[Federal Register: November 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 66890-66892]
[DOCID:fr12no08-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF08-21-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 85 North Expansion
Project Request for Comments on Environmental Issues and Notice of
Public Meetings and Public Site Visits

November 4, 2008.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is in
the process of preparing an environmental assessment (EA) on the
environmental impacts of the 85 North Expansion Project (85 North
Project) involving the construction and operation of new underground
natural gas pipeline looping \1\ and new and modified compressor
stations proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation
(Transco). The 85 North Project is under review in Docket No. PF08-21-
000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline loop is a segment of pipeline immediately
adjacent to an existing pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Notice of Intent (NOI) explains the scoping process that will
be used to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the
Project. Your input will help determine which issues will be evaluated
in the EA. Please note that the scoping period for this Project will
close on December 5, 2008.
    Comments on the Project may be submitted in written form or
verbally. In lieu of, or in addition, to sending written comments, we
also invite you to attend the public scoping meetings and public site
visits that have been scheduled in the Project area during the week of
November 17, 2008. Details on how to submit comments and additional
details of the public scoping meetings are provided in the Public
Participation section of this notice.
    Although a formal application has not been filed, the FERC has
already initiated its NEPA review under its pre-filing process. A pre-
filing docket number has been assigned to the 85 North Project (PF08-
21-000). The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early
involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve
issues before an application is filed with the FERC.
    This NOI is being sent to federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; environmental and
public interest groups; Indian tribes and regional Native American
organizations; commentors and other interested parties; and local
libraries and newspapers. We \2\ encourage government representatives
to notify their constituents of this proposed Project and encourage
them to comment on their areas of concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a Transco representative about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. Transco would
seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the
Project is approved by the FERC, that approval conveys with it the
right of federal eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations
fail to produce an agreement, and the Project is ultimately approved by
the FERC, Transco could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance
with federal law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/for-
citizens/citizen-guides.asp). This fact sheet addresses a number of
typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how
to participate in FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Transco has proposed to construct and operate an expansion of
Transco's existing Main Line and associated structures with a maximum
delivery capacity of 308,500 dekatherms per day. As shown in Appendix
1,\3\ the 85 North Project would be located in portions of Mississippi,
Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. Transco has
proposed: Approximately 22 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in 3
pipeline loop segments; 1 new Compressor Station; and modifications to
8 other compressor stations on the Transco Mainline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not printed in
the Federal Register, but they are being provided to all those who
receive this notice in the mail. Copies of the NOI can be obtained
from the Commission's Web site at the ``eLibrary'' link, from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the end of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Location maps depicting the proposed facilities are attached to
this NOI as Appendix 1.
    Specifically, Transco proposes the following primary components for
the 85 North Project:
     22 miles of 42-inch diameter underground natural gas
pipeline consisting of four segments:
    [rtarr8] Coosa Loop: 4.39 miles of pipeline loop adjacent to
Transco's Main line D in Coosa County, Alabama;
    [rtarr8] Cowpens Loop: 9.39 miles of pipeline loop adjacent to
Transco's Main Line C in Spartanburg and Cherokee Counties, South
Carolina; and
    [rtarr8] Iredell Loop: 8.24 miles of loop adjacent to Transco's
Main Line C in Iredell and Rowan Counties, North Carolina.
     Construction and operation of the new 20,500 horsepower
(hp) Compressor Station 135 in Anderson County, South Carolina;
     Installation of gas cooling facilities at Compressor
Station 80 in Jones County, Mississippi;
     Uprate the existing turbine by 1,430 hp and rewheel two
compressors at Compressor Station 90 in Marengo County, Alabama;
     Installation of one 42,000 hp electric motor-driven
compressor unit, and abandon 4 existing engine-compressor units for a
net increase of 16,000 hp at Compressor Station 100 in Chilton County,
Alabama;
     Installation of 20,500 hp turbine-compressor unit at
Compressor Station 110 in Randolph County, Alabama;
     Uprate the existing electric motor by 3,025 hp at
Compressor Station 115 in Coweta County, Georgia;
     Uprate 2 turbines, and replace compressors at Compressor
Station 125 in Walton County, Georgia;
     Install additional gas cooling facilities and modify
valves at Compressor Station 150 in Iredell County, North Carolina;
     Minor compressor modifications at Station 155 in Davidson
County, North Carolina.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their

constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to comment on
their areas of concern.
    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils.
     Water resources.
     Aquatic resources.
     Vegetation and wildlife.
     Threatened and endangered species.
     Land use, recreation, and visual resources.
     Cultural resources.
     Socioeconomics.
     Air quality and noise.
     Reliability and safety.
     Cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the Public Participation section.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified issues that we think deserve attention
based on our previous experience with similar projects in the region.
This preliminary list of issues, which is presented below, may be
revised based on your comments and our continuing analyses specific to
the 85 North Project.
     Potential for disturbance to residents along pipeline
construction route, including noise, and aesthetics;
     Potential impacts of the pipeline on waterbodies and
wetlands, including issues of erosion control;
     Potential air quality impacts due to increased emissions
from compressor stations; and
     Potential noise and vibration impacts from compressor
stations.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the 85 North Project. Your comments should
focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives,
and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more
specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that
your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your
comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before
December 5, 2008.
    Comments on the proposed Project can be submitted to the FERC in
written form or verbally at the public scoping meetings. For your
convenience, there are three methods which you can use to submit your
written comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference
the Project docket number (PF08-21-000) with your submission. The three
methods are:
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling
involves preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard
drive. You will attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users
must first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making. A comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment on
a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 3,
PJ-11.3.
    The public scoping meetings and public site visits (dates, times,
and locations listed below) are designed to provide another opportunity
to offer comments on the proposed Project. Interested groups and
individuals are encouraged to attend the meetings and to present
comments on the environmental issues that they believe should be
addressed in the EA. Please note that attendees at the site visit must
obtain their own transportation.
    A transcript of the scoping meetings will be generated so that your
comments can be accurately recorded. There will be no official
proceedings of the public site visits. All Scoping Meetings are
scheduled to run from 7 to 9 p.m. The schedule for meetings and site
visits are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                               Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, November 18, Scoping Meeting,   Best Western Horseshoe Inn,
 7 to 9 p.m. CST.                         3146 Highway 280, Alexander
                                          City, AL 35010.
Wednesday, November 19, Public Site      Transco Compressor Station 125,
 Visit, 1 p.m. EST.                       1001 James Huff Road, Monroe,
                                          GA 30656.
Thursday, November 20, Scoping Meeting,  American Legion Post 28, 94
 7 to 9 p.m. EST.                         West Park Drive, Spartanburg,
                                          SC 29306.
Friday, November 21, Public Site Visit,  Transco Compressor Station 150,
 10 a.m. EST.                             236 Transco Road, Mooresville,
                                          NC 28115.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has
dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Once Transco formally files its application with the Commission,
you may want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to
the proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and
are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts
if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for

