[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5824-5827]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02055]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0429]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Guidance on Meetings With Industry and Investigators
on the Research and Development of Tobacco Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the information collection aspects of the
``Guidance on Meetings with Industry and Investigators on the Research
and Development of Tobacco Products.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by April 4, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before April 4, 2022. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of April 4, 2022. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such

as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name,
contact information, or other information that identifies you in the
body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2012-D-0429 for ``Guidance on Meetings with Industry and
Investigators on the Research and Development of Tobacco Products.''
Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Sanford, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Guidance on Meetings With Industry and Investigators on the Research
and Development of Tobacco Products

OMB Control Number 0910-0731--Extension

    The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Pub. L. 111-
31) offers tobacco product manufacturers several pathways to obtain an
order from FDA to authorize the marketing of a new tobacco product
before it may be introduced or delivered into interstate commerce. To
provide assistance with these pathways to market products, FDA will
meet with tobacco product manufacturers, importers, researchers, and
investigators (or their representatives) when appropriate as described
in ``Guidance on Meetings with Industry and Investigators on the
Research and Development of Tobacco Products.'' This guidance is
intended to assist persons who seek meetings with FDA relating to their
research to inform the regulation of tobacco products, or to support
the development or marketing of tobacco products. The original guidance
issued in 2012 was revised for updating and clarity in July 2016.
    In the guidance, the Agency discusses, among other things:
     What information FDA recommends persons include in a
meeting request;
     How and when to submit a request; and
     What information FDA recommends persons submit prior to a
meeting.
    This guidance describes two collections of information: (1) The
submission of a meeting request containing certain information and (2)
the submission of an information package in advance of the meeting. The
purpose of this proposed information collection is to allow FDA to
conduct meetings with tobacco manufacturers, importers, researchers,
and investigators in an effective and efficient manner. FDA issued this
guidance and the revisions consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulations (21 CFR 10.115).
    Meeting Requests: The guidance sets forth FDA's recommendations for
materials to be included in a request for a meeting with FDA to discuss
the research and development of tobacco products. In the guidance, FDA
recommends that the following

information be included in the meeting request:
    1. Product name
    2. FDA-assigned Submission Tracking Number(s) of prior submissions
(e.g., premarket applications, meeting requests) for the product and
relevant product version(s) (if applicable);
    3. Product category (e.g., cigarettes, smokeless tobacco) (if
applicable);
    4. Product use (indicate for consumer use or for further
manufacturing);
    5. Contact information for the authorized point of contact for the
company requesting the meeting;
    6. The topic of the meeting being requested (e.g., a new tobacco
product application, an application for permission to market a modified
risk tobacco product, or investigational use of a new tobacco product);
    7. A brief statement of the purpose of the meeting, which could
include a discussion of the types of studies or data to be discussed at
the meeting, the general nature of the primary questions to be asked,
and where the meeting fits in the overall product development plans;
    8. A preliminary list of the specific objectives/outcomes expected
from the meeting;
    9. A preliminary proposed agenda, including an estimate of the time
needed and a designated speaker for each agenda item;
    10. A preliminary list of specific critical questions, grouped by
discipline (e.g., chemistry, clinical, nonclinical);
    11. A list of all individuals who will attend the meeting on behalf
of the tobacco product manufacturer, importer, researcher, or
investigator, including titles and responsibilities;
    12. The date on which the meeting information package will be
received by FDA; and
    13. Suggested format of the meeting (e.g., conference call, in-
person meeting at FDA offices, video conference, or written response)
and suggested dates and times for the meeting. Meetings are usually
scheduled for 1 hour. FDA is proposing a meeting request include the
FDA-assigned submission tracking numbers of relevant product
version(s), if applicable, to allow for FDA to reference such
information to better assess and respond to the issues and questions
raised in the meeting request.
    This information will be used by the Agency to: (1) Determine the
utility of the meeting, (2) identify Agency staff necessary to discuss
proposed agenda items, and (3) schedule the meeting.
    Meeting Information Packages: An individual submitting a meeting
information package to FDA in advance of a meeting should provide
summary information relevant to the product and supplementary
information pertaining to any issue raised by the individual or FDA to
be discussed at the meeting. As stated in the guidance, FDA recommends
that meeting information packages generally include updates of
information that was submitted with the meeting request and, as
applicable:
    1. Product composition and design data summary;
    2. Manufacturing and process control data summary;
    3. Nonclinical data summary;
    4. Clinical data summary;
    5. Behavioral and product use data summary;
    6. User and nonuser perception data summary; and
    7. Investigational plans for studies and surveillance of the
tobacco product, including a summary of proposed study protocols
containing the following information (as applicable):
    a. Study objective(s);
    b. Study hypotheses;
    c. Study design;
    d. Study population (inclusion/exclusion criteria, comparison
group(s));
    e. Human subject protection information, including Institutional
Review Board information;
    f. Primary and secondary endpoints (definition and success
criteria);
    g. Sample size calculation;
    h. Data collection procedures;
    i. Duration of follow up and baseline and follow up assessments,
and
    j. Data analysis plan(s).
    The purpose of the information package is to provide Agency staff
the opportunity to adequately prepare for the meeting, including the
review of relevant data concerning the product. In the Agency's
experience, reviewing such information is critical to achieving a
productive meeting. If the information package was previously submitted
in the meeting request, it should be revised, as applicable, so that
the information reflects the most current and accurate information
available.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
            Activity                 Number of     responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Meeting Requests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combining and Sending Meeting                 60               1              60              10             600
 Request Letters for
 Manufacturers, Importers, and
 Researchers....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Meeting Information Packages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combining and Submitting Meeting              60               1              60              18           1,080
 Information Packages for
 Manufacturers, Importers, and
 Researchers....................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,680
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    FDA's estimate of the number of respondents for meeting requests in
table 1 is based on the number of meeting requests received and
projected over the next 3 years. FDA estimates that 60 preapplication
meetings will be requested.
    The hours per response for combining and sending meeting request
letters are estimated at 10 hours each, and the total burden hours for
meeting requests are expected to be 600 hours. Based on FDA's
experience, the Agency expects it will take respondents this amount of
time to prepare, gather, copy, and submit brief statements about the
product and a description of the purpose and details of the meeting.
    FDA estimates that 60 respondents will compile meeting information
packages and submit to FDA at 18 hours per response. Based on FDA's
experience, the Agency expects that it

