UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 22, 2007

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET DOT-OST-2007-0015

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

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

Joint Application of   SHUTTLE AMERICA CORPORATION (Shuttle), and DELTA
AIR LINES, INC. (Delta), filed 10/12/07, for:

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

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Atlanta, Georgia, and Leon/Guanajuato, Mexico, and to integrate
this authority with Shuttle’s other exemption and certificate
authority granted by the Department, to the extent permitted by
international agreements.  The applicants state that they will provide
year-round service in the market pursuant to a code-share arrangement,
whereby Shuttle will operate the service under Delta’s “DL*”
designator code as a Delta Connection carrier, beginning March 1, 2008.

Applicant rep: Robert E. Cohn<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst: Linda L.
Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX	Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: October 22, 2007, through
October 22, 2009.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

- see next page -

												2

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

	XX  The holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our standard policy, the dormancy
notice period will begin on March 1, 2008, the joint applicants’
proposed start-up date for the subject services.

The exemption authority granted to Shuttle for direct-carrier
(own-aircraft) service is awarded subject to the terms of the
correspondence dated April 6, 2005, referenced in footnote 1, above.

With respect to the proposed replacement of the currently operated ASA
services on the Atlanta-Leon/Guanajuato route, we note that the joint
applicants have indicated that a dormancy notice for ASA’s services
will be forthcoming.  In this regard, we remind the parties that this
notice should be filed as soon as the proposed replacement services
begin.

The route integration authority granted to Shuttle is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be
consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and
the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in award of
the route integration authority granted should be construed as
conferring upon Shuttle rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate
and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is
limited unless Shuttle notifies the Department of its intent to serve
such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any
necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s)
should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a
request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are
included in Shuttle’s authority by virtue of the route integration
exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by Shuttle, the
holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as
providing any preference for Shuttle in a competitive carrier selection
proceeding.

Code-share operations conducted under this authorization are subject to
the following conditions:

The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must comply
with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment to the Department’s regulations
concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding
any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our approval here
is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the subject foreign
air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier holding out such
service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere; that the carrier
selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket)
accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share journey for all
obligations established in its contract of carriage with the passenger;
and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier be unaffected;
and

The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither
Shuttle nor Delta shall give any force or effect to any contractual
provisions between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

- see next page -

												3

Remarks:  We acted on this application without expiration of the 15-day
answer period to the application with the consent of all parties served
with a copy of the application.

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

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

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

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

  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov

				APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/06

     Shuttle is a commuter carrier certificated to provide scheduled
interstate air transportation using aircraft with fewer than 60 seats
(Order 98-11-15).  By letter dated April 6, 2005, to Mr. Robert Cohn
(Counsel for Shuttle America) from Mr. William Bertram (then Chief of
the Air Carrier Fitness Division, Office of Aviation Analysis), the
Department authorized Shuttle to engage in interstate scheduled
transportation using large aircraft, subject to the restriction that
Shuttle’s operations are performed under a fee-for-service agreement
with a major U.S carrier.

 The applicants further request that Delta’s existing code-share
authorization for the Atlanta-Leon/Guanajuato route be amended, to the
extent necessary, to identify Shuttle as an authorized code-share
partner.  The applicants explain that, currently, Delta Connection
service on the route is being providing by Atlantic Southeast Airlines,
Inc. (ASA) but that Delta intends to substitute the proposed Shuttle
service for the service currently operated by ASA.  The applicants state
that, to ensure that the Delta Connection service is not disrupted,
ASA’s designation to serve the route should not be withdrawn until
Shuttle has commenced its new service and ASA has given notice that its
Atlanta-Leon/Guanajuato authority is dormant.


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 21, 2005

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-20478

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

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

Application of AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC. (AMERICAN EAGLE) filed
2/24/05 for:

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

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between the terminal point Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas, and the terminal
point Veracruz, Mexico.  American Eagle proposes to operate this service
on a year-round basis, beginning July 2, 2005.

The Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport filed an answer in support of
American Eagle’s application.

Applicant rep: Carl B. Nelson, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>     DOT Analyst:
Thuy H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken: March 21, 2005 through March
21, 2007.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

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

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

   	XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our policy, the dormancy notice
period will begin on July 2, 2005, America Eagle’s proposed start-up
date for the Dallas/Ft. Worth-Veracruz service.

________________________________________________________________________
______

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

										  05/2004


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 157]
[FR Doc No: 2020-29201]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 6, 2021.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: December 30, 2020.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-29201 Filed 12-30-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart N) ( Renewal)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart N) ( Renewal)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants were proposed on July 20, 1983, and promulgated on August 4, 1986. The standards were amended on May 31, 1990, and October 17, 2000. These standards apply to each glass melting furnace that uses commercial arsenic as a raw material. These standards do not apply to pot furnaces. Also, rebricking is not considered construction or modification for the purposes of 40 CFR Section 61.05( a). This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart N.

