reregistration, tolerance reassessment, and expedited registration, EPA describes progress made during the past year in each of the program areas included in FIFRA section 4(l).
A.  Status of Reregistration
	The last reregistration eligibility decisions for 613 reregistration cases were completed in FY 2008.  During FY 2011, the Agency focused on completing product reregistration decisions.
B.  Product Reregistration; Numbers of Products Reregistered, Canceled, and Amended
	At the end of the reregistration process, after EPA has issued a RED and declared a pesticide reregistration case eligible for reregistration, individual end-use products that contain pesticide active ingredients included in the case still must be reregistered. This concluding part of the reregistration process is called "product reregistration."
	In issuing a completed RED document, EPA sends registrants a DCI notice requesting any product-specific data and specific revised labeling needed to complete reregistration for each of the individual pesticide products covered by the RED.  Based on the results of EPA's review of these data and labeling, products found to meet FIFRA and FFDCA standards may be reregistered.
	A variety of outcomes are possible for pesticide products completing this final phase of the reregistration process.  Ideally, in response to the DCI, the pesticide producer, or registrant, will submit the required product-specific data and revised labeling, which EPA will review and find acceptable.  At that point, the Agency may reregister the pesticide product.  If, however, the product contains multiple active ingredients, the Agency instead would first require the registrant to amend the product's registration, incorporating the labeling changes specified in the RED as interim measures.  A product with multiple active ingredients could not be fully reregistered until the last active ingredient in its formulation was eligible for reregistration.  In other situations, the Agency may temporarily suspend a product's registration if the registrant has not submitted required product-specific studies within the time frame specified. The Agency may cancel a product's registration because the registrant did not pay the required registration maintenance fee.  Alternatively, the registrant may request a voluntary cancellation of their end-use product registration.
	1.  Product reregistration actions in FY 2011.  EPA counts each of the post-RED product outcomes described above as a product reregistration action.  A single pesticide product may be the subject of several product reregistration actions within the same year. For example, a product's registration initially may be amended, then the product may be reregistered, or the product may first be suspended and later it may be voluntarily canceled. During FY 2011, EPA completed the product reregistration actions detailed in Table 1.
        TABLE 1. -- PRODUCT REREGISTRATION ACTIONS COMPLETED IN FY 2011
                          (AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2011)

                                    Actions
                                                                        FY 2011
Product reregistration actions
                                                                            373
Product amendment actions
                                                                            460
Product cancellation actions
                                                                            379
Product suspension actions
                                                                              6
Total actions
                                                                          1,218

	2.  Status of the product reregistration universe for FY 2011.  EPA also keeps track of the status of the universe of products subject to reregistration, that is, the overall number of products reregistered, amended, canceled, and sent for suspension, as well as the number of products with actions pending, as of the end of the fiscal year. This overall status information is not "cumulative" -- it is not derived from summing up a series of annual actions.  Adding annual actions would result in a larger overall number since each individual product is subject to multiple actions -- it can be amended, reregistered, and/or canceled, over time.  Instead, the "big picture" status information in Table 2 should be considered a snapshot in time.  As registrants and EPA make marketing and regulatory decisions in the future, the status of individual products may change, and numbers in this table are expected to fluctuate.
TABLE 2. -- STATUS OF THE UNIVERSE OF PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO PRODUCT REREGISTRATION, FOR FY 2011 (AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2011)

                                    Status
                                                                        FY 2011
Products reregistered
                                                                          4,742
Products amended
                                                                          1,639
Products canceled
                                                                         10,545
Products sent for suspension
                                                                             26
Total products with actions completed
                                                                         16,952
Products with actions pending
                                                                          7,624
Total products in product reregistration universe
                                                                         24,576

      At the end of FY 2011, 7,624 products had product reregistration decisions pending.  Some pending products awaited science reviews, label reviews, or reregistration decisions by EPA.  Others were not yet ready for product reregistration actions, but were associated with more recently completed REDs.  Their product-specific data were not yet due to be submitted to or reviewed by the Agency.
	The universe of products in product reregistration has increased in some years and decreased in other years.  Generally, an increase resulted from products associated with the most recently completed REDs, while a decrease was due to fluctuations in numbers of products associated with product-specific Data Call-Ins (PDCIs).
	EPA refined the number and status of products in the product reregistration universe in FY 2010, and the Agency has used the revised numbers in reporting on the status of the universe starting in FY 2011.  By identifying and including products that were canceled between the time when REDs were signed and PDCIs were issued, the Agency has been able to more precisely define the universe of products that are subject to product reregistration.  This is enabling the Agency to more accurately track the status of products undergoing product reregistration, describe progress in meeting program goals, and carry out plans to complete remaining product reregistration decisions during the next few years.
	3.  Product reregistration goal in FY 2012.  EPA's goal is to complete 1,200 product reregistration actions during FY 2012.  Additional information is available on EPA's Product Reregistration web page, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/product-reregistration.htm.
C.  Applications for Registration Requiring Expedited Processing; Numbers Approved and Disapproved

