[Federal Register: October 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 189)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55657]
[DOCID:fr01oc07-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28462; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-056-AD;
Amendment 39-15115; AD 2007-13-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eclipse Aviation Corporation Model
EA500 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes a correction to Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 2007-13-11, which was published in the Federal Register on June
22, 2007 (72 FR 34363), and applies to Eclipse Aviation Corporation
(Eclipse) Model EA500 airplanes. AD 2007-13-11 requires you to
incorporate information into the Limitations section of the airplane
flight manual (AFM) that will require operation only in day visual
flight rules (VFR), allow only a VFR flight plan, and maintain
operation with two pilots. The published AD references an incorrect
docket of Docket No. FAA-2007-28432 instead of Docket No. FAA-2007-
28462. This document corrects the docket number reference.

DATES: The effective date of this AD (2007-13-11) remains June 27,
2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Wilson, Flight Test Pilot, 2601
Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On June 14, 2007, the FAA issued AD 2007-13-11, Amendment 39-15115
(72 FR 34363, June 22, 2007), which applies to Eclipse EA500 airplanes.
AD 2007-13-11 requires you to incorporate information into the
Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) that will
require operation only in day visual flight rules (VFR), allow only a
VFR flight plan, and maintain operation with two pilots.
    The published AD references an incorrect docket of Docket No. FAA-
2007-28432 instead of Docket No. FAA-2007-28462.

Need for the Correction

    This correction is needed to incorporate all docket information for
this project into its own area in the Docket Management System (DMS).

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of June 22, 2007 (72 FR 34363), of
Amendment 39-15115; AD 2007-13-11, which was the subject of FR Doc. E7-
11933, is corrected as follows:
    On page 34363, in the third column, in the fourth line, change
``Docket No. FAA-2007-28432'' to ``Docket No. FAA-2007-28462.''
    On page 34364, in the first column, on line 25 under ADDRESSES,
change ``Docket No. FAA-2007-28432'' to ``Docket No. FAA-2007-28462.''
    On page 343645, in the third column, in the ninth and tenth lines
under Comments Invited, change ``Docket No. FAA-2007-28432'' to
``Docket No. FAA-2007-28462.''

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
On page 34365, in the first column, in the fifth and sixth lines of
Sec.  39.13, change ``Docket No. FAA-2007-28432'' to ``Docket No. FAA-
2007-28462.''
    Action is taken herein to correct the docket number references and
to add this AD correction to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 39.13).
    The effective date remains June 22, 2007.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 24, 2007.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-19193 Filed 9-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 41033]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17222]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2129-000]

Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC; 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
Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC'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 July 28, 2015.
    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: July 8, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17222 Filed 7-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2081-2082]
[DOCID:fr14ja09-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on February 4, 2009, from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/ Gaithersburg, The Ballrooms,
620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD. The hotel telephone number is 301-
977-8900.
    Contact Person: Kristine T. Khuc, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane (for
express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane,rm. 1093), Rockville, MD 20857,
301-827-7001, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER>
in the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss biologics license application
(BLA) No. 125277, KALBITOR, for ecallantide injection by Dyax Corp.,
for the proposed indication of treatment of acute attacks of hereditary
angioedema.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on
the

year 2009 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
January 23, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
approximately between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before January 21, 2009. Time allotted for each presentation may
be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by January
22, 2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Kristine T. Khuc at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: January 8, 2009.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-686 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21429-21433]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0025; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-208-AD;
Amendment 39-17012; AD 2012-07-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 777 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a new
revision to the airworthiness limitations of the maintenance planning
document. This AD requires revising the maintenance program to update
inspection requirements to detect fatigue cracking of principal
structural elements (PSEs). We are issuing this AD to ensure that
fatigue cracking of various PSEs is detected and corrected; such
fatigue cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of
these airplanes.

DATES: This AD is effective May 15, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Sutherland, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6533; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2011 (76 FR
3054). That NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance program
to update inspection requirements to detect fatigue cracking of
principal structural elements (PSEs).

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Refer to Latest Service Information

    Boeing and Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that we revise the NPRM
(76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to refer to two new revisions of Section
9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance
Planning Data (MPD) Document, published after we issued the NPRM.
Boeing stated that both revisions contain the same structures
airworthiness limitations (AWL) data, but were revised for reasons that
did not affect the data in Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--
Structural Inspections of that document, which was specified in the
NPRM.
    We agree with the request to refer to the later service
information. We have changed this final rule to refer to Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document to this AD. (Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document was specified in the NPRM
(76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011).) (Subsection B, Airworthiness
Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ``Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),''
D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document
is identical to the January 2010 revision.) We have changed paragraph
(g) in this final rule accordingly.

Request To Revise Inspection Requirements for Certain Airplanes

    JAL requested that, for certain airplanes, we revise paragraph (g)
of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) to require inspection
procedures and intervals as determined by the damage tolerance rating
check form, rather than Section 2, Structural Inspection Program, of
the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. JAL
acknowledged that Section 2 of this MPD document usually incorporates
recommended inspection procedures and intervals. JAL noted, however,
that Section 2 in the latest revision of this MPD document includes
data only for Model 777-200 series airplanes. Since no data are
provided for the remaining airplanes affected by this AD (Model 777-
200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes), JAL requested that
those airplanes be excluded from the requirement until the MPD document
includes relevant data.
    We do not agree that the requested change is necessary, because the
information regarding required inspection methods and intervals for
these airplanes is provided in Subsection B, Airworthiness
Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ``Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),''
D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning
Data (MPD) Document. We have not changed the final rule regarding this
issue.