will take respondents, collectively, 1,080 hours to gather, copy, and
submit brief statements about the product, a description of the details
of the anticipated meeting, and data and information, including
identifying prior FDA submissions for the product or relevant versions
of the product, that generally would already have been generated for
the planned research and/or product development.
    The total number of burden hours for this collection of information
is estimated to be 1,680 hours (600 hours to prepare and submit meeting
requests and 1,080 hours to prepare and submit information packages).
Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall
decrease of 644 hours. We attribute this adjustment to a decrease in
the number of submissions we received over the last few years and our
projections for the next 3 years.

    Dated: January 25, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-02055 Filed 2-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 140)]
[Notices]
[Page 41439-41440]
[DOCID:fr21jy06-46]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0361; FRL-8201-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Trade Secret Claims for Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA Section 322) (Renewal);
EPA ICR No. 1428.07, OMB Control No. 2050-0078

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 21,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2006-0361, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov

(our

preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail
to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund
Docket, Mail Code 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-2620; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On April 26, 2006, (71 FR 24670), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0361, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Superfund

Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Trade Secret Claims for Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA Section 322) (Renewal).
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1428.07, OMB Control No. 2050-0078.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2006.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This information collection request pertains to trade
secrecy claims submitted under section 322 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). EPCRA contains
provisions requiring facilities to report to State and local
authorities, and EPA, the presence of extremely hazardous substances
(described in section 302), inventory of hazardous chemicals (described
in sections 311 and 312) and manufacture, process and use of toxic
chemicals (described in section 313). Section 322 of EPCRA allows a
facility to withhold the specific chemical identity from these EPCRA
reports if the facility asserts a claim of trade secrecy for that
chemical identity. The provision establishes the requirements and
procedures that facilities must follow to request trade secrecy
treatment of chemical identities, as well as the procedures for
submitting public petitions to the Agency for review of the
``sufficiency'' of trade secrecy claims.
    Trade secrecy protection is provided for specific chemical
identities contained in reports submitted under each of the following
EPCRA sections: (1) 303(d)(2)--Facility notification of changes that
have or are about to occur, (2) 303(d)(3)--Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC) requests for facility information to develop or
implement emergency plans, (3) 311--Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)
submitted by facilities, or lists of those chemicals submitted in place
of the MSDSs, (4) 312--Tier II emergency and hazardous chemical
inventory forms, and (5) 313--Toxic chemical release inventory forms.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9.7
hours per claim. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are manufacturers or non-manufacturers subject to reporting
under sections 303, 311/312 or 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 481.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 4,658.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $309,000, includes $0 annualized
capital or O&M costs and $309,000 annual labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 1,175 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. The total burden hours (annual) has increased
from the previous ICR due to number of trade secret claim submitters
increased.

    Dated: July 11, 2006.
Sara Hisel McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-11611 Filed 7-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 165)]
[Notices]
[Page 43746-43752]
[DOCID:fr27au09-112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Westfield-Barnes Airport, Westfield MA; FAA Approval of Noise
Compatibility Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the noise compatibility program submitted by the Westfield
Airport Commission under the provisions of Title I of the Aviation
Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-193) and 14 CFR part
150. These findings are made in recognition of the description of
federal and non-federal responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52
(1980). On August 3, 2009, the Airports Division Manager approved the
Westfield-Barnes Airport noise compatibility program. All of the
proposed program elements were approved.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
Westfield-Barnes Airport noise compatibility program is August 3, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Doucette, Federal Aviation
Administration, New England Region, Airports Division, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803, Telephone (781) 238-
7613.
    Documents reflecting this FAA action may be obtained from the same
individual.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given
its overall approval to the Westfield-Barnes Airport noise
compatibility program, effective August 3, 2009.
    Under Section 104(a) of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act
of 1979 (hereinafter the Act), an airport operator who has previously
submitted a noise exposure map may submit to the FAA a noise
compatibility program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the noise exposure maps.
    The Act requires such programs to be developed in consultation with
interested and affected parties including local communities, government
agencies, airport users, and FAA personnel.