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

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

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

Approximately sixteen respondents are currently subject to the regulation, and it is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become subject to the regulation over the next three years. 2 The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) approved the current Information Collection Request ( ICR) without any " Terms of Clearance."

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 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 shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction. In addition, section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner/ operator subject to any requirement of this Act 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 procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, 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 Section 114( a)( 3); and ( G) provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, arsenic emissions from glass manufacturing plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NESHAP was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 61, subpart N.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standards ensure compliance with the applicable regulations which were promulgated in accordance with the Clean Air Act. The collected information is also used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings. Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected facility's initial capability to comply with the emission standards. Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the standard at all times. During the performance test, a record of the operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission monitor.

The notifications required in the standards are used to inform the Agency or delegated 3 authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the standards are being met. The performance test may also be observed.

The required semiannual reports are used to determine periods of excess emissions, to identify problems at the facility, to verify operation/ maintenance procedures, and for compliance determinations.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 61, subpart N.

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

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register ( 70 FR 24020) on May 6, 2005. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations For this information collection, we referenced the most recent ICR, consulted with the preparer of the active ICR, and used several different resources to obtain the most recent data available. We reviewed information available from the United States Census Bureau, the Air Facility System ( AFS), and websites covering inorganic arsenic emissions from glass manufacturing. We also consulted with the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer, the Program Integration Division, Ducker Research, Nick Limb, ( 248) 530 2061, and the National Glass Association, Tonya Johnson, ( 703) 442 4890.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and 4 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 these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

3( f) Confidentiality Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter1, 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 contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are inorganic arsenic emissions from glass manufacturing plants. The Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes for the respondents affected by the standards, which correspond to the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) codes, are listed below for source category description.

Standard ( 40 CFRp 61, subpart N) SIC Codes NAICS Codes Flat Glass Manufacturing 3211 327211 Glass Container Manufacturing 3221 327213 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing 3229 327212 Mineral Wool Manufacturing 3296 327993 4( b) Information Requested None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5. 5 ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that are recorded and/ or reported are required by the NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart N) ( Renewal).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Standard Citation by Section Notification and application of construction or modification 61.06 and 61.07 Notification of anticipated date of initial startup 61.09( a)( 1)

Notification of actual startup 61.09( a)( 2)

Source status report 61.10( a)

Notification of initial performance emissions test 60.13( c), and 61.165( d)( 2)

Report initial performance emissions test results 61.13( f), and 61.165( d)( 2)

Notification of physical or operational change 61.15 Report of arsenic emission estimates 61.165( d)( 3)

Report of uncontrolled arsenic emission rates 61.165( d)( 4)

Request approval of control device bypass 61.165( e)

Report of results of continuous monitoring system ( CMS) evaluation 61.165( f)( 1)

Semiannual report of excess emissions ( opacity) 61.165( f)( 2)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping Record continuous opacity and temperature of gas entering control device 61.165( a)( 1)

Records of emission test results and other data needed to determine emissions 61.13( g), and 61.165( a)( 2)

Records of CMS performance evaluations 61.165( a)( 3) 6 Recordkeeping Occurrence and duration of startup, shutdown, and malfunction of furnace 61.165( a)( 4)

Malfunction of air pollution control device 61.5165( a)( 5)

Periods when monitors are inoperative 61.165( a)( 6)

Maintenance and repair of control device, CMS or monitor 61.165( a)( 7)

Records of approved control device bypass 61.165( b)

Semiannual records of uncontrolled arsenic emission rate 61.165( c)

Records are required to be retained for two ( 2) years 61.14( f)

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

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

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for opacity, or for pressure drop and liquid supply pressure for wet scrubber.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Methods 1, 2, 3, 5D, and 108 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information. 7 Respondent Activities 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.

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

5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if necessary.

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

Audit facility records.

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

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are used by the Agency to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem 8 identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

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

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

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

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart N) ( Renewal).

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

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 9 and reporting requirements is estimated to be 3,098 ( Total Labor Hours from Table 1). These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial $ 97.46 ($ 46.41 + 110%) Technical $ 83.71 ($ 39.86 + 110%) Clerical $ 42.55 ($ 20.26 + 110%)

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

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The type of industry costs associated with the information collection activities in the subject standard are both labor costs which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous monitoring. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs ( A) Continuous Monitoring Device ( B) Capital/ Startup Cost for One Respondent ( C) Number of New Respondents ( D) Total Capital/ Startup Cost, ( B X C) ( E) Annual O& M Costs for One Respondent ( F) Number of Respondents with O& M ( G) Total O& M, ( E X F)

