Table 25:  Annual PM2.5 source impacts assuming a 250 tpy surface level release of each precursor pollutant.

The Shawano County MERP hypothetical source has the highest secondary PM2.5 impact for both the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS in Wisconsin.  Based on the Shawano County hypothetical source modeled impacts, the highest secondary PM2.5 impact a new minor source could potentially have is 0.448 ug/m3 on a 24-hour basis and 0.012 ug/m3 on an annual basis.  The highest 2018-2020 24-hour PM2.5 design value in Wisconsin is 22 ug/m[3], well below the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 ug/m[3].  The highest 2018-2020 annual PM2.5 design value in Wisconsin is 9.0 ug/m[3], below the annual PM2.5 primary NAAQS of 12 ug/m[3].  For both averaging times, there is enough room between the PM2.5 NAAQS and the sum of monitored background and peak secondary PM2.5 impacts to accommodate the direct PM2.5 impact of a new or modified ethanol production facility.  Further evidence of this is demonstrated by the trend in monitored PM2.5 values.  Figure 17 and Figure 18 show that PM2.5 design values are trending lower at all monitors across the state.

Similar to ozone, PM2.5 impacts from clustered ethanol production facilities are unlikely to have a significant impact.  As discussed as part of the ozone impact analysis in section VI.3.B.viii, we note that multiple ethanol production facilities will not construct within 30 km of each other because increased competition for resources raises the price of corn.  Because Wisconsin has been developing its ethano industry since 2007, the location of permitted facilities shown in Figure 26 further demonstrates that multiple ethanol production facilities will not construct near each other.  While secondary impacts may affect downwind PM2.5 concentrations, direct impacts will likely remain within 30 km of the source since direct impacts are dispersed based on stack height, stack temperature, and stack velocity.

Ambient PM2.5 design values remain below the level of the NAAQS, design values continue to trend downward even while existing ethanol production facilities continue to operate, and it is unlikely that minor ethano production facilities will construct near each other.  For these reasons, we conclude that the proposed SIP revision will not interfere with the PM2.5 NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or other applicable CAA requirements.

VI.3.D New and Modified Source SO2 Impacts

Allowable SO2 emissions from permitted ethanol production facilities are well below the 250 tpy PSD major source threshold.  As shown in Table 2, allowable emissions are below 100 tpy for all permitted ethanol production facilities in Wisconsin.  This suggests that new or modified ethanol production facilities are unlikely to emit up to 250 tpy of SO2 per year.

From Table 5, the highest reported 2020 actual emissions was 7.9 tons.  As a percentage of total emissions, the 2017 NEI show that permitted ethanol production facility actual emissions is less than 0.1% of statewide point source emissions (see Table 7).  2020 ethanol production facility actual emissions are less than 0.2% of 2020 statewide stationary source actual emissions.

As shown in Figure 20, SO2 design values are trending downward across the state of Wisconsin with 2018-2020 design values below the level of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.  Construction of a new ethanol production facility or modification of an existing ethanol production facility is unlikely to significantly contribute to SO2 emissions in any given area within the state.  As a result, the construction of a new ethanol production facility or modification of an existing ethanol production facility is unlikely to interfere with attainment or maintenance of the SO2 -  NAAQS or reasonable further progress.

VI.3.E New and Modified Source NO2 Impacts

Currently permitted ethanol production facilities in Wisconsin have allowable emission limits of less than 200 tpy of NOX (see Table 2).  From Table 5, the highest 2020 actual emissions of NOX was 101.2 tpy.  As a percentage of total statewide NOX emissions, 2020 ethanol production facility actual NOX emissions account for 1.5% of actual emissions (see Table 6).  2020 actual emissions accounted for 1.0 of statewide point source NOX emissions in the 2017 NEI (see Table 8).  Currently permitted ethanol production facilities account for a small portion of NOX emissions in the state.  It is likely that any new ethanol production facility in the state will have NOX emissions that are similar to currently permitted ethanol production facilities.  As a result, NOX emissions will not increase substantially.

As state above in section III.3, Wisconsin has been implementing the 2007 Ethanol Rule since 2007.  Since that time, most permitted ethanol production facilities in Wisconsin constructed and began operation.  However, from Figure 10 and Figure 11, 1-hour and annual NO2 design values at all ambient monitors in the state have steadily remained well below the 1-hour and annual NO2 NAAQS.  This includes representative ambient NO2 monitors that are sited downwind of currently permitted ethanol production facilities (see Figure 9).  None of the monitors have shown a NAAQS violation.

Since NO2 design values have historically remained steady below the 1-hour and annual NO2 NAAQS, and NO2 emissions from ethanol production facilities are a small fraction of total NO2 emissions, EPA concludes that approval of the SIP will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the 1-hour or annual NO2 NAAQS.