    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR), Part 150 is a local program,
not a federal program. The FAA does not substitute its judgment for
that of the airport proprietor with respect to which measures should be
recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of FAR Part
150 program recommendations is measured according to the standards
expressed in Part 150 and the Act, and is limited to the following
determinations:
    (a) The noise compatibility program was developed in accordance
with the provisions and procedures of FAR Part 150;
    (b) program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    (c) program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the federal government; and
    (d) program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can
be implemented within the period covered by the program without
derogating safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management
of the navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator as
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
noise compatibility program are delineated in FAR Part 150, Section
150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of
land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by
itself constitute a FAA implementing action. A request for Federal
action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures
may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an
environmental assessment of the proposed action.
    Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially
assist in the implementation of the program nor a determination that
all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid
funding from the FAA under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of
1982. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must
be submitted to the FAA Regional Office in Burlington, Massachusetts.
    The Westfield-Barnes Airport study contains a proposed noise
compatibility program comprised of actions designed for implementation
by airport management and adjacent jurisdictions from the date of study
completion to the year 2014. Westfield requested that the FAA evaluate
and approve this material as a noise compatibility program as described
in Section 104(b) of the Act. The FAA began its review of the program
on April 22, 2009, and was required by a provision of the Act to
approve or disapprove the program within 180 days (other than the use
of new flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or
disapprove such a program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to
be an approval of such a program.
    The submitted program contained 20 proposed actions for noise
mitigation. The FAA completed its review and determined that the
procedural and substantive requirements of the Act and FAR Part 150
have been satisfied. The Airports Division Manager therefore approved
the program effective August 3, 2009.

Noise Mitigation Measures

Measure N1--Modification of Aircraft Departure Tracks (Continuation of
1990 Measures 2 & 4)

    The intent of 1990 NCP Measures 2 and 4 were to modify the location
and altitude of aircraft departure tracks utilizing each of the
airport's four runways in order to minimize the level of noise caused
by aircraft and helicopter overflights on the noise-sensitive
population surrounding the airport. Measure 2 called for aircraft
operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) to perform a series of turns
designed to avoid noise-sensitive areas, while Measure 4 recommended
that aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) follow the
same procedures. The departure paths recommended by these measures in
the 1990 NCP did not significantly change the noise abatement
procedures in place at the airport at the time of the 1990 Part 150
study. The FAA approved these measures in their determination of the
1990 NCP.
    This measure restates the noise abatement procedures already in
place at the airport. The existing noise abatement departure procedure
from Runway 02 directs aircraft to turn left to a 360-degree heading
upon crossing the airport boundary until clear of noise-sensitive
facilities, after which the aircraft can proceed on course. From Runway
20, noise abatement departure flight tracks specify a left turn to a
180-degree heading upon crossing the airport boundary. Runway 33
departures are prohibited from making intersection departures, in order
to maximize the height of aircraft above the mobile home community
along the extended runway centerline. Runway 15 VFR departures are
currently directed to maintain the runway heading until crossing the
ridge line (unless otherwise directed by ATC), which reflects the
changes recommended by Measure 2.
    Approved as a voluntary measure, subject to traffic, weather, and
airspace safety and efficiency. This measure may be implemented totally
or in part as deemed feasible and appropriate by the Air Traffic
Manager for the safe and efficient movement of air traffic. Times and
levels of compliance will be determined by the Air Traffic Manager as
specific traffic management situations exist.

Measure N2--Perform a Site Selection/Feasibility Study for a Noise
Barrier South of Runway 02 (Modification of 1990 NCP Measure 5)

    1990 Measure 5 recommended the construction of a noise barrier on
the south side of the airport near the Runway 02 threshold. A noise
barrier, depending on its location, can provide relief to airport
neighbors from noise created by aircraft while on the ground, such as
the use of reverse thrust, initial departure roll, and engine run-ups.
Numerous sites were evaluated in the 1990 Part 150 study; however, only
one proved to have the potential to significantly reduce noise
exposure.
    A noise barrier, constructed of either an earthen berm or manmade
wall (or a combination of both) could provide noise attenuation from
aircraft ground movements. A berm would be placed in the location
closest to the source of noise, subject to an FAR Part 77 obstruction
analysis, and would need to provide at least a 5 dB single-event
reduction in order to qualify for AIP funding. With the introduction of
the F-15 aircraft at BAF, the ability of a noise barrier to reduce
noise exposure near the departure end of Runway 02 may reduce the
transmission of ground noise from the source (aircraft) to the receiver
(densely populated residential land uses located along Old Holyoke
Road). It is expected that a noise barrier would provide benefits to
residents located south of the Massachusetts Turnpike from noise due to
the use of F-15 afterburners during departures from Runway 02. This
measure would direct the airport to perform a feasibility study that
would evaluate the optimal location and construction technique that
would provide the greatest benefit to

airport neighbors, in addition to identifying the costs and benefits
associated with its construction.
    Approved. The previous study did not contemplate the presence of F-
15s. This noise barrier study should not repeat work previously done,
but should determine feasibility of a noise barrier to mitigate noise
created by the new aircraft.

Measure N3--Encourage the Use of GPS, RNAV, WAAS, and FMS Equipment To
Enhance Noise Abatement Navigation (New Measure)

    This new measure would encourage the creation and use of advanced
navigation techniques for implementation at the airport. The use of
RNAV, GPS, FMS, and WAAS systems collectively will allow the better
utilization of noise abatement departure procedures as well as more
accurate approaches, with the benefit of reducing noise exposure over
noise-sensitive land uses around an airport.
    The measure recommends the continued use of advanced navigation
techniques, and as technology and its adaptation increases, the airport
should identify and evaluate the use of alternative arrival and
departure corridors and the refinement of existing corridors. No
further action would be required, and the recommendation of this
measure is a policy statement as opposed to a statement of action.
    Approved.