	By law, EPA must expedite its processing of certain types of applications for pesticide product registration, i.e., applications for end-use products that would be identical or substantially similar to a currently registered product (me-too products); amendments to current product registrations that do not require review of scientific data; and products for public health pesticide uses.  During FY 2011, EPA considered and approved the numbers of applications for registration requiring expedited processing (also known as "fast track" applications) shown in Table 3.
                       TABLE 3. -- FAST TRACK APPLICATIONS APPROVED IN FY 2011
                               Application Type
                                                                        FY 2011
Me-too product registrations/Fast track
                                                                            507
Amendments/Fast track
                                                                          3,074
Total applications processed by fast track means
                                                                          3,581

	For those applications not approved, the Agency generally notifies the registrant of any deficiencies in the application that need to be corrected or addressed before the application can be approved.  Applications may have been withdrawn after discussions with the Agency, but none were formally "denied" during FY 2011.
	On a financial accounting basis, EPA devoted 20.2 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in FY 2011 to reviewing and processing applications for fast track me-too product registrations and label amendments.  The Agency spent approximately $2.86 million in FY 2011 in direct costs (i.e., time on task, not including administrative expenses, computer systems, management overhead, and other indirect costs) on expedited processing and reviews.
D.  Projected Year of Completion of Reregistrations
	EPA completed the last reregistration eligibility decisions in FY 2008.  Product reregistration will not likely be completed before 2014.
IV. Can I Comment on this Report?
      Although not subject to a formal comment period, EPA welcomes input from stakeholders and the general public. Written comments, identified by the docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0959, would be most helpful if received by EPA on or before [insert date 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register].
      Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0959, by one of the following methods:
      ::  Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
      ::  Mail:  Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
V.  For Further Information Contact
      Carol P. Stangel, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>##


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42827-42828]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17729]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-1196]

List of Bulk Drug Substances That May Be Used by an Outsourcing
Facility To Compound Drugs for Use in Animals; Extension of Nomination
Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of nomination period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the
nomination period for the notice that appeared in the Federal Register
of May 19, 2015. In the notice, FDA requested nominations for a list of
bulk drug substances that may be used by facilities registered as
outsourcing facilities under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) to compound animal drugs from bulk substances, in
accordance with FDA's draft guidance for industry (GIF) #230,
``Compounding Animal Drugs from Bulk Drug Substances.'' The FDA is
taking this action in response to a request for an extension to allow
interested persons additional time to submit nominations.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written nominations for the bulk
drug substances list by November 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit nominations by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic nominations in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written nominations in the following ways:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions):
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-N-1196. All nominations received may be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For additional information on submitting nominations, see the
``Request for Nominations'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
nominations received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neal Bataller, Center for Veterinary
Medicine, Food and Drug Administration (HFV-210), 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of May 19, 2015 (80 FR 28622), FDA
published a notice with a 90-day nomination period for the list of bulk
drug substances that may be used by a facility registered as an
outsourcing facility under section 503B of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
353B) to compound drugs for use in animals in accordance with FDA's
draft GFI #230, ``Compounding Animal Drugs from Bulk Drug Substances.''
That notice describes the information that should be provided to the
FDA in support of each nomination.
    FDA has received a request for a 90-day extension of the nomination
period as the requestor wanted more time to nominate drugs to the list
and to provide supporting data. FDA has considered the request and is
extending the nomination period for 90 days, until November 16, 2015.
The FDA believes that a 90-day extension allows adequate time for
interested persons to submit nominations without significantly delaying
consideration of these nominations.