becoming an intervenor are included in the User's Guide under the ``e-
filing'' link on the Commission's Web site. Please note that you may
not request intervenor status at this time. You must wait until a
formal application is filed with the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners whose
property may be used temporarily for project purposes, who have
existing easements from the pipeline, or who own homes within distances
defined in the Commission's regulations of certain aboveground
facilities. By this notice we are also asking governmental agencies,
especially those in Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming
cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EA.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 3). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372), or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary
link.'' Click on the eLibrary link, select ``General Search'' and enter
the Project docket number, excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF08-
21) in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance with eLibrary, the eLibrary
helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC Web
site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm.
    Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-26783 Filed 11-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 42)] [CORRECTIONS]                [Page 9834] [DOCID:fr05mr07-110]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0603 FRL-8114-9]

  2-Propenoic Acid, Methyl Ester, Polymer with Ethenyl Acetate,  Hydrolyzed, Sodium Salts; Tolerance Exemption

Correction

    In rule document E7-3118 beginning on page 8913 in the issue of  Wednesday, February 28, 2007, make the following correction:

Sec.  180.960  [Corrected]

    On page 8916, in the second column, in Sec.  180.960, immediately  following the section heading, insert five stars before the table.

[FR Doc. Z7-3118 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46347-46351]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0853]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Medical Devices Current Good Manufacturing Practice
Quality System Regulation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on recordkeeping requirements
related to the medical devices current good manufacturing practice
(CGMP) quality system (QS) regulation (CGMP/QS regulation).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by September 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of

information they conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of information'' is
defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency
requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports,
keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal
Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning
each proposed collection of information, including each proposed
extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting
the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement,
FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set
forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Medical Devices Current Good Manufacturing Practice Quality System
Regulation--21 CFR Part 820 (OMB Control Number 0910-0073)--Extension

    Under section 520(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(f)), the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services has the authority to prescribe regulations
requiring that the methods used in, and the facilities and controls
used for, the manufacture, preproduction design validation (including a
process to assess the performance of a device but not including an
evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of a device), packing,
storage, and installation of a device conform to CGMP, as described in
such regulations, to assure that the device will be safe and effective
and otherwise in compliance with the FD&C Act.
    The CGMP/QS regulation implementing authority provided by this
statutory provision is found under part 820 (21 CFR part 820) and sets
forth basic CGMP requirements governing the design, manufacture,
packing, labeling, storage, installation, and servicing of all finished
medical devices intended for human use. The authority for this
regulation is covered under sections 501, 502, 510, 513, 514, 515, 518,
519, 520, 522, 701, 704, 801, and 803 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351,
352, 360, 360c, 360d, 360e, 360h, 360i, 360j, 360l, 371, 374, 381, and
383). The CGMP/QS regulation includes requirements for purchasing and
service controls, clarifies recordkeeping requirements for device
failure and complaint investigations, clarifies requirements for
verifying/validating production processes and process or product
changes, and clarifies requirements for product acceptance activities
quality data evaluations and corrections of nonconforming product/
quality problems.
    Requirements are compatible with specifications in the
international standards ``ISO 9001: Quality Systems Model for Quality
Assurance in Design/Development, Production, Installation, and
Servicing.'' The CGMP/QS information collections will assist FDA
inspections of manufacturers for compliance with QS requirements
encompassing design, production, installation, and servicing processes.
    Section 820.20(a) through (e) requires management with executive
responsibility to establish, maintain, and/or review the following
topics: (1) The quality policy, (2) the organizational structure, (3)
the quality plan, and (4) the quality system procedures of the
organization.
    Section 820.22 requires the conduct and documentation of QS audits
and re-audits. Section 820.25(b) requires the establishment of
procedures to identify training needs and documentation of such
training.
    Section 820.30(a)(1) and (b) through (j) requires, in respective
order, the establishment, maintenance, and/or documentation of the
following topics: (1) Procedures to control design of class III and
class II devices and certain class I devices as listed therein; (2)
plans for design and development activities and updates; (3) procedures
identifying, documenting, and approving design input requirements; (4)
procedures defining design output, including acceptance criteria, and
documentation of approved records; (5) procedures for formal review of
design results and documentation of results in the design history file
(DHF); (6) procedures for verifying device design and documentation of
results and approvals in the DHF; (7) procedures for validating device
design, including documentation of results in the DHF; (8) procedures
for translating device design into production specifications; (9)
procedures for documenting, verifying, and validating approved design
changes before implementation of changes; and (10) the records and
references constituting the DHF for each type of device.
    Section 820.40 requires manufacturers to establish and maintain
procedures controlling approval and distribution of required documents
and document changes.
    Section 820.40(a) and (b) requires the establishment and
maintenance of procedures for the review, approval, issuance, and
documentation of required records (documents) and changes to those
records.
    Section 820.50(a) and (b) requires the establishment and
maintenance of procedures and requirements to ensure service and
product quality, records of acceptable suppliers, and purchasing data
describing specified requirements for products and services.
    Sections 820.60 and 820.65 require, respectively, the establishment
and maintenance of procedures for identifying all products from receipt
to distribution and for using control numbers to track surgical
implants and life-sustaining or supporting devices and their
components.
    Section 820.70(a) through (e), (g)(1) through (g)(3), (h), and (i)
requires the establishment, maintenance, and/or documentation of the
following topics: (1) Process control procedures; (2) procedures for
verifying or validating changes to specification, method, process, or
procedure; (3) procedures to control environmental conditions and
inspection result records; (4) requirements for personnel hygiene; (5)
procedures for preventing contamination of equipment and products; (6)
equipment adjustment, cleaning, and maintenance schedules; (7)
equipment inspection records; (8) equipment tolerance postings,
procedures for utilizing manufacturing materials expected to have an
adverse effect on product quality; and (9) validation protocols and
validation records for computer software and software changes.
    Sections 820.72(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2) and 820.75(a) through (c)
require, respectively, the establishment, maintenance, and/or
documentation of the following topics: (1) Equipment calibration and
inspection procedures; (2) national, international, or in-house
calibration standards; (3) records that identify calibrated equipment
and next calibration dates; (4) validation procedures and validation
results for processes not verifiable by inspections and tests; (5)
procedures for keeping validated processes within specified