Request To Retain Applicability

    Boeing also advised that the revised inspection requirements in
Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of
the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, affect only
Model 777-200, -300, -300ER and -200LR series airplanes. Boeing
reported that Section 9 of the Boeing 777F MPD document was previously
developed based on the same damage tolerance methods and the same fleet
and full-scale test data as those included in Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. Boeing asserted,
therefore, that Model 777F series airplanes should be included in the
applicability of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) regardless of
changes made to Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision
July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document.
Including those airplanes will ensure the ability to obtain approval of
potential future deviations for repairs or alternative inspections via
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) (as described in paragraph
(j) of this AD). Boeing made this comment in the event another party
requested that we remove Model 777F series airplanes from the NPRM.
    We acknowledge Boeing's concern, and agree that there is no reason
to remove Model 777F series airplanes from the applicability specified
in the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011). We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Remove Certain Advisory Circular Reference

    Note 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) (paragraph (c)(2)
of this AD) provided guidance on certain revised operator maintenance
documents that include new inspections. Boeing requested that we remove
the last sentence of that note, which stated that guidance for the
determination can be found in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529-1A,
dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf). Boeing stated that this AC, as
revised, applies only to airplanes below 7,500 pounds gross weight, so
this AC no longer applies to Model 777 airplanes.
    We agree with Boeing's request and rationale. We have revised
paragraph (c) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Allow Additional Alternative Inspections and Intervals

    American Airlines (AAL) and Boeing requested that we revise
paragraph (h) of the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011), which
prohibited alternative inspections or intervals except as specifically
approved as AMOCs. To reduce the workload associated with requesting
and approving AMOCs, the commenters requested that we include other
specified procedures and intervals.
    Structurally Significant Items (SSIs) 53-00-I01, -I02, and -I03
define the entire fuselage skin as an SSI, and AAL was concerned that
the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011) provided no guidance or
information on how to address new and existing repairs. AAL surmised
that any external doubler repair (past or future) would conceal a
portion of the skin and would need AMOC approval for the inspection,
which would be impossible to perform with the repair in place. AAL
contended that any repair approved in accordance with section 25.571 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571) or section 26.43(c) of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(c)) has been addressed
for fatigue and damage tolerance and would provide the level of safety
desired by the NPRM.
    Boeing requested that we also allow alternative inspections and
intervals specified in a later revision to Section 9, ``Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),''
D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document.
Since Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, of the Boeing 777
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document changes frequently and is FAA
approved, no subsequent re-approval should be necessary via AMOC.
Boeing also requested that we allow alternative inspections and
intervals if certain damage tolerance requirements have been met in
accordance with section 25.571(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR 25.571(b)), or section 26.43(c) of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(c)), or section 26.43(d) of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 26.43(d)).
    We disagree with the requests. Paragraph (h) in this AD requires
compliance with the inspections unless AMOC approval is obtained as
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Allowing later revisions of
service documents in an AD violates Office of the Federal Register
regulations for approving materials incorporated by reference. Affected
operators may, however, request approval to use a later revision of
referenced service information as an alternative method of compliance.
In response to AAL's concern, operators must request a method of
compliance to address new and existing repairs, under the provisions of
paragraph (j) of the final rule. We have not changed the final rule
regarding this issue.

Request To Allow Optional Materials

    AAL requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19,
2011) to allow the optional use of BMS materials (sealants) permitted
in Boeing Document D-590, the Boeing 777 Airplane Maintenance Manual,
or the Boeing 777 Structural Repair Manual--instead of the specific
materials specified in Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)
and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9,
Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning

Data (MPD) Document. The use of alternative materials would allow for
ready compliance if the current BMS materials were discontinued or
improved.
    We disagree with the request. The documents referenced by the
commenter specify specific procedures to remove the sealant, rather
than specific types of sealant. Further, some existing ADs including
those related to Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR
88''), Amendment 21-78 and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83 (67 FR
72830, December 9, 2002), require specific sealants, which may be
identified in the BMS specifications, but only certain sealants may be
used to comply with SFAR88; operators are limited to the use of
sealants approved by other AD actions in areas that overlap with this
AD. The application of the sealants and materials in Subsection B,
Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, is often controlled by
other ADs that mandate the use of certain sealants for Subsections D
and E (of SFAR88). Operators may request an AMOC to use materials that
have been determined to be acceptable for the various ADs applicable to
Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of
the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. We have not
changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Consider Future Boeing Delegated Compliance Organization
Delegation

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i)(3) of the NPRM (76 FR
3054, January 19, 2011), which provides information about AMOCs for
repairs. Boeing requested that we also specify AMOCs for inspection
methods, since there may be instances where the operator cannot conduct
the inspection method specified in Section 9, ``Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),''
D622W001-9, Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance
Planning Data (MPD) Document, identified in the NPRM. Although
authority to approve AMOCs for supplemental inspections of baseline
structure may not currently exist for the Boeing Delegated Compliance
Organization (BDCO), Boeing suggested that including both repairs and
inspections would allow for potential future expansion of delegation.
    We disagree with the request. The nondiscretionary basis for this
type of delegation has not yet been developed. At present, the FAA must
approve tasks that involve discretion, and may delegate only
nondiscretionary tasks. In any event, any change to delegation
authority in the future will not affect the AD. We have not changed the
final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Allowable Equivalent Procedures

    AAL requested clarification of certain procedures. AAL observed the
phrase ``refer to,'' used in Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9,
Revision January 2010, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD) Document, to specify certain chapters in an AMM. AAL noted that
use of this phrase in service bulletins allows operators to use their
equivalent procedures. AAL requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR
3054, January 19, 2011) to state that equivalent procedures are
acceptable where the phrase ``refer to'' is used in Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document.
    We disagree with the request. As the commenter noted, the phrase
``refer to'' is used in both AMMs and Boeing service bulletins. In a
service bulletin, use of the phrase ``refer to'' generally means that a
determination was made to permit operators' equivalent procedures where
applicable, and use of the phrase ``as given in'' or ``in accordance
with'' generally means that operators' equivalent procedures are not
acceptable. But these definitions do not apply to Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, for which operators'
equivalent procedures are not specifically allowed. Under the
provisions of paragraph (j) of this final rule, however, we will
consider requests for approval to use different procedures, if
sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the procedures would
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the final
rule regarding this issue.