Land Use Mitigation Measures

Measure L1--Offer Voluntary Acquisition to Residential Structures
Contiguous to the Future (2014) DNL 70 dB Noise Exposure Contour (New
Measure)

    Acquisition programs are generally instituted in the most impacted
areas around an airport, usually defined as those within the DNL 75 or
70 dB noise exposure contour. The programs are voluntary, and are
subject to the provisions set forth in the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (49 CFR Part 24)
(Uniform Act). This measure would offer voluntary acquisition to the
residential land uses located contiguous to the DNL 70 dB noise
exposure contour. There are approximately 52 parcels affected by this
measure in the residential area south of the Massachusetts Turnpike.
    Federal funding for noise compatibility projects undertaken by
airports is eligible only after an airport has completed and approved a
Noise Compatibility Program. Property can be acquired by an airport
either through condemnation (eminent domain) or through voluntary
means, such as easements or fee simple purchase. A general outline of
the procedures involved in the implementation of this measure follows.
    Following the approval by the FAA of this NCP, and assuming AIP
grant funding is available, the City of Westfield will, either through
its own administrative means or by soliciting bids for professional
services, begin the acquisition process. The City's designated party
will hire a qualified professional, independent appraiser in order to
initially identify a property's fair market value. The property owner
is encouraged to attend the initial appraisal. Following the appraisal,
the Uniform Act specifies that the appraisal must be reviewed by a
qualified review appraiser, whose purpose is to comprehensively assess
the validity and reasonableness of the final valuation conclusion. This
appraisal will be used to identify the fair market value of a
residence, which is the basis for the City's offer. The determined fair
market value is considered ``just compensation'' and does not include
relocation costs, which are discussed later in the process. Following
the appraisal of the property the airport will begin negotiations with
the property owner, with an offer that it believes is just compensation
for the property, but not less than the appraised fair market value.
The initiation of negotiations officially begins with the City's
submission of a written offer to the property owner.
    The sale of the property to the City would be similar to the sale
of the property to a private seller, and includes the completion of a
sales contract, transfer of title, and an executed deed. Following the
closure of the sale, the airport owner or designee will provide written
notice 90 days in advance of the moving date.
    Participation in the acquisition program as offered in this NCP
would be voluntary, and participation in the program will qualify a
homeowner for the benefits outlined in the Uniform Act and implementing
regulations (49 CFR Part 24).
    Approved.

Measure L2--Acquire and Relocate the Arbor Mobile Home Park (New
Measure)

    This measure would allow the City of Westfield to acquire the
property on which the Arbor Mobile Home Park resides, located within
the DNL 65 dB Future (2014) Noise Exposure Contour, and to facilitate
the relocation of mobile home owners and rental tenants. Typically,
noncompatible land uses within the DNL 65 dB noise contours are offered
participation in sound insulation programs; however, mobile homes are
not eligible for sound insulation under AIP guidelines. The Arbor
Mobile Home Park is located directly to the west of the airport and
southwest of the terminal and office complex. The property is
approximately 5 acres in area and contains approximately 58 residential
lots. Under the Future (2014) Noise Exposure Contour, residences in
these areas are expected to experience DNL levels ranging from 65 to 70
dB. It is anticipated that this measure would be implemented as
follows. The airport would first, either through the City of Westfield
or through soliciting professional services, appraise the property,
submit a written offer to the park owner, and upon mutual acceptance of
the offer, take ownership of the property. The City of Westfield would
become the landlord of the property, and could either retain existing
management or hire a mobile home park manager to continue to operate
the mobile home park during the relocation process. Following the
hiring of an acquisition specialist to assist with the implementation
of the relocation program, the airport would initiate the relocation of
the mobile home park residents.
    Approved.

Measure L3--Sound Insulate Residential Structures Within the DNL 65 dB
Noise Exposure Contour and Contiguous Areas (Continuation of 1990
Measure 10)

    A sound insulation program is an airport-sponsored program designed
to reduce the interior audibility of aircraft overflights through
modifications and replacement of building materials. In its most common
form, a sound insulation program reduces the ability of sound energy to
enter a structure through replacement of windows and sealants, the
addition of efficient climate control systems, the reduction of
structural air passages (modifications to venting), attic or wall
insulation, and the installation of solid core doors. Windows and
doors, as well as the seals that surround them, are the most common
elements of an effective program.
    The goal of a sound insulation program is to reduce the interior
intrusion of aircraft overflights to a point that minimal interference
with daily activities, such as telephone conversations, watching
television, and sleep, occur. FAA guidelines specify that the goal of a
sound insulation program is an interior noise level of DNL 45 dB, which
generally requires a

Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of approximately 20 dB from the outside to
the inside of a structure, depending on the noise level in which the
structure resides. For example, residences located within the DNL 70 dB
noise exposure contour should have an NLR of at least 25 dB, to achieve
an interior design goal of DNL 45 dB. The type of mitigation offered in
a sound insulation program is related to the NLR of the existing
structure, with a minimum goal of achieving at least a 5 dB noise
reduction.
    A total of 364 residences (including those identified in Measure
L1) have been identified as being potentially eligible for
participation in a sound insulation program. A residence is considered
impacted, and therefore potentially eligible for inclusion in the sound
insulation program, if the DNL 65 dB noise exposure contour falls
within the parcel boundary of a property. Additionally, properties that
comprise a contiguous residential area are also included as potentially
eligible. A total of 52 properties are expected to be impacted by noise
levels of DNL 70 dB or greater (or comprise a contiguous area), while
the remaining residences are expected to be impacted by noise levels of
DNL 65 dB or greater or represent contiguous areas adjacent to the DNL
65 dB noise contour. Although attempts have been made through the Part
150 process to identify all residential structures located within the
DNL 65 dB noise contour, it is possible that some may not have been
identified. This measure is designed to include all potentially-
eligible residential structures within the DNL 65 dB noise exposure
contour, even if not included in a zone as mentioned above.
    Approved.