limits; (6) records for monitoring and controlling validated processes;
and (7) records of the results of revalidation where necessitated by
process changes or deviations.
    Sections 820.80(a) through (e) and 820.86, respectively, require
the establishment, maintenance, and/or documentation of the following
topics: (1) Procedures for incoming acceptance by inspection, test, or
other verification; (2) procedures for ensuring that in process
products meet specified requirements and the control of product until
inspection and tests are completed; (3) procedures for, and records
that show, incoming acceptance or rejection is conducted by
inspections, tests or other verifications; (4) procedures for, and
records that show, finished devices meet acceptance criteria and are
not distributed until device master record (DMR) activities are
completed; (5) records in the device history record (DHR) showing
acceptance dates, results, and equipment used; and (6) the acceptance/
rejection identification of products from receipt to installation and
servicing.
    Sections 820.90(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2) and 820.100 require,
respectively, the establishment, maintenance and/or documentation of
the following topics: (1) Procedures for identifying, recording,
evaluating, and disposing of nonconforming product; (2) procedures for
reviewing and recording concessions made for, and disposition of,
nonconforming product; (3) procedures for reworking products,
evaluating possible adverse rework effect and recording results in the
DHR; (4) procedures and requirements for corrective and preventive
actions, including analysis, investigation, identification and review
of data, records, causes, and results; and (5) records for all
corrective and preventive action activities.
    Section 820.100(a)(1) through (a)(7) states that procedures and
requirements shall be established and maintained for corrective/
preventive actions, including the following: (1) Analysis of data from
process, work, quality, servicing records, investigation of
nonconformance causes; (2) identification of corrections and their
effectiveness; (3) recording of changes made; and (4) appropriate
distribution and managerial review of corrective and preventive action
information. Section 820.120 states that manufacturers shall establish/
maintain procedures to control labeling storage/application; and
examination/release for storage and use, and document those procedures.
    Sections 820.120(b) and (d), 820.130, 820.140, 820.150(a) and (b),
820.160(a) and (b), and 820.170(a) and (b), respectively, require the
establishment, maintenance, and/or documentation of following topics:
(1) Procedures for controlling and recording the storage, examination,
release, and use of labeling; (2) the filing of labels/labeling used in
the DHR; (3) procedures for controlling product storage areas and
receipt/dispatch authorizations; (4) procedures controlling the release
of products for distribution; (5) distribution records that identify
consignee, product, date, and control numbers; and (6) instructions,
inspection and test procedures that are made available, and the
recording of results for devices requiring installation.
    Sections 820.180(b) and (c), 820.181(a) through (e), 820.184(a)
through (f), and 820.186 require, respectively, the maintenance of
records that are: (1) Retained at prescribed site(s), made readily
available and accessible to FDA and retained for the device's life
expectancy or for 2 years; (2) contained or referenced in a DMR
consisting of device, process, quality assurance, packaging and
labeling, and installation, maintenance, and servicing specifications
and procedures; (3) contained in a DHR and demonstrate the manufacture
of each unit, lot, or batch of product in conformance with DMR and
regulatory requirements, include manufacturing and distribution dates,
quantities, acceptance documents, labels and labeling, control numbers;
and (4) contained in a quality system record, consisting of references,
documents, procedures, and activities not specific to particular
devices.
    Sections 820.198(a) through (c) and 820.200(a) through (d),
respectively, require the establishment, maintenance, and/or
documentation of the following topics: (1) Complaint files and
procedures for receiving, reviewing and evaluating complaints; (2)
complaint investigation records identifying the device, complainant,
and relationship of the device to the incident; (3) complaint records
that are reasonably accessible to the manufacturing site or at
prescribed sites; (4) procedures for performing and verifying that
device servicing requirements are met and that service reports
involving complaints are processed as complaints; and (5) service
reports that record the device, service activity, and test and
inspection data.
    Section 820.250 requires the establishment and maintenance of
procedures to identify valid statistical techniques necessary to verify
process and product acceptability; and sampling plans, when used, which
are written and based on valid statistical rationale; and procedures
for ensuring adequate sampling methods.
    The CGMP/QS regulation added design and purchasing controls,
modified previous critical device requirements, revised previous
validation and other requirements, and harmonized device CGMP
requirements with QS specifications in the international standard ``ISO
9001: Quality Systems Model for Quality Assurance in Design/
Development, Production, Installation, and Servicing.'' The rule does
not apply to manufacturers of components or parts of finished devices,
or to manufacturers of human blood and blood components subject to 21
CFR part 606. With respect to devices classified in class I, design
control requirements apply only to class I devices listed in Sec.
820.30(a)(2) of the regulation. The rule imposes burden upon: (1)
Finished device manufacturer firms, which are subject to all
recordkeeping requirements; (2) finished device contract manufacturers,
specification developers; and (3) repacker, relabelers, and contract
sterilizer firms, which are subject only to requirements applicable to
their activities. In addition, remanufacturers of hospital single-use
devices (SUDs) are now to be considered to have the same requirements
as manufacturers in regard to the regulation. The establishment,
maintenance and/or documentation of procedures, records, and data
required by the regulation assists FDA in determining whether firms are
in compliance with CGMP requirements, which are intended to ensure that
devices meet their design, production, labeling, installation, and
servicing specifications and, thus are safe, effective, and suitable
for their intended purpose. In particular, compliance with CGMP design
control requirements should decrease the number of design-related
device failures that have resulted in deaths and serious injuries.
    The CGMP/QS regulation applies to approximately 25,986 respondents.
A query of the Agency's registration and listing database shows that
approximately 15,113 domestic and 10,873 foreign establishments are
respondents to this information collection.\1\ These recordkeepers
consist of manufacturers, subject to all requirements and contract
manufacturers, specification developers, repackers, relabelers, and
contract sterilizers, subject only to requirements applicable to their
activities. Hospital remanufacturers of SUDs are now defined to be
manufacturers under guidance issued by FDA's Center for

Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Surveillance and Biometrics.
Respondents to this collection have no reporting activities, but must
make required records available for review or copying during FDA
inspection. Except for manufacturers, not every type of firm is subject
to every CGMP/QS requirement. For example, all are subject to Quality
Policy (Sec.  820.20(a)), Document Control (Sec.  820.40), and other
requirements, whereas only manufacturers and specification developers
are subject to subpart C, Design Controls. The PRA burden placed on the
25,986 establishments is an average burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Based on fiscal year 2012 data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                   Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Number of                             Average burden
           Activity/21 CFR Section             Number of recordkeepers    records per     Total annual records         per             Total hours
                                                                         recordkeeper                             recordkeeping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality policy--820.20(a)....................                   25,986               1                   25,986               7                  181,902
Organization--820.20(b)......................                   25,986               1                   25,986               4                  103,944
Management review--820.20(c).................                   25,986               1                   25,986               6                  155,916
Quality planning--820.20(d)..................                   25,986               1                   25,986              10                  259,860
Quality system procedures--820.20(e).........                   25,986               1                   25,986              10                  259,860
Quality audit--820.22........................                   25,986               1                   25,986              33                  857,538
Training--820.25(b)..........................                   25,986               1                   25,986              13                  337,818
Design procedures--820.30(a)(1)..............                   25,986               1                   25,986               2                   51,972
Design and development planning--820.30(b)...                   25,986               1                   25,986               6                  155,916
Design input--820.30(c)......................                   25,986               1                   25,986               2                   51,972
Design output--820.30(d).....................                   25,986               1                   25,986               2                   51,972
Design review--820.30(e).....................                   25,986               1                   25,986              23                  597,678
Design verification--820.30(f)...............                   25,986               1                   25,986              37                  961,482
Design validation--820.30(g).................                   25,986               1                   25,986              37                  961,482
Design transfer--820.30(h)...................                   25,986               1                   25,986               3                   77,958
Design changes--820.30(i)....................                   25,986               1                   25,986              17                  441,762
Design history file--820.30(j)...............                   25,986               1                   25,986               3                   77,958
Document controls--820.40....................                   25,986               1                   25,986               9                  233,874
Documentation approval and distribution and                     25,986               1                   25,986               2                   51,972
 document changes--820.40(a) and (b).........
Purchasing controls--820.50(a)...............                   25,986               1                   25,986              22                  571,692
Purchasing data--820.50(b)...................                   25,986               1                   25,986               6                  155,916
Identification--820.60.......................                   25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
Traceability--820.65.........................                   25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
Production and process controls--820.70(a)...                   25,986               1                   25,986               2                   51,972
Production and process changes and                              25,986               1                   25,986               2                   51,972
 environmental control--820.70(b) and (c)....
Personnel--820.70(d).........................                   25,986               1                   25,986               3                   77,958
Contamination control--820.70(e).............                   25,986               1                   25,986               2                   51,972
Equipment maintenance schedule, inspection,                     25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
 and adjustment--820.70(g)(1) to (g)(3)......
Manufacturing material--820.70(h)............                   25,986               1                   25,986               2                   51,972
Automated processes--820.70(i)...............                   25,986               1                   25,986               8                  207,888
Control of inspection, measuring, and test                      25,986               1                   25,986               5                  129,930
 equipment--820.72(a)........................
Calibration procedures, standards, and                          25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
 records--820.72(b)(1) to (b)(2).............
Process validation--820.75(a)................                   25,986               1                   25,986               3                   77,958
Validated process parameters, monitoring,                       25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
 control methods, and data--820.75(b)........

Revalidation--820.75(c)......................                   25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
Acceptance activities--820.80(a) to (e)......                   25,986               1                   25,986               5                  129,930
Acceptance status--820.86....................                   25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
Control of nonconforming product--820.90(a)..                   25,986               1                   25,986               5                  129,930
Nonconforming product review/disposition                        25,986               1                   25,986               5                  129,930
 procedures and rework procedures--
 820.90(b)(1) to (b)(2)......................
Procedures for corrective/preventive actions--                  25,986               1                   25,986              12                  311,832
 820.100(a)(1) to (a)(7).....................
Corrective/preventive activities--820.100(b).                   25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
Labeling procedures--820.120(b)..............                   25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
Labeling documentation--820.120(d)...........                   25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
Device packaging--820.130....................                   25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
Handling--820.140............................                   25,986               1                   25,986               6                  155,916
Storage--820.150(a) and (b)..................                   25,986               1                   25,986               6                  155,916
Distribution procedures and records--                           25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
 820.160(a) and (b)..........................
Installation--820.170........................                   25,986               1                   25,986               2                   51,972
Record retention period--820.180(b) and (c)..                   25,986               1                   25,986               2                   51,972
Device master record--820.181................                   25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
Device history record--820.184...............                   25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
Quality system record--820.186...............                   25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
Complaint files--820.198(a), (c), and (g)....                   25,986               1                   25,986               5                  129,930
Servicing procedures and reports--820.200(a)                    25,986               1                   25,986               3                   77,958
 and (d).....................................
Statistical techniques procedures and                           25,986               1                   25,986               1                   25,986
 sampling plans--820.250.....................
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................  .......................  ..............  .......................  ..............                9,043,128
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: July 25, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-18351 Filed 7-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 7816]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-786-000 ]

Luz Solar Partners Ltd., IV; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Luz Solar Partners Ltd., IV's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 2, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 13, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01353 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


             Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Draft Guidance
        Control Techniques Guideline for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector
                                 RIN 2060-ZA22
General Comments

  1) Reviewer recommends making any conforming changes to the CTGs that come about based on comments on the Oil and Gas NSPS rulemaking.
  EPA Response:
     We are making any appropriate conforming changes to the CTG that came about based on comments on the Oil and Gas NSPS.