Request To Revise Compliance Time for Inspecting Replacement Parts

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the NPRM (76 FR
3054, January 19, 2011) to permit the compliance time thresholds to be
reset for new replacement parts. Boeing asserted that Section 9,
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document does not explicitly state
that the inspection threshold for new parts starts when the part is
replaced, and that other existing ADs include terminating action that
zero-times certain fastener locations. Boeing made this request to
allow operators to take credit for the younger life of those parts.
    We agree that this change is necessary to accommodate new
replacement parts. We have changed the initial compliance time
accordingly in paragraph (g) of this AD.

Request To Revise Compliance Time for Reporting

    JAL noted that Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision
July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document
includes a reporting timeframe of 10 days after an inspection finding.
JAL reported that these inspections are often accomplished during a
heavy maintenance inspection where many inspections are accomplished
over many days. Tracking all of the reporting at the time of return to
service is easier rather than sending individual events occurring
during the maintenance check. JAL therefore requested that the
reporting time frames be revised from 10 days after a finding to 10
days after the airplane is returned to service.
    We agree with JAL's request and rationale. We have added this
reporting provision in paragraph (g) in the final rule. We have also
added new paragraph (i) in this final rule to explain the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires agencies to consider the
extent of the paperwork burden that will accompany any new rule. And we
have reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Revise Compliance Time Determination

    Boeing noted that FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-93, dated November
20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf) provides

guidance for addressing damage tolerance inspection requirements for
repairs and alterations to certain removable structural components.
Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM (76 FR 3054, January 19, 2011)
to add a provision to paragraph (g) of the NPRM, allowing FAA AC 120-93
as a means to establish compliance times for rotable parts where the
data are not available.
    We disagree. That AC provides guidance and an acceptable means for
developing the age of removable parts for the purpose of determining
compliance times for repairs and alterations. If the actual age, flight
hours, and flight cycles are unknown for a part affected by the AD, we
would consider the operator's request for an AMOC. This allows Boeing
and operators the option to propose methods in detail that use FAA AC
120-93, dated November 20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf), for guidance. We have not
changed the final rule regarding this issue.

Request To Clarify Certain PSEs

    Wang Jian requested clarification of the identity of certain PSEs.
Attached to this comment was a copy of a page from the Boeing 777F
Structural Repair Manual, which identified primary structure for repair
classification. From this page, the commenter observed that the main
deck floor panels are identified as PSEs on Model 777F series
airplanes, but not on other aircraft such as Model 747-400F series
airplanes.
    Although the commenter's question concerning the PSE differences
between the Model 747 and 777 is not related to the inspections
required by this AD, the intent of the question may be explained in
more detail in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 25.1529-1A, dated November
20, 2007 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf). We have not changed the final rule regarding
this issue.

Explanation of Additional Changes Made to This AD

    We have redesignated Note 1 and Note 2 of the NPRM (76 FR 3054,
January 19, 2011) as paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD
respectively. These changes have not changed the intent of this AD.

Conclusion

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 153 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per    Cost on U.S.
                Action                            Labor cost             Parts cost      product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision..........  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =             $0           $85       $13,005
                                         $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-07-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17012; Docket No. FAA-
2011-0025; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-208-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 15, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any
category, with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued before September 1, 2010.
    (1) Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or after
September 1, 2010, must already be in compliance with the
airworthiness

limitations (AWLs) specified in this AD because those limitations
were applicable as part of the airworthiness certification of those
airplanes.
    (2) This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new inspections. Compliance with these
inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have
been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas
addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to
accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (j) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued damage tolerance of the affected structure.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Codes 27, Flight Controls; 28, Fuel; 32, Landing
Gear; 52, Doors; 53, Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/Pylons; 55, Stabilizers;
and 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a new revision to the airworthiness
limitations of the maintenance planning document. We are issuing
this AD to ensure that fatigue cracking of various principal
structural elements (PSEs) is detected and corrected; such fatigue
cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of these
airplanes.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Maintenance Program

    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise
the maintenance program by incorporating the information in
Subsection B, Airworthiness Limitations--Structural Inspections, of
Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification
Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011,
of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, except
as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) The initial compliance time for the inspections is within
the applicable times specified in Subsection B, Airworthiness
Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, of
``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing
777 Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, or within 18 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, or
within the applicable time specified in Subsection B, Airworthiness
Limitations--Structural Inspections, of Section 9, ``Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements
(CMRs),'' D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, from the time of
installation for new parts.
    (3) Reports specified in Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations
(AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),''
D622W001-9, Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance
Planning Data (MPD) Document may be submitted within 10 days after
the airplane is returned to service, instead of 10 days after each
individual finding as specified in this document.

(h) Alternative Inspections and Inspection Intervals

    After accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be
used unless the alternative inspection or interval is approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair in the areas affected by this AD if it is
approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the
repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact James Sutherland,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425)
917-6533; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 of the
following service information:
    (i) Section 9, ``Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),'' D622W001-9,
Revision July 2011, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD) Document.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 23, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-8228 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68321-68322]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23870]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15041-000]