Continuous Opacity Monitor N/ A N/ A $ 0 $ 3,000 16 $ 48,000 Temperature Monitor N/ A N/ A $ 0 $ 500 16 $ 8,000 Totals $ 0 $ 56,000 10 The total capital/ startup costs for this ICR are zero. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 56,000. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 56,000 . This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

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

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 4,009.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial $ 56.02 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 35.01 x 1.6) Technical $ 41.57 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.98 x 1.6) Clerical $ 22.50 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 14.06 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden for NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart N) ( Renewal), attached.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three years, approximately sixteen existing respondents will be subject to the standard. It is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become subject to the standard in the next three years. The overall average number of respondents, as shown in the table below is sixteen per year. 11 The number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents Respondents That Submit Reports Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports Year ( A) Number of New Respondents 1 ( B) Number of Existing Respondents ( C) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents ( E) Number of Respondents ( E= A+ B+ C D)

1 0 16 0 0 16 2 0 16 0 0 16 3 0 16 0 0 16 Average 0 16 0 0 16 As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is 16. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents.

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

Total Annual Responses ( A)

Information Collection Activity ( B)

Number of Respondents ( C)

Number of Responses ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records but Do Not Submit Reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( BxC)+ D Application of construction or modification 0 0 N/ A 0 Notification of anticipated startup 0 0 N/ A 0 Notification of actual startup 0 0 N/ A 0 Source status report 0 0 N/ A 0 Notification of initial performance emission test 0 0 N/ A 0 Notification of physical or operation change 0 0 N/ A 0 Report of arsenic emission estimates 15 2 N/ A 30 Report of uncontrolled arsenic emission rates 15 2 N/ A 30 Request approval of control device bypass 1 1 N/ A 1 Semiannual excess emissions ( opacity) 1 2 N/ A 2 Total 63 12 The number of Total Annual Responses is 63. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 250,106. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart N) ( Renewal).

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

( i) Respondent Tally The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 250,106. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart N) ( Renewal). Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 49 hours per response.

The total annual capital/ startup and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 56,000. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

( ii) The Agency Tally The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 99 labor hours at a cost of $ 4,009. See Table 2. Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 61, subpart N) ( Renewal).

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The decrease in the burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to a decrease in the number of sources. Our data indicates that there are approximately sixteen sources to the rule, as compared to the active ICR that shows twenty eight sources. No new facilities are expected to be constructed in the next three years. The decline in the number of sources is due to plant closure because of cost to retrofit aging facilities, corporate mergers and foreign 13 competition. The burden in the renewed ICR shows a higher cost for each respondent than in the active ICR. This is due to the fact that there is now a revised salary table, and we are now accounting for management and clerical person hours per year, which were omitted in the active ICR.

Because there are no new sources with reporting requirements, no capital/ startup costs are incurred. The only cost that is incurred is for the operation and maintenance ( O& M) of the monitoring equipment.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 49 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2005 0034, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2005 0034 and OMB Control Number 2060 0043 in any correspondence. 14 Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 15 Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants ( CFR part 61, subpart N) ( Renewal)

Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Managemen t personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Total Cost per year b 1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting requirements A. Read Instructions c 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 $ 0 B. Required Activities N/ A Initial performance emission tests d 80 1 80 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Repeat of performance emission tests 80 0.2 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0 C. Create information Included in 3B D. Gather existing information Included in 3B E. Write report Application of construction or modification 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Source status report 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Notification of initial performance emission test 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Report of initial performance emission test Included in 3B 16 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Managemen t personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Total Cost per year b Notification of physical or operation change 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Report results of continuous monitoring system ( CMS) evaluation Included in 3B Report of arsenic emission estimates e 16 2 32 15 480 24 48 $ 44,562 Report of uncontrolled arsenic emission f rates 8 2 16 15 240 12 24 $ 22,281 Request approval of control device bypass g 6 1 6 1 6 0.3 0.6 $ 557 Semiannual excess emissions ( opacity) h 16 2 32 1 32 1.6 3.2 $ 2,971 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions Included in 3A B. Plan activities Included in 3B C. Implement activities Included in 3B D. Develop record system N/ A E. Time to enter information i 40 1 40 16 656 32.8 65.6 $ 60,902 Record continuous opacity and temperature of gas entering control device Included in 4E Records of emission test results Included in 4E 17 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year a ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Managemen t personhours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H) Total Cost per year b Records of CMS performance evaluations Included in 4E Occurrence and duration of startup,

shutdown, and malfunction of furnace Included in 4E Records of malfunction of control device Included in 4E Periods when monitors are inoperative Included in 4E Maintain and repair of control device,

CMS, or monitors Included in 4E Records of approved control device bypass Included in 4E Semiannual records of uncontrolled j arsenic emission rate 40 2 80 16 1,280 64 128 $ 118,833 F. Time to train personnel N/ A G. Time for audits N/ A Subtotal Labor Burden 2,694 134.7 269.4 $ 250,106 TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST ( rounded) 3,098 $ 250,106 Assumptions:

a We have assumed that there are sixteen existing sources, and that no additional new sources will become subject to the rule over the next three years.