  2) Reviewer recommends providing clarity in relation to how the CTGs and the voluntary EPA programs are consistent and that companies that take voluntary actions that comply with EPA's programs will not be required to take additional action that would be counter to the voluntary program.

     EPA Response:
     We are soliciting comment on this.

  3) Reviewer recommends that RACT technologies explicitly include flexibility to include technologies in addition to OGI -- especially as new technologies emerge that provide similar or increased performance at reduced cost--e.g. infrared absorption based technologies, continuous monitoring systems, and unmanned sensing systems.  Suggested language could be: "...OGI and other sufficiently tested monitoring technologies that demonstrate equivalency or superiority to the technical capabilities of current OGI technologies." This language (or similar) should accompany all specifications of OGI technologies.

     EPA RESPONSE:
     The draft guidelines provide recommendations for air agencies to consider in determining RACT. Air agencies can use the recommendations in this guideline to inform their own determination as to what constitutes RACT in their particular nonattainment areas. We are aware of several types of technologies that may be appropriate for fugitive emissions monitoring.  In the preamble to the NSPS, we are requesting comment on whether there are other fugitive emission detection technologies for fugitive emissions monitoring and details related to these technologies. However, we cannot recommend or allow the use of these emerging technologies until we have evaluated detailed information on topics such as detection capability; an equivalent fugitive emission repair threshold to what is required in the proposed rule for OGI; the frequency at which the fugitive emissions monitoring surveys should be performed and how this frequency ensures appropriate levels of fugitive emissions detection; whether the technology can be used as a stand-alone technique or whether it must be used in conjunction with a less frequent (and how frequent) OGI monitoring survey; the type of restrictions necessary for optimal use; and the information that is important for inclusion in a monitoring plan for these technologies.

  4) Reviewer recommends that EPA should propose allowing flexibility to enable the use of continuous emissions monitoring systems and mass flow rate thresholds for compliance.  Reviewer notes that a mass flow rate (scfh) is preferable to a concentration measurement (ppm), which is a less accurate measurement of leaks since it does not consider the impact of atmospheric conditions, such as wind or background methane.

  EPA RESPONSE:
     The CEMS technology is not used to determine the presence of fugitive emissions nor does EPA believe that CEMS are appropriate to be used in this case. Fugitive emissions are inconsistent by nature and come from various emissions points. CEMS are typically used on a source emission stack (e.g. boiler).

  5) Reviewer recommends that EPA consider alternative approaches to conducting leak surveys that are more akin to approaches taken by Colorado and Wyoming.  Concerns with the proposed approach include:
      a. Many studies have shown a skewed distribution for emissions related to leaks and that the occurrence of such leaks is often random and difficult to predict, which suggests that more frequent surveys may be necessary to identify and repair the largest leaks.
      b. The proposed structure for determining the frequency of surveys may create a disincentive for companies to find leaks because not detecting a leak for two consecutive surveys would reduce the frequency (and costs) of future surveys.
      EPA Response:
      a. We are soliciting comment, in the NSPS, on the use of Method 21, which is one of the options that Colorado allows in Rule 7; however, we are concerned with the ambiguity of the "other Division approved instrument based on monitoring device or method" provision.  There are no operational requirements to ensure that leaks can consistently be found during monitoring with such an instrument.  In addition to Method 21, we are soliciting comment on other potential leak detection approaches. In the NSPS, we are also soliciting comments on the use of other emerging technology for fugitive emissions monitoring.
      b. EPA shares these concerns. In effort to ensure that fugitive emissions will be found when using OGI, we are proposing that all OGI operators develop fugitive emission monitoring plans. This plan includes daily instrument checks, determination of maximum wind speed during monitoring along with other specific parameters that ensure that leaks will be found. The monitoring plan would also require proof of inspection (i.e. still images of components during monitoring survey). The plan would require record keeping and reporting requirements to ensure compliance. We therefore believe that the methodology for surveying, repairing, and reporting fugitives is sufficient and that the OGI is optimized if all the parameters are met.  Appendix I. of the model rule provides details of the monitoring plan requirements.
Specific Comments

   1) Reviewer recommends changing the assumed price for natural gas from $3.50/ mcf to $4.00/mcf in Table 4-3.  A market price for natural gas of $3.5/mcf is inconsistent with the market price assumed on page 5-13 of this document and with the proposed NSPS, which assumes $4/mcf.
   EPA Response:
   We have corrected the price for natural gas in Table 4-3.
   2) Reviewer requests clarification regarding the following text on page 5-6:
            "Although we have additional data available on fugitive emission from compressor stations, including data from the Measurement of Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Gathering Facilities and Processing Plants: Measurement Results study published in 2015, the data sets for gathering and boosting facilities had skewed distributions. In the study data set, 30 percent of gathering facilities contributed 80 percent of the total emissions, and gathering facilities emitted, on average, yielded higher emission than would be calculated with the factor used in this analysis. Therefore, for gathering and boosting station reciprocating compressors, we used the same methane emission factor used in the 2011 NSPS TSD."
Reviewer notes that the logic underlying this statement is unclear (there also seems to be grammatical problems with the second sentence). The text seems to be saying that recent research indicates that the distribution of emissions is skewed and greater than previously thought.  Yet, a decision is made to use an emissions factor based on less current information.  Is EPA trying to make the point that their estimated benefits of the rule are conservative?  Please clarify.

EPA Response:
For gathering and boosting station reciprocating compressors, we used the methane emission factor used in the 2011 NSPS TSD because factors for this source are not available in the GHG Inventory.