II. Nomination Process

    The process for nominations for bulk drug substances that may be
used by facilities registered as outsourcing facilities under section
503B of the FD&C Act to compound animal drugs from bulk drug substances
is described in the previous notice published May 19, 2015. FDA cannot
guarantee that all drugs nominated during the nomination period will be
considered for initial inclusion in Appendix A at the time of its
initial publication. Nominations submitted during the nomination period
(ending on November 16, 2015) that are not evaluated and included in
Appendix A at the time of its initial publication will receive
consideration for later addition to Appendix A. In addition,
individuals and organizations may petition FDA, in accordance with 21
CFR 10.30, to make additional amendments to Appendix A after the
nomination period.

III. Request for Nominations

    Interested persons may submit either electronic nominations to
http://www.regulations.gov or written nominations to the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one
set of nominations. Identify nominations with the docket number found
in brackets in the heading of this document. Received nominations may
be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-17729 Filed 7-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Page 1 of 5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ ORD 2005 0530; FRL Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Application for Reference or Equivalent Method Determination; EPA ICR No. 0559.09 OMB Control No. 2080 0005 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA)( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.),

this document announces that an Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before [ insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA HQ ORD 2005 0530,

to ( 1) EPA online using www. regulations. gov ( our preferred method), by email to Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Docket, oei. docket@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert W. Vanderpool, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division, Process Modeling Research Branch, Mail Drop D205 03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number:

919 541 7877; facsimile number: 919 541 1153; email: Vanderpool. Robert@ epa. gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for Page 2 of 5 review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 4, 2006 ( 71 FR 16771), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments during the comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA HQ ORD

2005 0530, which is available for online viewing at www. regulations. gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA/ DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information Docket is 202 566 1752.

Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at www. regulations. gov, to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " docket search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing at www. regulations. gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to www. regulations. gov.

Title: Application for Reference and Equivalent Method Determination ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0559.09; OMB Control No. 2080 0005.

ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 30, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission Page 3 of 5 is pending at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

Abstract: To determine compliance with the NAAQS, State air monitoring agencies are required to use, in their air quality monitoring networks, air monitoring methods that have been formally designated by the EPA as either reference or equivalent methods under EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 53. A manufacturer or seller of an air monitoring method ( e. g. an air monitoring sampler or analyzer) that seeks to obtain such EPA designation of one of its products must carry out prescribed tests of the method. The test results and other information must then be submitted to the EPA in the form of an application for a reference or equivalent method determination in accordance with 40 CFR Part 53. The EPA uses this information, under the provisions of Part 53, to determine whether the particular method should be designated as either a reference or equivalent method. After a method is designated, the applicant must also maintain records of the names and mailing addresses of all ultimate purchasers of all analyzers or samplers sold as designated methods under the method designation. If the method designated is a method for fine particulate matter ( PM2.5) and coarse particulate matter ( PM10 2.5), the applicant must also submit a checklist signed by an ISO certified auditor to indicate that the samplers or analyzers sold as part of the designated method are manufactured in an ISO 9001 registered facility. Also, an applicant must submit a minor application to seek approval for any proposed modifications to previously designated methods. Page 4 of 5 A response to this collection of information is voluntary, but it is required to obtain the benefit of EPA designation under 40 CFR Part 53. Submission of some information that is claimed by the applicant to be confidential business information may be necessary to make a reference or equivalent method determination. The confidentiality of any submitted information identified as confidential business information by the applicant will be protected in full accordance with 40 CFR Part 53.15 and all applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part 2.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 341 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort,

or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;

develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,

validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/ Affected Entities: State, local, or tribal government Estimated Number of Respondents: 22 Frequency of Response: annual Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 7,492 hours Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 650,494, includes $ 132,668 annualized capital or O& M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 50 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to the Page 5 of 5 nature of the proposed revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter.

Dated: _____________

_____________________________ Sara Hisel McCoy, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.

BILLING CODE 6560 50


[Federal Register: June 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 31910-31911]
[DOCID:fr04jn08-114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2008-22]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before June 24, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-
0481 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas<PHONE_NUMBER> or
Laverne Brunache<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29, 2008.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2008-0481.
    Petitioner: AirTran Airways.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 121.619
    Description of Relief Sought: To permit AirTran Airways to dispatch
to domestic airports at which, for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour
after the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport, the
appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combinations of them,
indicate the ceiling will be reduced from at least 2,000 feet to 1,000
feet above the airport elevation; and visibility will be reduced from
at least 3 miles to 1 mile.
 [FR Doc. E8-12422 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P