b This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 97.46 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $ 83.71 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 42.55 per hour for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 19, 2005, " Table 2. Civilian Workers, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the benefit packages 18 available to those employed by private industry.

c We have assumed that it will take one hour to read instructions.

d We have assumed that it will take eighty hours to complete performance test.

e We have assumed that fifteen respondents will write report of arsenic emission estimates on a semiannual basis.

f We have assumed that fifteen respondents will write report of uncontrolled arsenic emission rates on a semiannual basis.

g We have assumed that one respondent will write report requesting approval of control device bypass once a year.

h We have assumed that one respondent will write an excess emissions report semiannually.

i It will take each respondent forty hours to enter information.

j It will take each respondent forty hours twice a year to record uncontrolled arsenic emission rate. 19 Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden  NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass manufacturing Plants ( CFR part 61,

subpart N) ( Renewal)

Burden item ( A) Technical Person Hours Per Occurrence ( B) Number of Occurrences Per Year ( C) Technical Person Hours Per Plant Per Year ( C= AxB) ( D) Plants Per Year a ( E) Technical Hours Per Year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management Hours Per Year ( F= 0.05xE) ( G) Clerical Hours Per Year ( G= 0.1xE) ( H) Total Cost,

Per Yearb Initial performance test New facility c 24 1 24 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Repeat performance test New facility d 24 0.2 4.8 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Review reports New facility Construction or modification application 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Notification of anticipated startup 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Notification of actual startup 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Source status report 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Notification of initial performance emissions test 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Report of initial performance emissions test results 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Notification of physical or operational change 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 $ 0 20 Burden item ( A) Technical Person Hours Per Occurrence ( B) Number of Occurrences Per Year ( C) Technical Person Hours Per Plant Per Year ( C= AxB) ( D) Plants Per Year a ( E) Technical Hours Per Year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management Hours Per Year ( F= 0.05xE) ( G) Clerical Hours Per Year ( G= 0.1xE) ( H) Total Cost,

Per Yearb Notification of emissions test 0.5 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Report results of CMS evaluation 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Existing facility Report of arsenic emission estimates rates e 4 1 4 15 60 3 6 $ 2,797 Reports of uncontrolled arsenic emission f rates 8 1 8 1 8 0.4 0.8 $ 373 Semiannual excess emissions g 6 2 12 1 12 0.6 1.2 $ 559 Request approval of control device bypass h 6 1 6 1 6 0.3 0.6 $ 280 Subtotals Labor Burden and Cost 86 4.3 8.6 $ 4,009 TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST ( rounded) 99 $ 4,009 Assumptions:

a We have assumed that there are sixteen existing sources, and that no additional new sources will become subject to the rule over the next three years.

b This cost is based on the following hourly labor rates times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses: $ 56.02 for Managerial ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 35.01 x 1.6), $ 41.57 for Technical ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.98 x 1.6) and $ 22.50 Clerical ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 14.06 x 1.6). These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay.

c We have assumed that it will take twenty four hours to perform initial performance test.

d We have assumed that it will take twenty four hours to repeat performance test.

e We have assumed that fifteen respondents will be required to review the report of arsenic emission estimates rates once a year.

f We have assumed that it will take eight hours to review reports of uncontrolled arsenic emission rates once a year.

g It is required that excess emissions reports are reviewed on a semiannual basis. 21 h We have assumed that one respondent will review a report requesting approval of control device bypass once a year.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32161-32165]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12712]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2012-0821; 9817-6]

Oklahoma: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate direct rule.

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

SUMMARY: Oklahoma has applied to the EPA for Final authorization of the
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy
all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization, and is
authorizing the State's changes through this immediate final action.
The EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a
prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and
do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we receive written
comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the
decision to authorize Oklahoma's changes to its hazardous waste program
will take effect. If we receive comments that oppose this action, we
will publish a document in the Federal Register withdrawing this rule
before it takes effect, and a separate document in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register will serve as a proposal to authorize
the changes.

DATES: This final authorization will become effective on July 29, 2013
unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by June 28, 2013. If
the EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
this immediate final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that this authorization will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization
Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas Texas 75202-2733.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Alima
Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal
Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or email. The Federal
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to the EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    You can view and copy Oklahoma's application and associated
publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through
Friday at the following locations: Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality, 707 North Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677, (405)
702-7180 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,
phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two
weeks in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O),
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, EPA Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas Texas 75202-2733, and Email address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from the EPA under
RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes,
States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the
changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or
State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain
other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs
because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.