The above language will be replaced with:
      For gathering and boosting station reciprocating compressors, the 2011 NSPS TSD emissions factors were used because they are considered to be the best representative emissions factors at this time.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 6986]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-07]

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 February 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2013-
0965 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: Mark Forseth, ANM-113, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Sandra Long, ARM-
201, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2014.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition For Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2013-0965.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 25.785(h)(2).
    Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner request an exemption from
the requirements of flight-attendant direct view of passenger seating
in zones where mini-suites are installed on Boeing Model 777-200, 777-
200LR, 777-300, and 777-300ER airplanes operating under part 121.

[FR Doc. 2014-02360 Filed 2-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE NESHAP SUBPART III NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES: FLEXIBLE POLYURETHANE FOAM PRODUCTION 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection ICR for NESHAP Subpart III  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production.

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production was proposed on December 27, 1996 and promulgated on October 7, 1998. This standard applies to owners or operators of new and existing facilities that engage in the manufacture of flexible polyurethane foam products which emit hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs).

This includes facilities making slabstock flexible polyurethane foam (" slabstock foam"), rebond flexible polyurethane foam (" rebond foam"), and/ or molded flexible polyurethane foam (" molded foam").

Owners or operators of flexible polyurethane foam production facilities to which this 2 standard is applicable must choose one of the compliance options described in the standard or reduce HAP emissions to below the compliance level. For slabstock foam producers, these requirements include an initial notification, notification of compliance status, and semiannual reports thereafter. In addition, respondents are required to submit a pre compliance report that describes the HAP compliance procedures, and recordkeeping procedures. Respondents electing to comply with the slabstock foam emission limitation using recovery devices must measure and record emissions as specified in § 63.1297 of the final rule. Molded and rebond foam producers have only to submit a notification of compliance status report.

If the owner or operator identifies any deviations resulting from a known cause for which no federally approved or promulgated exemption from an emission limitation or standard applies,

the compliance report will also include all records that the source is required to maintain that pertain to the periods during which such deviation occurred, as well as the following: the magnitude of each deviation; the reason for each deviation; a description of the corrective action taken for each deviation, including actions taken to minimize each deviation and action taken to prevent recurrence; and a copy of all quality assurance activities performed on any element of the monitoring protocol.

Owners or operators of slabstock flexible polyurethane foam production facilities must maintain a copy of all HAP usage records onsite for a minimum of five years. All reports are to be submitted upon request to EPA or the enforcement authority by EPA. The information is used to determine whether or not all sources subject to the NESHAP are achieving the standards.

There are approximately 132 facilities that comprise the source category required to meet the applicability criteria defined in this rule. It is estimated that no new facilities will become 3 subject to the standard over the next three years. However, it is estimated that approximately six ( 6) existing facilities will undergo reconstruction or modification each year over the next three years. Based on this information, the annual cost burden of this ICR on the flexible polyurethane foam production industry we be $ 362,184.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants. These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of hazardous air pollutants and will require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, Section 114( a) states that:

. . . the Administrator may require any person who owns or operates any emission source .

. . to ( A) establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C) install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such methods at such locations, at such intervals, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe); ( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical; ( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with 114( a)( 3); and ( G)

provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require. . .

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from flexible polyurethane foam production facilities cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to 4 endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, a MACT standard was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR Part 63  Subpart III 2( b) PRACTICAL UTILITY/ USERS OF THE DATA The control of emissions of HAPs from flexible polyurethane foam production facilities requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emission of HAPs from flexible polyurethane foam production facilities are the result of operation of each slabstock production line, each storage vessel,

equipment cleaning, or from leaking equipment ( e. g., transfer pumps, connectors, valves, etc.).

This standard relies on the capture of HAPs by control equipment such as vapor recovery systems or carbon adsorption systems. The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and the standard is being met. Compliance reports serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved and may be used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication The recordkeeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart III.

If the standard has not been delegated, the information is sent to the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or Local Agency. If a 5 State or Local Agency has adopted their own similar regulation to implement the Federal Regulation, 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 Standard. 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 on April 18, 2000.

3( c) Consultations No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the required standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and 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 None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart III or otherwise pertinent to this request violate any of the regulations established by 6 OMB in 5 CFR 1320.6.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, 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 None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart III or otherwise pertinent to this request contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of flexible polyurethane foam production facilities. They are listed under SIC Code 3086. The government is in the process of adopting the new North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS). The NAICS code for this industry is 32615. 7 4( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart III. A source subject to this MACT must comply with the notification, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements listed in the following four exhibits.

Exhibit 1: Notification Reports Initial Notification 63.9 ( b) 40 CFR 63 Subpart A Application for Approval of Construction or Reconstruction 63.1306 ( b)

Precompliance Report 63.1306 ( c)

Notification of Compliance Status 63.1306 ( d)

Notification of Special Compliance Requirements 63.9( d)

Change in Selected Emission Limitation/ Compliance Method 63.1306 ( f)( 1)&( 2)

Request for Extension of Compliance, Adjustments to Time Periods, and Changes in Information 63.9 ( c), 63.9 ( i), 63.9( j)

Exhibit 2: Monitoring Reports Semiannual Compliance Reports 63.1306 ( e)

Annual Compliance Certification 63.1306( g) 8 Exhibit 3: Recordkeeping General recordkeeping requirements ( e. g., startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions including process equipment, air pollution control equipment, maintenance performed, and actions taken outside the scope of the existing plans) 63.10 40 CFR 63 Subpart A Storage Vessels 63.1307( a)

Equipment Leaks 63.1307( b)

HAP ABA Records 63.1307( c)

HAP ABA  Recovery System Monitoring 63.1303( d)

Vapor Return Line Records 63.1303( f)

Maintain product data sheets for equipment cleaners and mold release agents. 63.1303 ( e), ( g), ( h)

Exhibit 4: Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous monitoring system 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.

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.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information. 9 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 information required under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart III:

Agency Activities Review notifications and reports, including precompliance reports and semiannual compliance status reports, required to be submitted by industry Audit facility records Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) database 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. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The compliance reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into AIRS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. AIRS is EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for more than 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses AIRS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by Local and State regulatory agencies, and EPA Regional 10 Offices and 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 or operator for five years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The recordkeeping and reporting requirements were selected within the context of this specific subpart and the specific process equipment and pollutant. The requirements reflect the burden on small businesses. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced. Although the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for small and larger businesses, the Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown on Table 2.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 2 documents the computation of individual burdens for each of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry. 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. 1 The wage rate has been loaded by adding 110% overhead.