One Drop Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On August 4, 2020, One Drop Hydro, LLC, filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Elizabeth Webbing Falls Dam
Project (project) located on the Blackstone River, in Central Falls,
Providence County, Rhode Island. The sole purpose of a preliminary
permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does
not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing
activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others
without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) An
existing 220-foot-long, 14-foot-high rock fill, gravity, earth dam with
a crest elevation of 34.9 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) an
existing impoundment with a surface area of 2.54 acres and a total
storage capacity of 23.87-acre-feet at a surface elevation of 25 feet
msl; (3) an existing concrete intake structure with a 50-foot-wide
mechanical trash rake; (4) an existing 45-foot-long concrete intake
canal; (5) an existing 20-foot-long, 50-

foot-wide, 35-foot-high concrete powerhouse that would include a new
999-kilowatt Kaplan turbine-generator unit; (6) an existing 45-foot-
long concrete tailrace; (7) a new 0.06-mile-long transmission line; and
(8) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the
Elizabeth Webbings Falls Dam Project would be 6,500 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Justin Bristol, Manager, One Drop Hydro,
LLC, P.O. Box 2033, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881; phone: (401) 793-
6041; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Taconya D. Goar; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/eFiling.aspx. Commenters can submit brief comments
up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment
system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must
include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of
electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via
the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The first page of any filing should include docket number P-15041-000.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Enter the docket number (P-15041) in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 22, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23870 Filed 10-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


hr/ yr ( F) Cost/ yrb G 21 Report of emission test N/ A Notification of Control installation and refill at 1sy IFR Degassingc Existing Sources Annual Inspection Reports 2 2 4 4 16 879 Supplemental Delay Reportd 2 1 2 0 0.2 11 Quarterly Emission Report None Expectede SUBTOTAL 48.2 2,648 Total Annual Responses ( Block 13b) 8 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions Included in 3A B. Plan Activities Included in 4C C. Implement Activities Filing and Maintaining Records 2 1 2 4 8 D. Develop Record System Included in 4C E. Time to Enter Information Included in 4C F. Train Personnel N/ A G. Audits N/ A ( A)

hr/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

Respondent/ yr ( C= AxB)

hr/ Respondent/ yr ( D) a Respondent/

yr ( E= CxD)

hr/ yr ( F) Cost/ yrb G 22 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 56 3,088 aEstimate that there will be 4 existing sources not covered by the HON. All new source burden is included in the NSPS Subpart Kb regulation for storage vessels at 40 CFR Part 60 bEstimate an hourly wage of $ 26.16 plus 110% overhead and profit which equals and 54.94. This amount was multiplied by the hours in each line of Column E to estimate the total annual cost per year.

cIt is believed that all vessels have been degassed and all controls have been installed as they were to be installed within 10 years of promulgation.

dEstimate that two percent of existing sources will request delay of repair in the annual report.

eAssume that no sources will select the fixed roof vented to a control device option and thus have no quarterly reports of excess emissions.

NOTE: The 83 I also includes 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart L. There are 36 Subpart L sources with a burden of 7083 hours. G 23 TABLE G. 10 ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBPART V Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

respondent/

year ( C= AXB)

Hours/ respondent/

year ( D) Respondents/ year ( E= CXD)

Hours/ yr ( F) a Cost/ year 1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions 1 1 1 2b 2 111 B. Required Activities Initial Performance Test 20 1 20 2 40 2,214 Reference Method 21/ 22 tests 4 1 4 2 8 443 Repeat Performance Test 20 0.2 4 2 8 443 C. Create Information See 3B D. Gather Existing Information See 3B E. Write Report Notification of Construction/

Reconstruction 2 1 2 2 4 221 Notification of Anticipated Startup 2 1 2 2 4 221 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 2 4 221 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 2 4 221 Report of Performance Test See 3B Application for Alternative 10 1 10 0.5 5 277 Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

respondent/

year ( C= AXB)

Hours/ respondent/

year ( D) Respondents/ year ( E= CXD)

Hours/ yr ( F) a Cost/ year G 24 Initial Report 8 1 8 2 16 885 Semiannual Report 30 2 60 200c 12,000 664,080 Total Annual Responses ( Block 13b) 411 SUBTOTAL 12,095 669,337 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions See 3A B. Plan Activities See 4C C. Implement Activities See 3B D. Develop Record System N/ A E. Time to Enter Information Records of startups, shutdown,

malfunction, etc. 1.5 1 1.5 2 3 166 Records of operating,

parameters and emissions 0.1 365d 36.5 200c 7,300 403,982 Records of leak detected 0.4 52 20.8 200 4,160 230,214 F. Train personnel N/ A G. Audits N/ A SUBTOTAL 11,463 634,362 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 23,558 1,303,699 aAssume an hourly wage of $ 26.35 plus 110% overhead and profit or $ 55.34 per hour. This amount was multiplied by the hours per year in Column E.

bAssume operation 365 days per year as specified in the NESHAP review document.

cTotal number of affected process units 21 facilities G 25 TABLE G. 11: NEW SOURCE ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE HON Burden Item Average Hours per Activity ( a) Number of Activities per year per respondent ( b) Technical Hours per year per respondent ( c) Estimated.

Number New respondents ( d) Estimated Technical Hours per year ( e) Estimated Managerial Hours per year ( f) Estimated Clerical Hours per year ( g) Annual Cost in $ Thousands per year ( h)

1) Read Rule and Instructions 2.7 93 250 5 1,250 63 125 78 2) Plan Activities 3.8 93 355 5 1,775 89 178 110 3) Training 3.5 38 132 5 660 33 66 41 4) Create, Test,

Research and Development 2.4 1,778 4,266 5 21,330 1,067 2,133 1,324 5) Gather Information,

Monitor/ Inspect 1.4 2,102 2,943 5 14,715 736 1,472 914 6) Process/ Compile and Review 0.8 50 40 5 200 10 20 12 7) Complete Reports 11.4 49 557 5 2,785 139 279 173 Total Annual Responses ( Block 13b) 245 8) Record/ Disclose 10.0 49 489 5 2,445 122 245 152 9) Store/ File 5.2 51 264 5 1,320 66 132 82 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST 46,480 2,325 4,650 2,886 See Attachment I for assumptions and further description of activities. G 26 TABLE G. 12: EXISTING SOURCE ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE HON PROVISIONS Burden Item Average Hours per Activity ( a) Number of Activities per year per respondent ( b) Total Technical Hours per year per respondent ( c) Technical Hours per year per respondent for wastewater Estimated Technical Hours per year ( e) Estimated Managerial Hours per year ( f) Estimated Clerical Hours per year ( g) Annual Cost in $ Thousands per year ( h)