B. What decisions have we made in this rule?

    We conclude that Oklahoma's application to revise its authorized
program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Oklahoma Final authorization
to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in
the authorization application. Oklahoma has responsibility for
permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its
borders. Also section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (``SAFETEA''), Public Law
109-59, 119 Statute 1144 (August 10, 2005) provides the State of
Oklahoma opportunity to request approval from EPA to administer RCRA
subtitle C in Indian Country and for carrying out the aspects of the
RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to
the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take
effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the
requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and
prohibitions in Oklahoma including issuing permits, until the State is
granted authorization to do so.

C. What is the effect of today's authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in Oklahoma subject
to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements
instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with
RCRA. Oklahoma has enforcement responsibilities under its State
hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA
retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,
which include, among others, authority to:
     Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses,
or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits
and
     take enforcement actions after notice to and consultation
with the State.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which Oklahoma is being
authorized by today's action is already effective under State law, and
are not changed by today's action.

D. Why wasn't there a proposed rule before today's rule?

    The EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we
view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that
oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public
comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of
today's Federal Register we are publishing a separate document that
proposes to authorize the State program changes.

E. What happens if the EPA receives comments that oppose this action?

    If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we
will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal
Register before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will base any
further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on
the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address
all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another
opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization,
you must do so at this time. If we receive comments that oppose only
the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste
program, we will withdraw only that part of this rule, but the
authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose
will become effective on the date specified in this document. The
Federal Register withdrawal document will specify which part of the
authorization will become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

F. For what has Oklahoma previously been authorized?

    Oklahoma initially received final Authorization on January 10,
1985, (49

FR 50362-50363) published December 27, 1984 to implement its base
hazardous waste management program. We authorized the following
revisions: Oklahoma received authorization for revisions to its program
with publication dates: April 17, 1990 (55 FR 14280-14282), effective
June 18, 1990; September 26, 1990 (55 FR 39274) effective November 27,
1990; April 2, 1991 (56 FR 13411-13413) effective June 3, 1991;
September 20, 1991 (56 FR 47675-47677) effective November 19, 1991;
September 29, 1993 (58 FR 50854-50856) effective November 29, 1993;
October 12, 1993 (58 FR 52679-52682) effective December 13, 1993;
October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51116-51122) effective December 21, 1994;
January 11, 1995 (60 FR 2699-2702) effective April 27, 1995; October 9,
1996 (61 FR 52884-52886) effective December 23, 1996; Technical
Correction March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12100-12101) effective March 14, 1997;
September 22, 1998 (63 FR 50528-50531) effective November 23, 1998;
March 29, 2000 (65 FR 16528-16532) effective May 30, 2000; May 10, 2000
(65 FR 29981-29985) effective June 10, 2000; January 2, 2001 (66 FR 28-
33) effective March 5, 2001; April 9, 2003 (68 FR 17308-17311)
effective June 9, 2003 and February 4, 2009 (74 FR 5994-6001); (66 FR
18927-18930) effective June 6, 2011 and March 15, 2012 (77 FR 15273-
15276) effective May 14, 2012. The authorized Oklahoma RCRA program was
incorporated by reference into the CFR published on December 9, 1998
(63 FR 67800-67834) effective February 8, 1999, August 26, 1999 (64 FR
46567-46571) effective October 25, 1999, August 27, 2003 (68 FR 51488-
51492) effective October 27, 2003, August 27, 2010 (75 FR 36546) June
28, 2010 and May 17, 2012 (77 FR 29231-29235) effective July 16, 2012.
On August 24, 2012, Oklahoma submitted a final complete program
revision application seeking authorization of its program revision in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21.
    The Oklahoma Hazardous Waste Management Act (``OHWMA'') provides
the ODEQ with the authority to administer the State Program, including
the statutory and regulatory provisions necessary to administer the
provisions of RCRA Cluster XXI, and designates the ODEQ as the State
agency to cooperate and share information with EPA for purpose of
hazardous waste regulation. The Oklahoma Environmental Quality Code
(``Code''), at 27 A O.S. Section 2-7-101 et seq. establishes the
statutory authority to administer the Hazardous waste management
program und subtitle C. The State regulations to manage the Hazardous
waste management program is at Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) Title
252 Chapter 205.
    The DEQ adopted applicable Federal hazardous waste regulations as
amended through July 1, 2011 which became effective July 1, 2012. The
provisions for which the State of Oklahoma is seeking authorization are
documented in the Regulatory Documentation For Federal Provisions For
Which The State Of Oklahoma Is Seeking Authorization, Federal Final
Rules Published Between July 1, 2010 Through June 30, 2011 RCRA Cluster
XXI prepared on June 14, 2012.
    The DEQ incorporates the Federal regulations by reference and there
have been no changes in State or Federal laws or regulations that have
diminished the DEQ's ability to adopt the Federal regulations by
reference as set forth in the authorizations at 77 FR 1236-1262, 75 FR
15273 through 15276 for RCRA Cluster XXI. The Federal Hazardous waste
regulations are adopted by reference by the DEQ at OAC 252:205,
Subchapter 3. The DEQ does not adopt Federal regulations prospectively.
    The State Hazardous waste management program (``State Program'')
now has in place the statutory authority and regulations for all
required components of Checklists 225, 226 and 227 in Cluster XXI.
These statutory and regulatory provisions were developed to ensure the
State program is equivalent to, consistent with and no less stringent
than the Federal Hazardous waste management program.
    The Environmental Quality Act, at 27A O.S. Section 1-3-101(E),
grants the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (``OCC'') authority to
regulate certain aspects of the oil and gas production and
transportation industry in Oklahoma, including certain wastes generated
by pipelines, bulk fuel sales terminals and certain tank farms, as well
as underground storage tanks. To clarify areas of environmental
jurisdiction, the ODEQ and OCC developed an ODEQ/OCC Jurisdictional
Guidance Document to identify respective areas of jurisdiction. The
current ODEQ/OCC jurisdictional Guidance Document was amended and
signed on January 27, 1999. The revisions to the State Program
necessary to administer Cluster XXI will not affect the jurisdictional
authorities of the ODEQ or OCC.
    The ODEQ adopted RCRA Cluster XXI applicable federal hazardous
waste regulations as amended through July 1, 2011 and became effective
on July 1, 2012. The rules were also codified at OAC 252:205 et seq.,
Subchapter 3.
    Pursuant to OAC 252:205-3-1, the State's incorporation of Federal
regulations does not incorporate prospectively future changes to the
incorporated sections of the 40 CFR, and no other Oklahoma law or
regulation reduces the scope of coverage or otherwise affects the
authority provided by these incorporated-by-reference provisions.
Further, Oklahoma interprets these incorporated provisions to provide
identical authority to the Federal provisions. Thus, OAC Title 252,
Chapter 205 provides equivalent and no less stringent authority than
the Federal Subtitle C program in effect July 1, 2011. The State of
Oklahoma incorporates by reference the provisions of 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 124 of 40 CFR that are required by 40 CFR
271.14 (with the addition of 40 CFR 124.19(a) through (c), 124.19(e),
124.31, 124.32, 124.33 and Subpart G); 40 CFR Parts 260-268 [with the
exception of 260.21, 262 Subparts E and H, 264.1(f), 264.1(g)(12),
264.149, 264.150, 264.301(1), 264.1030(d), 264.1050(g), 264.1080(e),
264.1080(f), 264.1080(g), 265.1(c)(4), 265.1(g)12), 265.149, 265.150,
265.1030(c), 265.1050(f) 265.1080(e), 265.1080(f), 265.1080(g), 268.5,
268.6, 268.13, 268.42(b), and 268.44(a) through (g)]; 40 CFR Part 270
[with the exception of 270.1(c)(2)(ix and 270.14(b)(18)]; 40 CFR Part
273; and 40 CFR Part 279.
    The DEQ is the lead Department to cooperate and share information
with the EPA for purpose of hazardous waste regulation.
    Pursuant to 27A O.S. Section 2-7-104, the Executive Director has
created the Land Protection Division (LPD) to be responsible for
implementing the State Program. The LPD is staffed with personnel that
have the technical background and expertise to effectively implement
the provisions of the State program subtitle C Hazardous waste
management program.