11 Responses to this information collection are mandatory ( 40 CFR § 63.1290). The 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.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated at 6,400 hours. These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the standards or test methods, Agency knowledge and experience with the MACT program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( I) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses labor rates from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1999, Table 10: Employment Costs for Private Industry by Occupational and Industry Group. The rate is from column 1: Total Compensation. 1 The following table provides a summary of these rates for management, technical, and clerical staff.

Labor Rates Management $ 73.93 Technical $ 54.94 Clerical $ 34.42 12 ( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs The capital and operations and maintenance costs for this standard are associated with the cost of new equipment that reduces HAP emissions. However, it is reasonable to assume that all slabstock foam production sources will elect the source wide emission limitation, which requires no startup, capital, or operation and maintenance costs paid outside of the company.

( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Monitoring device start up cost ($) annual O& M costs ($)

Continuous Monitoring $ 0 $ 0 Control Devices 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only Federal costs are user costs associated with analysis of the reported information.

Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AIRS program. Examination of records to be maintained by the respondents will occur as part of the periodic inspection of sources, which is part of EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program. The average annual Federal Government cost during the 3 years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 11,649. This cost is based on a federal government employee salary at the GS 10 Step 1 grade plus 110%

overhead which is equal to $ 34.69 per hour. 13 6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs The number of existing sources subject to 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart III is 132. It is estimated that no new sources will become subject to the rule over the next three years. The estimated total average annual labor cost associated with this MACT is $ 362,184. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Annual Burden of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production  MACT Subpart III.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables The table below provides a summary of the estimated overall burden to the flexible polyurethane foam production industry and EPA for the next three years. For a detailed breakdown of the costs, see Tables 1 and 2 attached.

Summary of the Estimated Overall Burden Year Industry Burden ( Hours) Industry Cost ($) EPA Burden ( Hours) EPA Cost ($)

First Year 628 $ 35,533 345 $ 11,968 Second Year 9,691 $ 548,417 340 $ 11,808 Third Year 8,881 $ 502,601 322 $ 11,170 Total 19,200 $ 1,086,551 1,007 $ 34,946 Annual Average 6,400 $ 362,184 336 $ 11,649 2 EC/ R Inc. supported EPA during the development of this MACT standard.

3 EC/ R indicated that some facilities have substituted liquid CO2 for methylene chloride in their foam production process.

4 We estimate that half of the reconstruction projects planned for the next three years will substitute for regulated chemicals under this standard or will embrace new technologies that will exempt them from this rule. In addition, we estimate that three of these reconstructed facilities will be slabstock foam facilities and the other three will be rebond or molded foam facilities.

14 6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden Two primary sources were used to estimate the number of facilities subject to this MACT standard, the Polyurethane Foam Association and EC/ R Inc2. In addition, initial notification responses from slabstock and molded/ rebond polyurethane foam production facilities, using EPA's MACTRAX database, provided additional information on the universe of facilities potentially subject to this standard. The change in burden from the most recently approved ICR reflects a 25% decrease in the number of affected facilities from 176 to 132. This decrease is due to a consolidation of the industry and the use of more " environmentally friendly" substitutes for the HAPs regulated under this standard. 3 In addition, we expect technological advances to further reduce the use of regulated HAPs at facilities manufacturing flexible polyurethane foam.

In addition to a decrease in the number of facilities subject to this rule, we also estimate that no new facilities will commence construction over the next three years. However, we estimate that approximately six ( 6) facilities will undergo some type of reconstruction each year over the next three years. 4 This estimate represents decrease in growth from the previous ICR from 4 new facilities per year to no new facilities per year and a reduction in reconstruction from 17 facilities per year to 6 facilities per year. This decrease in growth is also the result of using more " environmental friendly" chemical substitutes in conjunction with new technologies. 5 We are assuming that most facilities will comply just before the deadline.

6 Initial notifications are required within 120 days after the promulgated date of the standard ( § 63.9( b)( 2)).

7 Facilities are required to come into compliance with this standard within three years of the promulgated date ( § 63.1291( a))

8 Precompliance reports must be submitted no later than 12 months before the compliance date ( § 63.1306( c)).

15 The previous ICR for this MACT standard included costs associated with the submission of startup, shutdowns, and malfunction reports that are not required by the rule. The costs associated with these reports have been removed from this ICR.

The formula used to calculate labor rates on the previous ICR has been replaced by 1999 rates identified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This change in labor rate is a significant contributor to the hourly cost burden increase on each individual facility from the previous ICR.

The previous ICR assumed that all of the facilities regulated under this standard would come under compliance in the first year after promulgation. However, this assumption is flawed because the facilities subject to this rule have three years following promulgation to come into compliance with this standard. In addition, several provisions within the standard have specific compliance deadlines that will determine a facility's compliance schedule. The table below provides a rough schedule of the deadlines for certain provisions of the standard. 5 Anticipated Compliance Schedule Initial Notification6 2/ 7/ 99 Compliance Date7 10/ 8/ 01 Pre compliance Reports8 10/ 8/ 00 Anticipated Compliance Schedule 9 Notifications of compliance status must be submitted no later than 180 days after the compliance date ( § 63.1306( d)).

10 The first semiannual report must be submitted no later than 240 days after submission of the notification of compliance ( § 63.1306( e)).

11 The previous ICR for this standard was approved on 1/ 31/ 97 and covers the first three years following promulgation; October 7, 1998 thru October 7, 2001. However, since the previous ICR expires on April 30, 2000, this ICR will overlap the previous ICR for the first 17 months, covering May 1, 2000 thru May 1, 2003.