Measure L4--Remedial Easement Acquisition (Continuation of 1990 Measure
11)

    The primary vehicle for obtaining avigation easements in a Part 150
mitigation program is in exchange for sound insulation improvements.
However, due to the voluntary nature of the sound insulation program
(Measure L3), property owners may elect to decline participation for
various reasons, such as having previously performed home renovations.
In such cases, an airport sponsor may elect to offer the property owner
a one-time fee in exchange for an avigation easement. With the signing
of an avigation easement, a property owner gives the airport the right
of flight over the property, and also, in some cases, agrees to a
restriction of future modifications or changes of land use. An airport
will then hold the easement until sold or released. The avigation
easement, as a legal document, would be attached to the property deed
and, in the case of sale of the property, would be transferred to any
future owners.
    Approved.

Measure L5--Sound Insulate Educational Facilities and Places of Worship
(New Measure)

    No schools or places of worship are located within the DNL 65 dB
noise exposure contour. However, noise-sensitive facilities are located
immediately adjacent to the DNL 65 dB noise exposure contour, therefore
this measure recommends that the airport investigate the feasibility of
sound insulating those facilities deemed eligible for mitigation. Five
noise-sensitive facilities have been preliminarily identified as
potential candidates for sound insulation, based on their proximity to
the Future (2014) DNL 65 dB Noise Exposure Contour. Westfield North
Middle School and Southampton Road Elementary School, located to the
west of the airport, the Russian Evangelical Church and Word of Grace
Church, located to the north of the airport along North Road, and Our
Lady of Blessed Sacrament Church, located along Holyoke Road south of
the airport, all may potentially be eligible for sound insulation.
    The airport would first, for each facility, perform acoustic
testing in order to determine each building's eligibility for sound
insulation. Proposals to sound insulate each facility will be
coordinated closely with both the City of Westfield and the FAA. The
first step in the process would be to perform a feasibility study,
which would identify the building NLR and the impacts of aircraft
noise, and also identify the times the facility is open and use of the
facility by the community.
    Eligibility for sound insulation of noise sensitive facilities is
determined not only by the building's NLR, but also on the use of the
facility. For example, a facility that is only in use during evening
hours when aircraft activity is low may not be deemed eligible. Pending
the results of the feasibility study, and ultimately, City of Westfield
and FAA approval of the proposal, the design phase, which identifies
the type of modifications needed to meet FAA guidelines, would begin,
followed by construction and a post modification evaluation. It is
expected that the priority for both the feasibility investigation and
sound insulation, if eligible, would be begin with Westfield North
Middle School and Southampton Road Elementary School. Pending available
funding and the amount of time each of the churches are utilized by
members of the community for educational and worship services,
feasibility studies and potential sound insulation may be pursued for
each.
    Disapproved. The Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) show none of the
schools are within the DNL 65 dB noise contour either now or in the
future. One of the first criteria for determining whether a measure
meets part 150 approval standards is that the area to be mitigated must
be within that NEM contour. The airport sponsor has not provided NEMs
that show a local standard (i.e., DNL 60 dB) has been adopted by the
local jurisdiction with land use authority. Until and unless the
schools are located within the adopted NEM contours, the FAA may not
consider approval of this measure.

Measure L6--Preventive Easement Acquisition (Continuation of 1990
Measure 14)

    Similar to the acquisition of easements through sound insulation
and purchase assurance programs, easements can be acquired in order to
prevent future incompatible development in specified areas. In the case
of easement acquisition of undeveloped or compatible land uses, they
can act as a deterrent for future incompatible development. This
measure would allow airport and City of Westfield to prevent future
incompatible development within the DNL 65 dB noise exposure contour
without proper sound attenuation materials or other development
controls.
    Approved.

Measure L7--Modify Existing Zoning Within the DNL 65 dB Noise Exposure
Contour

    A very common and effective method for reducing both existing and
potential noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of airports is
modifications to the existing zoning code. A zoning code establishes
permitted and non-permitted uses in geographic areas surrounding an
airport, and includes regulations pertaining to elements such as
height, density, and siting of buildings. A community relies on its
zoning code to promote orderly growth and safe separation of many
differing types of land uses. When considering airport noise issues,
various approaches to conventional zoning are often considered. Zoning
for compatible land uses within a specified boundary, such as the DNL
65 dB noise exposure contour, entails eliminating zoning designations
that would allow for

noncompatible development, such as residential districts. Changing
these zoning designations from an incompatible land use to a compatible
land use, such as commercial or industrial, would promote compatible
land uses in noise sensitive areas. Alternatively, a jurisdiction may
not desire to eliminate the feasibility of incompatible development,
but may rather reduce the density of permitted residential units or to
increase the size of residential lots in areas near the airport. An
analysis of zoned land within the DNL 65 dB noise exposure contour
indicated that approximately 398 acres of incompatibly zoned land uses
are within the contour.
    Approved. The Federal Government has no authority to control local
land use. Local governments have the authority to implement this
measure. The FAA prefers that no new noise-sensitive development be
allowed within the DNL 65 dB, and this measure will help achieve that
goal.