G. What changes are we approving with today's action?

    On August 24, 2012, the State of Oklahoma submitted final complete
program applications, seeking authorization of their changes in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision,
subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action that the
State of Oklahoma's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of
the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization.
    The State of Oklahoma revisions consist of regulations which
specifically govern Federal Hazardous waste revisions promulgated
between July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 (RCRA Cluster XXI). Oklahoma
requirements

are included in a chart with this document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Federal Register
     Description of federal          date and page
 requirement (include checklist      (and/or RCRA       Analogous state
        No. if relevant)               statutory           authority
                                       authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Removal of Saccharin and its   75 FR 78918-78926   Oklahoma Statutes
 Salts from the Lists of           January 18, 2011.   Title 27A Section
 Hazardous Wastes. (Checklist                          2-7-101 et seq.,
 225).                                                 Oklahoma
                                                       Hazardous Waste
                                                       Management Act,
                                                       as amended
                                                       effective July 1,
                                                       2011; Oklahoma
                                                       Administrative
                                                       Code, Title 252,
                                                       Chapter 205, as
                                                       amended effective
                                                       July 1, 2012.
2. Corrections to the Academic    75 FR 79304-79308   Oklahoma Statutes
 Laboratories Generator            December 20, 2010.  Title 27A Section
 Standards (Checklist 226).                            2-7-101 et seq.,
                                                       Oklahoma
                                                       Hazardous Waste
                                                       Management Act,
                                                       as amended
                                                       effective July 1,
                                                       2011; Oklahoma
                                                       Administrative
                                                       Code, Title 252,
                                                       Chapter 205, as
                                                       amended effective
                                                       July 1, 2012.
3. Revisions of the Treatment     76 FR 34147-34157   Oklahoma Statutes
 Standards for Carbamate Wastes.   August 12, 2011.    Title 27A Section
 (Checklist 227).                                      2-7-101 et seq.,
                                                       Oklahoma
                                                       Hazardous Waste
                                                       Management Act,
                                                       as amended
                                                       effective July 1,
                                                       2011; Oklahoma
                                                       Administrative
                                                       Code, Title 252,
                                                       Chapter 205, as
                                                       amended effective
                                                       July 1, 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    There are no State requirements that are more stringent or broader
in scope than the Federal requirements.

I. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    Oklahoma will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will
continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of
permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this
authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions
of permits for the provisions listed in the Table in this document
after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue
to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Oklahoma
is not yet authorized.

J. How does today's action affect Indian Country (8 U.S.C. 1151) in
Oklahoma?

    Section 8 U.S.C. 1151 does not affect the State of Oklahoma because
under section 10211(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (``SAFETEA''), Public Law 109-59, 119
Statute 1144 (August 10, 2005) provides the State of Oklahoma
opportunity to request approval from EPA to administer RCRA subtitle C
in Indian Country and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program
described in its revised program application, subject to the
limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).

K. What is codification and is the EPA codifying Oklahoma's hazardous
waste program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State
rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272,
subpart LL for this authorization of Oklahoma's program changes until a
later date. In this authorization application the EPA is not codifying
the rules documented in this Federal Register notice.

L. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. The
reference to Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) is
also exempt from review under Executive orders 12866 (56 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). This action authorizes State requirements for the
purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). Because this action authorizes preexisting requirements under
State law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same
reason, this action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State
RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This
action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not
make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for
authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the

EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application to require the
use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another
standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the
``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the Executive
Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this document and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the
U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. A major
rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2). This action will be effective July 29, 2013.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: May 2, 2013.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-12712 Filed 5-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 41423-41424]
[DOCID:fr17au09-66]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

August 10, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC09-86-001.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp Supplement to Application Under FPA Section
203.
    Filed Date: 08/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090804-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 25, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: EC09-97-001.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Supplement to Application under FPA Section 203 of
MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: EC09-99-001.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Supplement to Application under FPA Section 203 of
MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-5103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: EC09-102-000.
    Applicants: AES Armenia Mountain Wind, LLC.
    Description: Application for Approval of Disposition of
Jurisdictional Facilities, Request for Confidential Treatment, and
Request for Expedited Action of AES Armenia Mountain Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090810-5008.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 31, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER01-3103-019.
    Applicants: Astoria Energy LLC.
    Description: Astoria Energy LLC Submits Report--No Material Change
in Status--Order 652.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1316-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits Original Service Agreement 2064 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff,
Fourth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090810-0006.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1559-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Operating Companies.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc submits proposed revisions to
the Xcel Energy Operating Companies Joint Open Access Transmission
Tariff.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1561-000; ER09-1561-001.
    Applicants: Castleton Power, LLC.
    Description: Castleton Power, LLC informs the Commission that it
has succeeded to the market-based rate tariff of EPCOR Power
(Castleton) LLC of changes in its name of changes in its upstream
ownership ect.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090810-0001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1562-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits First Revised
Service Agreement 1617 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Fifth Revised
Volume 1, to be effective 10/6/09.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090810-0003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1563-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Systems, Incorporation.
    Description: FirstEnergy submits executed Construction Agreement
between FirstEnergy and Renewable Energy Services of Ohio, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090810-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1564-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc submits First Revised Sheet 114
et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume 3 to be effective
10/6/09.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090810-0005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 28, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or

protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In
reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or
protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served
on persons other than the Applicant.
    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
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19591 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 697-699]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31554]

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

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 November
2013, there were four applications approved. This notice also includes
information on one application, approved in October 2013, inadvertently
left off the October 2013 notice. Additionally, seven 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: Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority,
Huntsville, Alabama.
    Application Number: 13-19-C-00-HSV.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $2,481,886.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: September 1, 2022.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: October 1, 2023.
    Classes of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: (1) Air
taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31 and operating at
Huntsville International Airport (HSV); (2) certified air carriers
filing U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Form T-100, operating at
HSV, and having fewer than 500 annual passenger enplanements; (3)
certified route air carriers filing DOT Form T-100, operating at HSV,
and having fewer than 500 annual passenger enplanements; and (4)
foreign air carriers filing DOT Form T-100, operating at HSV, and
having fewer than 500 annual passenger enplanements.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined each of the
approved classes account for less than 1 percent of the total annual
enplanements at HSV.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Wildlife hazard assessment.
Group VI airfield improvements.