1) Read Rule and Instructions 3.6 23 69 14 17,680 884 1,768 $ 1,098 2) Plan Activities 6.1 13 61 18 16,080 804 1,608 $ 998 3) Training 5.3 4 17 4 4,400 220 440 $ 273 4) Create, Test,

Research and Development 17.8 99 1617 150 400,080 20,004 40,008 $ 24,836 5) Gather Information,

Monitor/ Inspect 2.5 677 1693 0 406,320 20,316 40,632 $ 25,224 6) Process/ Compile and Review 20.0 1 20 0 4,800 240 480 $ 298 7) Complete Reports 81.2 5 388 18 94,560 4,728 9,456 $ 5,870 Total Annual Responses ( Block 13b) 1200 $ 0 8) Record/ Disclose 17.5 26 442 12 107,040 5,352 10,704 $ 6,645 9) Store/ File 6.8 35 222 15 54,480 2,724 5,448 $ 3,382 TOTAL BURDEN AND COST 1,105,440 55,272 110,544 $ 68,624 See Attachment I for assumptions and further description of activities. H 1 Attachment H Assumptions and Item Descriptions for Attachment F: Table F. 11 ( A) That EPA personnel would attend 10% of the performance tests. Performance tests are required only for new sources in the first 3 years after promulgation. It is assumed there will be 5 new sources per year each with eight control devices. This would mean the equivalent of 40 tests ( 5 x 8) to be performed. It is important to note, however, that EPA attendance is dependent upon EPA available resources, and not the number of tests.

( B) That 20% of the initial tests must be repeated due to failure of initial test.

( C) That all existing and new sources must submit an initial report within 120 days of promulgation and an implementation plan or permit application within 12 or 18 months of the compliance date. It is assumed that initial reports and implementation plans have been submitted for existing sources and these reports are only required for new sources. The new sources are most likely to be collocated within existing plants and be included in those existing source reports.

( D) That semiannual reports of results from equipment leak detection and repair programs are required by the equipment leak standard. Sources are required to comply with the equipment leak standard by 6 months after promulgation. It is assumed that an average of 320 facilities will submit reports semiannual ( 320 x 2 = 640) ( even those that use the CAR will still have to submit reports under the HON for wastewater).

( E) that travel expenses equal:

( 2 people/ trip)( 17 trips)($ 400 travel/ trip+$ 50 per diem/ trip)

Item Descriptions:

( a) Average Hours per Activity are estimates of the specific activities and are the basis for estimating the overall burden.

( b) Number of Activities per year represents the number of reports expected to be reviewed and other related activities during the course of the year. Under the performance test headings, these numbers are based upon assumptions ( A) and ( B), above. For onetime reports, the total number of reports expected over the three year period was divided by three to get an annual average incorporating assumption ( C), above.

( c) Estimated Technical Hours per year is the product of ( a) and ( b).

( d) Estimated Managerial Hours per year is 5% of ( c).

( e) Estimated Clerical Hours per year is 10% of ( c).

( f) Estimated Annual Cost in $ Thousands per year is the total cost of technical, managerial and clerical hours and overhead using EPA FY 1999 labor rates using this formula:

( Ht x $ 40/ hour)+( Hm x $ 66/ hour)+( Hc x $ 23/ hour) = ( f)

$ 1,000 H 2 Where: Ht is ( c), or technical hours Hm is ( d), or managerial hours, and Hc is ( e), clerical hours PERFORMANCE TESTS:

1) Initial represents the activities during EPA attendance at an initial performance test.

2) Repeat represents the same activities as 1) Initial, except for a repeat performance test.

REPORTS REVIEW:

1) Initial represents the EPA review of all initial reports received.

2) Implementation Plan or Permit Applications represents the EPA review of all implementation plans, or permit applications if submitted in lieu of an implementation plan.

3) Compliance Status represents compliance status verification by the EPA for the portions of the standard which a source must comply with before the compliance date ( see assumption ( D) above).

4) Review equipment leak monitoring represents the review and screening of periodic reports received as a result of the equipment leaks standard.

5) Notification of construction/ reconstruction represents the EPA review of this notification from new sources.

6) Notification of anticipated startup represents the EPA review of this notification from new sources.

7) Notification of actual startup represents the EPA review of this notification from new sources.

8) Notification of performance test represents the EPA review of this notification from new sources.

9) Review of test results represents the EPA review of performance test results for new sources.

10) Review periodic reports represents the EPA review of periodic reports.

TOTAL BURDEN AND COST is the sum of each of the columns ( c), ( d), ( e) and ( f).

Source: EPA Labor Rates ( Fiscal Year 1999)

Technical: 25.21 ( GS 12, step 5)

Managerial: 41.66 ( GS 15, step 5)

Clerical: 14.21 ( GS 7, step 5)

Plus 60 percent for overhead and benefits I 1 Attachment I Assumptions and Item Descriptions for Attachment G: Tables G. 11 and G. 12 Assumptions are:

( A) That there are 240 existing facilities out of 320 that will continue to comply with the HON, rather than the CAR. The 80 facilities complying with the CAR will still be required to comply with the HON wastewater provisions, as the CAR does not include wastewater provisions. The total number of facilities will increase by 5 new facilities per year. Since new facilities must be in compliance at startup, the general periodic recordkeeping and reporting burdens are included, which accounts for the difference in the technical hours per facility. No new facilities are expected to comply directly with the CAR.