Measure L8--Voluntary Undeveloped Land Acquisitions (Continuation of
1990 Measure 16)

    Preventive land acquisition works in a manner similar to preventive
easement acquisition, and the two are often paired prior to resale or
development of potentially incompatible land. In some instances, land
may become available for purchase in a noise-sensitive area, and in
order to prevent future incompatible development, an airport or sponsor
may choose to purchase the land and apply land use controls designed to
discourage incompatible development. Factors to consider in this
measure include the amount of available land, the ability of an airport
or jurisdiction to make available the funds required to purchase the
land, and the development potential of the land in question. Land uses
that are generally compatible with airport options may not need to be
purchased, as their noncompatible development potential is low.
Generally, these types of purchases are eligible for AIP funding;
however, the airport may be obligated to utilize the funds resulting
from the sale of the land for other noise mitigation purposes or return
the funds to the Aviation Trust Fund.
    Approved.

Measure L9--Airport Noise Overlay District (Continuation of 1990
Measure 12)

    This measure recommends that the City of Westfield pursue the
development of an Airport Noise Overlay District (ANOD) based on the
Future (2014) Noise Exposure Contour. An Airport Noise Overlay District
can require noise-level disclosure in real estate transactions, and
could also require specified noise level reduction in the construction
of new structures or the modification of existing structures. The
measure can also prohibit non-compatible development within a specified
boundary, such as the DNL 65 dB noise contour, or establish ``buffer
zones'' that impose restrictions on noise-sensitive development in the
area between the non-compatible area and the fully compatible areas
beyond. Typical elements of an airport noise overlay district include a
statement of purpose and intent, definitions of common terms,
applicability, permitted uses as well as exemptions and nonconforming
structures, a permitted use table, and NLR requirements.
    The WAC and Airport Staff will need to work in conjunction with
City of Westfield officials and staff, and ultimately, the public in
order to define the goals, restrictions, and boundaries of an Airport
Noise Overlay District. Primarily, consensus on the boundary of an
overlay district, whether defined as the DNL 65 dB of the Future (2014)
Noise Exposure Contour or a geographic boundary that encompasses areas
considered by the City of Westfield to be noise sensitive land uses,
needs to be identified. Following that determination, various types of
land use restrictions need to be evaluated, including potential
restrictions on new non-compatible development, noise disclosure,
acquisition of easements, and limitations on modifications to existing
structures. Finally, the issue of identifying a buffer zone beyond the
limits of areas considered to be impacted by noise exposure should be
considered. Ultimately, the recommendations of the WAC can be presented
to City of Westfield officials, at which time the ANOD would be subject
to the standard public process of all changes to the City of Westfield
zoning regulations.
    Approved. The Federal Government has no authority to control local
land use. Local governments have the authority to implement this
measure. The FAA prefers that no new noise-sensitive development be
allowed within the DNL 65 dB, and this measure will help achieve that
goal.

Measure L10--Environmental Review (Continuation of 1990 Measure 13)

    This measure recommends the City of Westfield to include airport
staff during the course of administrative review of proposals for land
use development in areas either within the DNL 65 dB noise exposure
contour or in another defined boundary, such as an Airport Noise
Overlay District (Measure L9). As is currently the practice in the City
of Westfield, the airport manager participates in a weekly round table
discussion of development that is located in the vicinity of the
airport, and may be affected by aircraft overflights.
    Approved.

Measure L11--Real Estate Disclosure (Continuation of 1990 Measure 15)

    Measure L11 directs the Airport Manager to continue pursuing the
implementation of real estate disclosure through both coordination with
local real estate professionals to include information about airport
noise and overflights, and through the inclusion of a noise disclosure
ordinance attached to a property deed.
    Real estate notices are an effective means of acknowledgement of
potential impacts from aircraft overflights in an area surrounding an
airport to perspective property owners. Real estate disclosure notices,
if implemented by local or State real estate associations, can
effectively incorporate information about aircraft overflights, the
location of the property in relation to the airport or flight patterns,
and potential effects in either a legal document (through an easement)
or in real estate marketing materials.
    Noise disclosure ordinances typically address property either
within the 65 dB DNL noise exposure contour, which is considered
incompatible with airport operations according to Federal guidelines,
or in other predefined boundaries around an airport. At the City of
Westfield discretion, the disclosure ordinance should be expanded to
include property within the DNL 60 dB noise exposure contour or the
proposed Airport Noise Overlay District.
    Approved. The Federal Government has no authority to control local
land use. Local governments have the authority to implement this
measure. The FAA prefers that no new noise-sensitive development be
allowed within the DNL 65 dB, and this measure will help achieve that
goal.

Measure L12--Modify Subdivision Regulation

    Subdivision regulations apply to large areas of compatibly-zoned
land that have yet to be subdivided or that may be changed from one
zoning category to another to permit development. The City of Westfield
Planning Board administers the Rules and Regulations Governing the
Subdivision of Land in Westfield, in accordance with the General Laws
of Massachusetts (M.G.L.)

Chapter 41 Section 81K to GG, often referred to as the ``Subdivision
Control Law.'' These regulations ensure the proper arrangement of
roads, establish open space guidelines, ensure adequate public
utilities such as water and sewer service, conformance with applicable
City of Westfield Zoning Ordinances, and ensure an orderly and
efficient layout of the subdivision. This measure directs the Airport
Manager to pursue the inclusion of methods such as the incorporation of
noise attenuating standards, noise disclosure, or the dedication of
easements in the regulation of proposed subdivisions that may be
impacted by aircraft noise as promulgated by the City of Westfield.
    Approved. The Federal Government has no authority to control local
land use. Local governments have the authority to implement this
measure. The FAA prefers that no new noise-sensitive development be
allowed within the DNL 65 dB, and this measure will help achieve that
goal.