16 Notification of Compliance Status9 4/ 8/ 02 Semi Annual Report10 12/ 8/ 02 As a result of this schedule, the annual burden on facilities subject to this standard will vary over the next three years. Tables 2a 2c summarize the estimated burden on the flexible polyurethane foam production industry for each year. 11 In the first year, each facility subject to the standard will be required to submit a precompliance report. In addition, facilities planning to undergo reconstruction will be required to submit applications for approval. In the second year,

each facility subject to this standard will submit notifications of compliance status. With the compliance deadline ( October 8, 2001) occurring in the second year of this ICR, facilities will also be required to initiate monitoring and recordkeeping requirements as required by the standard. In the third year, slabstock foam facilities will begin submitting semiannual reports. Monitoring and recordkeeping will continue through the third year for existing facilities subject to this standard.

We are assuming that all training was conducted within the first two years following promulgation as was assumed in the previous ICR; therefore no training burden is estimated for 17 the next three years. In addition, we anticipate that only 1% of the facilities subject to this rule will request special compliance requirements, changes in selected emissions limits or compliance methods, or request an extension of compliance.

6( g) Burden Statement 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 collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N. W.,

Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 1783.02 and OMB control number 2060 0357 in any 18 correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.


[Federal Register: April 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 20842]
[DOCID:fr26ap07-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-167-002]

Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing

April 20, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 17, 2007, Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C.
(Petal) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original
Volume No. 1, Second Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 140, to become
effective March 6, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7987 Filed 4-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36163-36164]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12848]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-339, OMB Control No. 3235-0382]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request: Extension; Schedule 14D-9F

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

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Schedule 14D-9F (17 CFR 240.14d-103) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78 et seq.) is used by any foreign private
issuer incorporated or organized under the laws of Canada or by any
director or officer of such issuer, where the issuer is the subject of
a cash tender or exchange offer for a class of securities filed on
Schedule 14D-1F. The information required to be filed with the
Commission is intended to permit verification of compliance with the
securities law requirements and assures the public availability of such
information. We estimate that Schedule 14D-9F takes approximately 2
hours per response to prepare and is filed by approximately 2
respondents annually for a total reporting burden of 4 hours (2 hours
per response x 2 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including

through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and
suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication by
August 15, 2022.
    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 control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: June 9, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12848 Filed 6-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 44047-44049]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In June 2010,
there were six applications approved. Additionally, eight approved
amendments to previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: County and City of Spokane, Washington.
    Application Number: 10-08-C-00-GEG.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC. PFC LEVEL: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $850,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2012.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2012.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:
Master plan update.
    Decision Date: June 4, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trang Tran, Seattle Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Presque Isle, Maine.
    Application Number: 10-02-C-00-PQI.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $353,298.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: January 1, 2018.

    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:
    Rehabilitate runway 1/19 and runway safety area, phase I.
    Snow removal equipment.
    Crack seal and repair.
    Rehabilitate, mark, and sign taxiway A.
    Rehabilitate runway 1/19 and runway, phase II.
    Decision Date: June 9, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Priscilla Scott, New England Regional
Airports Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Charlottesville--Albemarle Airport Authority,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
    Application Number: 10-19-C-00-CHO.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $3,454,340.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1,2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: August 1, 2016.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: All air taxi/
commercial operators filing or requested to file FAA Form 1800-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Charlottesville--Albemarle Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Relocate runway 3 localizer.
    Pavement management program--rehabilitate taxiway F.
    Runway 21 extension--runway protection zone land acquisition.
    Runway 21 extension--phase 1A.
    Runway 21 extension--phase 1B, excavate embankment.
    Runway 21 extension--phase 1b, excavate embankment additional
share.
    Runway 21 extension--phase 2, pave construct runway only.
    Pavement management program--mill/overlay taxiway sections.
    Runway 21 extension--phase 3, construction parallel taxiway.
    Runway 21 extension--phase 4a, runway safety area embankment.
    Rehabilitate electrical vault.
    Decision Date: June 9, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffery Breeden, Washington Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Albany, Georgia.
    Application Number: 10-05-C-00-ABY.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $323,763.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1,2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: February 1, 2013.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Southwest Georgia Regional Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Terminal rehabilitation and expansion.
    Airfield electrical improvements.
    PFC application development.
    Decision Date: June 14, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Guss, Atlanta Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Atlanta, Georgia.
    Application Number: 10-12-C-00-Atl.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $19,332,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: January 1, 2023.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: March 1, 2023.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Air taxi/
commercial operators when enplaning revenue passengers in limited,
irregular, special service air taxi/commercial operations such as air
ambulance services, student instruction, and non-stop sightseeing
flights that begin and end at the airport and are concluded within a
25-mile radius of the airport.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:
Concourse D gate additions.
    Decision Date: June 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Guss, Atlanta Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Pitken, Aspen, Colorado.
    Application Number: 10-07-C-00-ASE.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $1,640,955.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: August 1, 2012.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: Non-scheduled
on demand carriers, air taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-
31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Aspen--Pitken County/Sardy Field.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Snow removal equipment--runway sweeper.
    Snow removal equipment--runway plow.
    Airfield friction tester.
    Snow removal equipment--airfield snow blower.
    PFC application and administration fees.
    Decision Date: June 18, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Schaffer, Denver Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original     Amended
                                        Amendment       Original      Amended approved   estimated    estimated
      Amendment No. city, state          approved   approved net PFC   net PFC revenue  charge exp.  charge exp.
                                           date          revenue                            date         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01-01-C-03-SAT San Antonio, TX.......     05/28/10      $238,029,391      $364,227,049     01/01/13     05/01/19
03-02-U-03-SAT San Antonio, TX.......     05/28/10                NA                NA     01/01/13     05/01/19

04-03-U-SAT San Antonio, TX..........     05/28/10                NA                NA     01/01/13     05/01/19
07-06-C-01-SUN Haily, ID.............     06/02/10           691,368           763,226     11/01/10     12/01/10
04-07-C-03-JNU Juneau, AK............     06/03/10         5,226,106         3,566,606     09/01/08     03/01/08
07-07-C-01-ALO Waterloo, IA..........     06/14/10           356,706           363,977     03/01/11     03/01/11
09-14-C-01-MRY Monterey, CA..........     06/21/10           854,823           980,026     08/01/10     12/01/10
07-11-C-01-MCO Orlando, FL...........     06/22/10        48,580,000        49,330,000     07/01/20     07/01/20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 14, 2010.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-17982 Filed 7-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M