( B) That the average representative source, new and existing, will consist of the following points of burden:

20 parameters to monitor at control devices throughout the facility 10 affected storage tanks of various capacities 3 affected major wastewater streams 4 affected transfer rack operations 3 overall leak detection and repair programs for 2,000 points 1 emissions averaging program that involves 10 emission points 1 facility wide inventory of emission points, Group 1 and Group 2 8 Process vents per facility ( C) That there are 5% (. 05) managerial and 10% (. 10) clerical hours required for every technical hour.

( D) That some activities necessary to generate reports involve creating records in the process, and that these activities are assumed to be reports activities alone, to avoid double counting these as records activities as well. Therefore, only items 8 and 9 are considered records burdens directly.

Item Descriptions:

( a) Average Hours per Activity is back calculated by dividing ( b) into ( c). Since the activities within each burden category can vary significantly, it is too inaccurate to assume an average to use to calculate ( c). Estimated activity technical hours are summarized to obtain ( c) first, then back calculate for ( a) with an estimated ( b).

( b) Estimated Number of Activities per year per source represents the assumed typical number of separate activities a source may encounter during one year. This number may vary from facility to facility depending on consolidation of activities, collocated readings, etc. Since so much variability exists, it is important to note that this is an estimate. This number was only used to backcalculate ( a).

( c) Technical Hours per year per source is the actual best estimate of the burden for each burden item. The three year separate I 2 activity burdens were divided by three, where appropriate, and then summarized to include in this column. The technical hours for new sources is higher because some periodic compliance reports and records are required at startup. Existing sources do not encounter these reports and record burdens for three years after promulgation.

( d) ( Table G. 11) Estimated Number of New Sources reflect the number given in assumption ( A), above. ( Table G. 12)

Technical Hours Per Year Per Source for Wastewater are the annual technical hours associated with recordkeeping and reporting to ensure compliance with requirements for wastewater. As discussed in assumption ( A), facilities complying with the CAR will comply with the HON wastewater requirements. Burden hours per source, per emission type are shown in Table B. 1.

( e) Estimated Technical Hours per year is the product of ( c) and ( d) for new facilities ( Table G. 11). For Table G. 12, estimated technical hours are the product of ( c) and the number of existing facilities complying with all of the HON ( 240) added to the product of ( d) and the number of facilities complying with only the wastewater provisions ( 80).

( f) Estimated Managerial Hours per year is 5% of ( e).

( g) Estimated Clerical Hours per year is 10% of ( e).

( h) Estimated Annual Cost in $ Thousands per year is the total cost of technical, managerial and clerical hours and overhead using 1999 Bureau of Labor Statistics and a 110% increase for overhead and profit:

( Ht x $ 54.94/ hour)+( Hm x $ 73.93/ hour)+( Hc x $ 34.42/ hour) = ( h)

1,000 Where: Ht is ( e), or technical hours Hm is ( f), or managerial hours, and Hc is ( g), clerical hours 1) Read Rule and Instructions are the activities, less training, which involve comprehending the provisions in the standard and understanding how they apply to the respective points at a facility.

2) Plan Activities represents such burdens as design, redesign, scheduling as well as drafting the implementation plan, and selecting methods of compliance.

3) Training represents the portion ( assumed 40%) of activities from 1) Read Rule and Instruction for which an average facility would elect to provide class room instruction. The standard does not require specific training itself.

4) Create, Test, Research and Development are the activities involving testing, retesting, establishing operating range for parameters and analyzing point by point applicability. Monitor related refit, calibration and maintenance activities are also included under this heading.

5) Gather Information, Monitor and Inspect are the activities involving physical inspections of equipment, collection of monitored data and other related activities.

6) Process/ Compile and Review are the activities that involve analysis of the information collected for accuracy, compliance I 3 and appropriate reports and records required as a result.

7) Complete Reports represents the activities normally associated with filling out forms. Since the standard requires no standard forms, these activities relate to the preparing of formal reports and cover letters as appropriate.

8) Record/ Disclose are activities which are solely recordkeeping which occur once the appropriate report information has been extracted [ see assumption ( D)] above. These activities involve software translation, duplication or archival processes normally associated with data management and storage common to this industry.

9) Store/ File are again activities which are solely recordkeeping which occur once the appropriate report information has been extracted ( see assumption ( D) above). These activities involve the management life cycle of records, from the time they are filed and boxed up, to the time they are disposed.

TOTAL BURDEN AND COST is the sum of each of the columns ( e), ( f), ( g) and ( h). J 1 Attachment J1 ANNUAL COST BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS AS A RESULT OF SUBPART VV, THE HON, AND THE CAR Subpart Number of Entities Complying with Subparta ( B) Number of Entities Using Contractor for leak detection and repair ( LDAR)

( C) Number of Component s per Entityc ( D) Cost per Entityd ( E) Total Annual Coste ( F)

VV 95 76 10,000 50,000.00 $ 3,800,000 HON  existing sources 240 192 2,000 $ 10,000 $ 1,920,000f HON

New Sources 5 4 2,000 $ 10,000 $ 40,000f CAR 80 64 2,600 $ 13,000 $ 832,000 Total $ 6,592,000 aMultiple sources are located at individual facilities. The costs presented are estimated on a facility or entity basis.

bEstimate that 80 percent of entities will contract out LDAR services. C = 0.8 x B cFor Subpart VV and the HON, the number of components per facility is taken from the supporting statement for the most recent ICR. The number of components at a HON entity is multiplied by the ratio of CAR sources per entity to HON sources per entity to estimate the number of components at a CAR entity. It is anticipated that the entities opting to comply with the CAR will comprise HON facilities and additional, co located individual sources.

dE = D x $ 5.00. In the supporting statements for the most recent ICRs for Subpart VV and the HON, it is estimated that contracting out LDAR costs $ 5.00 per component.

eF = E x C fFrom Attachment J2 J 2 Attachment J2: Annual Labor Costs for Contracting LDAR Program ( Subpart H and I)

Existing Sources: $ 10,000a * 192b = $ 1,920,000c New Sources: $ 10,000 * 4 = $ 40,000 Total Annual Recurring Cost Burden: = $ 1,960,000 a Estimate an average cost of $ 5.00/ component to perform LDAR and estimate 2,000 components at an entity. b Existing sources: 240 ( 0.8) will contract out LDAR; New sources: 5* ( 0.8) will contract out LDAR c A x C = D J 3 Attachment J3: Summary of Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs for the CAR and the Referencing Subparts NSPS Subpart Ka a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The total Capital/ Start up costs for this ICR are $ 0.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The total Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs for this ICR is $ 0.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 0.