Measure L13--Recommend Building Code Modifications

    Modifications to building codes can include elements to address the
inclusion of sound insulation materials, such as windows and doors with
higher Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings and other elements
designed to reduce the transmission of sound from the exterior
environment to the interior of a structure. Building code revisions
only address new construction and significant modifications to existing
structures. The City of Westfield, in accord with all other
jurisdictions in Massachusetts, adheres to the Massachusetts State
Building Code, 7th Edition as its guiding document. All construction
and renovation of detached one and two family homes are regulated by
the Board of Building Regulations and Standards (BBRS). As such, any
changes designed to address airport noise would require modifications
to the state code. This measure directs the Airport Manager to continue
to engage the BBRS to encourage changes in the state building code that
include requirements to address noise impacts from aircraft sources.
While changes to the State building code are outside of the scope of
Part 150, it is recommended that the airport, in conjunction with other
airports around the state, further investigate the feasibility and
practicality of suggesting these revisions.
    Approved. The Federal Government has no authority to control local
land use. Local governments have the authority to implement this
measure. The FAA prefers that no new noise-sensitive development be
allowed within the DNL 65 dB, and this measure will help achieve that
goal.

Program Management Measures

Measure P1--Establish a Noise Mitigation Advisory Committee
(Continuation of 1990 Measure 9)

    This measure directs the airport and Westfield Airport Commission
to establish a Noise Mitigation Advisory Committee to assist with the
management and communication of noise issues. The WAC could solicit a
group of individuals comprising of the Airport Manager or designee,
personnel from various airport tenants, including staff from the MAANG,
City of Westfield Planning Department staff, elected officials, and
representatives from neighborhood groups or subdivisions. The mission
of the committee would be to disseminate information about operations
at the airport, to monitor the implementation of various mitigation
measures, and to provide an ongoing dialog that links the City of
Westfield and surrounding communities with Westfield-Barnes Airport. It
is anticipated that the Noise Mitigation Advisory Committee would meet
twice per year, depending on the implementation of the mitigation
measures recommended in the NCP.
    Approved.

Measure P2--Institute a Community Awareness Program (New Measure)

    A community awareness program consists of educational materials
designed to help members of the public understand the characteristics
of operations at the airport. One of the largest obstacles to airport
growth and development is a lack of understanding of the type of
operations at an airport. A community awareness program provides
details about airport tenants, the types of operations flown, and the
times of days operations are flown. Additionally, these programs share
the pilot's and airport tenant's perspectives, information regarding
planning and development, and any temporary construction projects that
would change the typical operating conditions at the airport. This type
of program could also provide detail on various noise and land use
mitigation projects undertaken by the airport.
    Changes anticipated to occur at BAF, including the change in
mission and fleet of the 104th FW, the associated development projects,
and the potential mitigation programs collectively warrant the
publication of materials designed to convey this information to the
public. This measure directs the Airport Manager to transmit
information as provided in Measure P1 to the larger public in the City
of Westfield.
    Approved.

Measure P3--Institute a Fly Quiet Program (New Measure)

    This measure recommends that the airport create and institute a Fly
Quiet Program for use at the airport which would build upon the
existing noise abatement departure procedures already in place. A Fly
Quiet Program can include a number of measures designed to educate
pilots and other aircraft tenants about noise sensitive uses in the
airport environs. Among the range of measures that can be included are
the installation of signage at each runway end reminding pilots about
the noise abatement procedures, the creation of a color-coded map that
identifies noise-sensitive land uses in the airport environs, and
brochures keeping airport tenants aware of noise-related community
concerns, as well as encouraging the use of both NBAA noise abatement
procedures and AOPA Noise Awareness Steps.
    Approved. Wording for publications and signage, and location of any
on-airport signage, must be coordinated with the FAA before final
issuance. Publications/signage should not imply that voluntary noise
abatement measures are mandatory.

Measure P4--Periodic Evaluation of Noise Exposure (Continuation of 1990
Measure 8)