    Decision Date: October 29, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luke Flowers, Jackson Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: County of Mohave, Bullhead City, Arizona.
    Application Number: 14-02-C-00-IFP.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $2.00.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $1,477,531.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: January 1, 2014.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: January 1, 2025.
    Classes of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: (1)
Nonscheduled/on demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31; and (2)
nonscheduled commuters or small certificated air carriers filing DOT
Form T-100.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined each of the
approved classes account for less than 1 percent of the total annual
enplanements at Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Improve terminal building, phases I, II, and III.
Environmental assessment for runway 16/34 extension.
Conduct Part 150 noise compatibility study.
Rehabilitate parallel taxiway A pavement and lighting.
Environmental assessment for land acquisition (300 acres).

Extend runway 16/34 taxiway--design.
Wildlife hazard assessment.
Extend runway 16/34 taxiway--construction.
Rehabilitate existing rotating beacon.
Slurry seal runway 16/34 pavement.
Rehabilitate general aviation apron.
PFC administrative cost.

    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection:

Americans with Disabilities Act passenger ramp.
Air Traffic Control Tower communications equipment/radios.
Land acquisition for terminal development (300 acres).
Air Traffic Control Tower security upgrades.

    Brief Description of Disapproved Projects:

Rehabilitate existing aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.

    Determination: The FAA determined that the proposed vehicle to be
rehabilitated exceeded the airports current Part 139 index. Therefore,
the vehicle does not meet the requirements of Sec.  158.15(b)(1).
    Safety management system study.
    Determination: The public agency did not submit sufficient required
information to permit the FAA to make an eligibility determination.
    Decision Date: November 1, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darlene Williams, Los Angeles Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, Orlando,
Florida.
    Application Number: 13-16-C-00-MCO.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $232,500,000.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: June 1, 2031.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: July 1, 2034.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use at a
$4.50 PFC Level:

Airside 4 capacity improvements.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use at a
$3.00 PFC Level:

Airside 4 central energy plant.

    Decision Date: November 1, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Orlando Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Gainesville, Florida.
    Application Number: 14-03-C-00-GNV.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $1,250,942.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: January 1, 2014.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: August 1, 2016.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Project Approved for Collection and Use:

Taxiway A lighting and vault.
Acquire 1,500 gallon aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
Taxiway A-1 and B pavement and lighting.
Part 150 noise compatibility plan study.
Wildlife hazard assessment study.
Rehabilitate commercial apron pavement.
Purchase runway sweeper.
Security and wildlife perimeter fence (phase 1).
Rehabilitate taxiway C.
Rehabilitate south airfield electrical vault.
Security and wildlife perimeter fence (phase 2).
Rehabilitate apron high mast lighting.
Rehabilitate on airport service roads.
Rehabilitate taxiway E--design phase.
Wildlife hazard management plan.
Aircraft rescue and firefighting radios.
Emergency communications vehicle.
Master plan update.
Rehabilitate taxiway E--construction phase.
Rehabilitate ticket counters and restrooms.

    Decision Date: November 8, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Orlando Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: City of Lubbock, Texas.
    Application Number: 13-08-C-00-LBB.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $6,859,912.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: September 1, 2016.
    Estimated Charge Expiration Date: March 1, 2020.
    Classes of Air Carriers Not Required to Collect PFC's: (1) Air
taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31; (2) commuters and
small certificated air carriers filing DOT Form T-100 for nonscheduled
enplanements; and (3) large certificated route air carriers filing DOT
Form T-100 for nonscheduled enplanements.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined each of the
approved classes account for less than 1 percent of the total annual
enplanements at Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:

Improve service road (relocate perimeter road).
Runway 17R/35L improvements.

    Decision Date: November 12, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Cooks, Texas Airports
Development Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendment to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                     Amendment       Original         Amended        estimated       estimated
   Amendment No., city, state      approved date   approved net    approved net     charge exp.     charge exp.
                                                    PFC revenue     PFC revenue        date            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07-11-C-03-COS, Colorado                11/05/13      $2,243,400      $2,160,952        01/01/11        09/01/09
 Springs, CO....................
08-12-C-03-COS, Colorado                11/05/13       2,880,883       2,159,501        02/01/11        10/01/10
 Springs, CO....................
08-13-C-02-COS, Colorado                11/05/13         500,000         360,328        05/01/11        01/01/11
 Springs, CO....................
09-15-C-01-COS, Colorado                11/06/13         848,562         822,519        05/01/11        05/01/11
 Springs, CO....................
09-16-C-01-COS, Colorado                11/06/13         719,024         604,884        09/01/11        09/01/11
 Springs, CO....................
12-06-C-02-MAF, Midland, TX.....        11/19/13         967,278       4,351,978        07/01/15        04/01/17
02-09-C-06-MCO, Orlando, FL.....        11/20/13     165,358,198     130,796,988        10/01/12        04/01/12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 30, 2013.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2013-31554 Filed 1-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P