NSPS Subpart Kb a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The total Capital/ Start up costs for this ICR are $ 1,010,666. This is the cost for 111 new storage vessels.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The total Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs for this ICR is $ 3,704,024.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 4,714,690.

NSPS Subpart VV a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The capital/ startup costs of this regulation are $ 35,000. This is based on the average cost of a monitor with a 5 year expected life. The equipment is not capitalized, so no discount rate applies. The average annual cost is therefore 7000/ 5 or $ 1400/ yr. It is also estimated that 80% of facilities contract out LDAR services and 20% perform in house. Those facilities which contract out will purchase one unit as backup; the remaining facilities performing LDAR in house will purchase 5 units to support the program. There are currently 1120 affected sources located at 84 facilities or an average of 13.3 sources per facility. The total number of units to be purchased it therefore ( 13*. 8) ( 1 unit) + ( 13*. 2)( 5 units) = 25 units.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The operation of the monitors is included in the monitoring costs. Maintenance costs on these units is incidental, therefore no maintenance or operation costs incur.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: J 4 The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 35,000.

NSPS Subpart DDD a. Total Capital/ Startup cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The capital/ startup startup costs for this regulation are $ 300,000. This is based on 10 new sources per year multiplied by $ 30,000 per source for instrumentation and systems, including computers and software.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The annual operation and maintenance costs are $ 630,000 dollars. This is based on 80 existing sources plus 10 new sources over the life of the ICR multiplied by $ 7,000 for upkeep of the monitoring devices and computers.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 930,000.

NSPS Subpart NNN/ III a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The start up cost of instrumentation equipment, which includes computers and software, is approximately $ 13,500 per new affected facility for both Subpart III, Air Oxidation Operations and Subpart NNN, Distillation Operations or a total of $ 2,403,000 ( total of 178 new sources x $ 13,500/ source).

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The cost to industry associated the operation and periodic maintenance. The average annualized burden is estimated to be $ 1,350 per year per affected facility ($ 13,500 discounted over 10 years by straight line depreciation method) for Subpart III and for Subpart NNN for a total of $ 1,830,600 [($ 1350 x 1356) total number of new and existing affected sources under NNN and III]. These estimates were obtained from consultation with industry representatives.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 4,233,600.

NSPS Subpart RRR a. Total Capital/ Startup cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The capital/ startup startup costs for this regulation are $ 500,000 dollars per year. This is based on 20 new sources per year multiplied by $ 25,000 for computer and software discounted over 10 years at 7%. These estimates were obtained from consultation with industry representatives.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: J 5 The annual operation and maintenance costs are $ 77,500 dollars. This is based on 155 existing sources multiplied by $ 500 for upkeep of the monitoring device.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 577,500.

NESHAP Subpart BB a. Total Capital/ Startup cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: Startup cost were identified in previous ICR.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: There are no O& M cost associated because no CEMs are employed.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 0.

NESHAP Subpart Y a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The only type of industry costs associated with the information collection activity in the standards is labor cost. There are no capital/ startup costs.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: There are no operation and maintenance costs.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 0.

NESHAP Subpart V a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: Startup cost were identified in previous ICR.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: There are no O& M cost associated because no CEMs are employed.

c. Total Capital and O& M Cost The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 0.

NESHAP HON: J 6 Subpart G a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: Estimate the cost to purchase monitoring equipment and computer equipment and software is approximately $ 20 30K for process vents and wastewater operations, or an average of $ 25K with a 10 year life expectancy and a 7% depreciation rate, or $ 2225 per year. There are no associated costs for transfer racks and storage tanks. Only new sources need to buy control and monitoring equipment; therefore, the total capital/ startup cost is $ 25,000 x 5 or $ 11,125.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The cost to industry associated with the operation and maintenance ( O& M) is approximately $ 100 500K per year ( capital/ startup depreciation not included) for reactor process vents and wastewater operations. The cost associated with the operation and maintenance $ 50 100K per year ( capital/ startup depreciation not included) for distillation units process vents. There are no associated costs for transfer racks and storage tanks. The average O& M cost is assumed to be the average of the two ranges, or $ 275,000 per year. Operation and maintenance incur for both new and existing sources. The total O& M is therefore $ 275,000 x 245 or $ 67,375,000.

Subpart H a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: Only new sources will buy an organic volatile analyzer. Estimate the average cost of a monitor is $ 7,000 with a 5 year expected life. The equipment is not capitalized, so no discount rate applies. The average annual cost is therefore 7000/ 5 or $ 1400/ yr. Estimate that 80% of facilities contract out LDAR services and 20% perform in house. Those facilities which contract out ( 4 facilities) will purchase one unit as backup; the remaining facilities performing LDAR in house ( 1 facility) will purchase 5 units to support the program. The total annual capital/ startup cost is therefore 9 units x 1400/ unit or $ 12,600/ yr.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The operation of the monitors is included in the monitoring costs. Maintenance costs on these units is incidental, therefore, no maintenance or operation costs incur.

c. Total Capital and O& M Cost for Subparts F, G, H, and I: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 67,399,000.