    This measure would direct the Westfield Airport Commission to
periodically update the noise exposure maps at the airport either
within a five-year time frame or when operating conditions at the
airport change (such as the addition of air carrier operations or a
further change in mission or operating characteristics of the 104th
FW). The implementation of this measure would ensure a continuation of
the evaluation of noise exposure, and would also allow for
modifications to the boundaries of various land use mitigation programs
should the need arise.
    Approved. NEMs should be updated as required by the Part 150
Statute.
    FAA's determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval endorsed by the Airports Division Manager on August 3, 2009.
The Record of Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the
documents comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA
office listed above and at the administrative offices of Westfield-
Barnes Airport, Westfield MA.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on August 3, 2009.
LaVerne F. Reid,
Manager, Airports Division, FAA New England Region.
[FR Doc. E9-20730 Filed 8-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 198)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63139-63140]
[DOCID:fr14oc10-29]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0715; FRL-9214-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans--Maricopa
County (Phoenix) PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for
Attainment of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard; Clean Air Act Section 189(d)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54806), EPA published a proposed
rule proposing to approve in part and disapprove in part State
implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Arizona
to meet, among other requirements, section 189(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the serious Maricopa County (Phoenix) nonattainment area
(Maricopa area). Specifically, EPA proposed to disapprove provisions of
the 189(d) plan because they do not meet applicable CAA requirements
for emissions inventories as well as for attainment, five percent
annual emission reductions, reasonable further progress and milestones,
and contingency measures. EPA also proposed to disapprove the 2010
motor vehicle emission budget in the 189(d) plan as not meeting the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA also
proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of State
regulations for the control of PM-10 from agricultural sources.
Finally, EPA proposed to approve various provisions of State statutes
relating to the control of PM-10 emissions in the Maricopa area.
    EPA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule from
October 12, 2010 to October 20, 2010.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0715, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Gregory Nudd (Air-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Nudd, U.S. EPA Region 9, 415-
947-4107<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/
actions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54806), EPA
published a proposed rule proposing to approve in part and disapprove
in part State implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Arizona to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements
applicable to the serious Maricopa County (Phoenix) nonattainment area
(Maricopa area). These requirements apply to the Maricopa area
following EPA's June 6, 2007 finding that the area failed to meet its
December 31, 2006 serious area deadline to attain the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter of ten microns or
less (PM-10). Under CAA section 189(d), Arizona was required to submit
a plan by December 31, 2007 providing for expeditious attainment of the
PM-10 NAAQS and for an annual emission reduction in PM-10 or PM-10
precursors of not less than five percent per year until attainment
(189(d) plan).
    In the Agency's September 9, 2010 proposed rule, EPA proposed to
disapprove provisions of the 189(d) plan for the Maricopa area because
they do not meet applicable CAA requirements for emissions inventories
as well as for attainment, five percent annual emission reductions,
reasonable further progress and milestones, and contingency measures,
and to disapprove the 2010 motor vehicle emission budget in the 189(d)
plan as not meeting the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). EPA also proposed a limited approval and limited
disapproval of State regulations for the control of PM-10 from
agricultural sources. Finally, EPA proposed to approve various
provisions of State statutes relating to the control of PM-10 emissions
in the Maricopa area.
    The September 9, 2010 proposed rule provided a 30-day public
comment period ending on October 12, 2010. In response to a request for
an extension of the comment period from Benjamin H. Grumbles, Director,
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and Dennis Smith,
Executive Director, Maricopa Association of Governments, submitted by
letter dated October 4, 2010, EPA is extending the comment period to
October 20, 2010.

    Dated: October 7, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-26019 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 90834-90835]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1818-012; ER10-1817-013; ER10-1819-014; ER10-
1820-017.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Second Supplement to January 14, 2016 Triennial Market
Power Analysis and Notice of Change in Status of Public Service Company
of Colorado, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20161207-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-27-001.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Additional Revisions
Attachment N and O to be effective 10/14/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/8/16.
    Accession Number: 20161208-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-75-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Queue Position X4-048/Y2-089,
Service Agreement No. 3837 to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20161207-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-394-000.
    Applicants: KMC Thermo, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to November 18, 2016 KMC Thermo, LLC tariff
filing (Notice of Change in Status).
    Filed Date: 12/7/16.
    Accession Number: 20161207-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-506-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-12-08_SA 2979 Ameren
Illinois-J. Aron & Co. FCA (Hennepin) to be effective 10/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/8/16.
    Accession Number: 20161208-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-507-000.
    Applicants: Georgia Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: GPCo 2016 PBOP Filing to be
effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/8/16.
    Accession Number: 20161208-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-508-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PBOP 2016 Filing to be
effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/8/16.
    Accession Number: 20161208-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-509-000.
    Applicants: Southern Electric Generating Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SEGCo 2016 PBOP Filing to be
effective 1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/8/16.
    Accession Number: 20161208-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings

must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but
intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 8, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30128 Filed 12-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 45198-45200]
[DOCID:fr01se09-57]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2009-0678; FRL-8951-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Confidentiality Rules (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1665.09,
OMB Control No. 2020-0003

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit the following continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is scheduled to
expire on February 28, 2010. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for
review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of
the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OEI-2009-0678, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information Docket (OEI),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Mail
code: 28221T, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-
2009-0678. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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, 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 EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry F. Gottesman, National Freedom
of Information Act Officer, Collection Strategies Division, Office of
Information Collection, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OEI-2009-0678, or in person viewing at the OEI Docket in the
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c) (2) (A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
businesses or other for-profit entities.
    Title: Confidentiality Rules (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1665.09, OMB Control No. 2020-0003.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on February
28, 2010. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: In the course of administering environmental protection
statutes, EPA collects data from thousands of facilities in many
sectors of the U.S. economy. In many cases, industry marks the data it
submits to EPA as CBI. In addition, businesses submit information to
EPA without the Agency requesting the information. EPA established the
procedures described in 40 CFR part 2, subparts A and B, to protect the
confidentiality of information as well as the rights of the public to
obtain access to information under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). In accordance with these regulations, when EPA finds it
necessary to make a final confidentiality determination (e.g., in
response to a FOIA request or in the course of rulemaking or
litigation), or in advance confidentiality determination, it shall
notify the effected business and provides an opportunity to comment
(i.e., to submit a substantiation of confidentiality claim). This ICR
relates to the collection of information that will assist EPA in
determining whether previously submitted information is entitled to
confidential treatment.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is

estimated to average 14 hours to prepare and submit each substantiation
or 6,302 hours. In addition, EPA utilizes the services of contractors/
subcontractors under the authority of 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, all
contractors/subcontractors who may be given access to confidential
business information must first sign confidentiality agreements state
that they will honor the terms of the contract/subcontract which
requires the protection of CBI. The annual total burden for signing and
maintaining the agreements would be 130.3 hours. 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; adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently
changed; training personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; searching data sources; completing and reviewing the
collection of information; and transmitting or otherwise disclosing the
information. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's
estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 1,330.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 6,521 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $212,185.24. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $0 for capital investment or maintenance and
operational costs.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

    No.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a) (1)
(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity
to submit comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the technical person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: August 26, 2009.
John Moses,
Division Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E9-21120 Filed 8-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P