Part 65 CAR a. Total Capital/ Startup Cost of Control and Monitoring Equipment: J 7 Under the CAR, it is assumed all new sources start out under the referencing subpart. Therefore, there is no capital/ startup cost associated with this subpart.

b. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Control and Monitoring Equipment: The HON is the basis for determining O& M costs for the CAR. The average cost per source, based on the HON is $ 275,000 per year for a total of $ 22,000,000.

c. Total Capital/ Startup and O& M Cost: The total Capital and O& M Costs are $ 22,000,000.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 68796]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28721]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 15c1-5, SEC File No. 270-422, OMB Control No. 3235-0471.

    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 existing collection of
information provided for in Rule 15c1-5 (17 CFR 240.15c1-5) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office
of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 15c1-5 states that any broker-dealer controlled by,
controlling, or under common control with the issuer of a security that
the broker-dealer is trying to sell to or buy from a customer must give
the customer written notification disclosing the control relationship
at or before completion of the transaction. The Commission estimates
that 241 respondents collect information annually under Rule 15c1-5 and
that each respondent would spend approximately 10 hours per year
collecting this information (2,410 hours in aggregate). There is no
retention period requirement under Rule 15c1-5. This Rule does not
involve the collection of confidential information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be 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.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does display a valid
Office of Management (OMB) control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 1, 2011.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28721 Filed 11-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 68267-68268]
[DOCID:fr23de09-64]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0143; FRL-8801-3]

Computer Science Corporation, et al.; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter will be transferred to Computer Science Corporation
and its subcontractors, Yoh IT, Poloma, Disys, Barrett & Associates,
Apptis, Excel Corp., Apex System, Inc., General Dynamics, Kforce, and
Apex System in accordance with 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3) and 2.308(i)(2).
Computer Science Corporation and its subcontractors, Yoh IT, Poloma,
Disys, Barrett & Associates, Apptis, Excel Corp., Apex System, Inc.,
General Dynamics, Kforce, and Apex System have been awarded a contract
to perform work for OPP. Access to this information will enable
Computer Science Corporation and its subcontractors, Yoh IT, Poloma,
Disys, Barrett & Associates, Apptis, Excel Corp., Apex System, Inc.,
General Dynamics, Kforce, and Apex System to fulfill the obligations of
the contract.

DATES: Computer Science Corporation and its subcontractors, Yoh IT,
Poloma, Disys, Barrett & Associates, Apptis, Excel Corp, Apex System
Inc., General Dynamics, Kforce, and Apex System will be given access to
this information on or before December 28, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia Croom, Information Technology
and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

     EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0143. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. GS00T99ALD0203 Task Order EP10H000097, Computer
Science Corporation and its subcontractors, Yoh IT, Poloma, Disys,
Barrett & Associates, Apptis, Excel Corp., Apex System, Inc., General
Dynamics, Kforce, and Apex System will provide operational and
management support for the EPA Wide Area Network, web and application
hosting, enterprise server, email and Lotus Notes applications,
distributed systems, and workload reporting. Computer Science
Corporation will also supply security and security incident response
reporting for EPA.
    The OPP has determined that access by Computer Science Corporation
and its subcontractor, Yoh IT, Poloma, Disys, Barrett & Associates,
Apptis, Excel Corp., Apex System, Inc., General Dynamics, Kforce, and
Apex System to information on all pesticide chemicals may be necessary
for the performance of this contract.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
This information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and
7 of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2), the
contract with Computer Science Corporation and its subcontractors, Yoh
IT, Poloma, Disys, Barrett & Associates, Apptis, Excel Corp., Apex
System, Inc., General Dynamics, Kforce, and Apex System prohibits use
of the information for any purpose not specified in the contract;
prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior
written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and
employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information
from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA
Information Security Manual. In addition, Computer Science Corporation
and its subcontractors, Yoh IT, Poloma, Disys, Barrett & Associates,
Apptis, Excel Corp., Apex System, Inc., General Dynamics, Kforce, and
Apex System are required to submit for EPA's approval a security plan
under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized
release or compromise. No information will be provided to Computer
Science Corporation and its subcontractors, Yoh IT, Poloma, Disys,
Barrett & Associates, Apptis, Excel Corp, Apex System, Inc., General
Dynamics, Kforce, and Apex System until the requirements in this
document have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided to
Computer Science Corporation and EPA's Project Officers will be
maintained by its subcontractors, Yoh IT, Poloma, Disys, Barrett &
Associates, Apptis, Excel Corp., Apex System, Inc., General Dynamics,
Kforce, and Apex System for this contract. All information supplied to
Computer Science Corporation and its subcontractors, Yoh IT, Poloma,
Disys, Barrett & Associates, Apptis, Excel Corp., Apex System, Inc.,
General Dynamics, Kforce, and Apex System by EPA for use in connection
with this contract will be returned to EPA when the Computer Science
Corporation and its subcontractors, Yoh IT, Poloma, Disys, Barrett &
Associates, Apptis, Excel Corp., Apex System, Inc., General Dynamics,
Kforce, and Apex System have completed their work.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Business and industry, Government
contracts, Government property, Security measures.

    Dated: December 15, 2009.
Oscar Morales,
Acting, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-30260 Filed 12-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 16031]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Sixth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of
Navigation Performance

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

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of
Navigation Performance.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
fourth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 227, Standards of
Navigation Performance.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 8-17, 2013 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m. Contact Dave Nakamura by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1150 18th Street NW.,
Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. In addition, Jennifer Iversen may be contacted directly
at email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 227. The agenda will
include the following:

April 8-17, 2013

     Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
     Agenda Overview
     Review of Planned Work Program for the Week
     Plenary FRAC Review of MASPS--Resolution of comments
     Technical Requirements Breakout Session (Everyday as
appropriate)
     Other Business
     Next Meeting
     Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 1, 2013.
Paige Williams,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Business Operations Group, Federal
Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2013-05748 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P