VI.3.F New and Modified Source CO Impacts

Currently permitted ethanol production facilities emit less than 200 tpy of CO (see Table 2).  From Table 5, the highest 2020 actual CO emissions is 59.5 tpy.  As a percentage of total statewide CO emissions, ethanol production facility emissions account for 1.5% of stationary source emissions (see Table 6).  2020 actual emissions from ethanol production facilities were less than 1% of statewide point source CO emissions in the 2017 NEI (see Table 7).  From this, we observe that currently permitted ethanol production facilities account for a small portion of CO emissions in the state.  It is likely that any new ethanol production facility in the state will have CO emissions that are similar to permitted ethanol production facilities.  As a result, ethanol production facility CO emissions are unlikely to increase as a result of this SIP approval.

Since 2007, most permitted ethanol production facilities constructed and began operation.  However, from Figure 7 and Figure 8, 1-hour and 8-hour CO design values at all ambient monitors in the state have steadily remained well below the 1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS between 2008 and 2020.  This includes representative ambient CO monitors that are sited downwind of currently permitted ethanol production facilities (see Figure 6).  None of the monitors have shown a CO NAAQS violation.

Since CO design values have historically remained below the 1-hour and 8-hour CO NAAQS and ethanol production facility CO emissions are a small fraction of total CO emissions, EPA concludes that approval of this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the 1-hour or 8-hour CO NAAQS, reasonable further progress, or applicable CAA requirements.

VII. Conclusion
EPA is proposing to approve revised requirements NR 405.02(22)(a)1 and NR 405.07(4)(a)(22)20 into Wisconsin's SIP.  This SIP revision revises the PSD definition of major stationary source to exclude ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation from the chemical process plant source category.  The proposed revision is consistent with the Federal PSD definition of major stationary source at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i)(a).  Based on our analysis of statewide emission inventories, design value trends, factors affecting the location of ethanol production facilities, and secondary impacts, EPA concludes that the revision to Wisconsin's SIP does not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA as required by CAA Section 110(l).  EPA is taking no action with respect to the NA NSR revision at NR 408.

Wisconsin adopted the revision on July 31, 2008.  Although adopted in 2008, Wisconsin has implemented the revised language since 2007.  Ethanol production in Wisconsin has increased since 2007, as shown in Figure 4.  Emissions from permitted ethanol production facilities make up approximately 3.2% of statewide PM10 emissions and less than 2% of all other criteria pollutants in the Wisconsin emissions inventory (see Table 6).  In general, air quality for each monitored criteria pollutant has improved since 2007.  Although Wisconsin has ozone nonattainment areas, existing ethanol production facilities are unlikely to construct in a nonattainment area (see Section VI.3.A, B and D, above).  Based on our analysis of future impacts in Section VI.3.A through F above, approval of this SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants or other applicable requirements as required by CAA Section 110(l).

Secondary impacts from future ethanol production facilities at the revised potential major source threshold of 250 tpy of NOX, VOC, and SO2 would not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS for ozone or PM2.5 (see Section VI.3.B and C, above).  Since ethanol production facilities tend to be located more than 30 km from each other, it is not likely that multiple ethanol production facilities would locate close together (see Section VI.3.B.viii), supporting the conclusion that cumulative impacts of multiple ethanol production facilities would not interfere with NAAQS attainment or maintenance, reasonable further progress, or other applicable requirements as required by CAA Section 110(l).

Although the proposed revision would exclude ethanol production facilities form the chemical process plant source category, ethanol production facilities affected by the SIP revision will remain subject to NSPA and NESHAP requirements.  All existing ethanol production facilities are Title V or FESOP sources, ensuring that each source has monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements sufficient to determine compliance with all applicable requirements.  Future construction of new minor ethanol production facilities or minor modifications to exiting ethanol production facilities would still be subject ot minor NSR at NR 406 as required by CAA Section 110(a)(2)(c).  This ensures that such ethanol production facilities will not increase emissions without an evaluation of necessary emissions controls to prevent interference with maintenance and attainment for the NAAQS.  Since the revision only revises the definition of major stationary source under PSD, all other requirements remain unaffected by this approval.


[Federal Register: July 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 126)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38058-38061]
[DOCID:fr01jy10-25]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0642; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-332-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    * * * [F]uel leaks and failed fasteners [have been reported] in
the region of the rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing
rib 2. * * *
* * * * *

The unsafe condition is stress corrosion failures in the region of the
rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing rib 2, which could lead
to reduced structural integrity of the wing, and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane. The proposed AD would require actions
that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the
MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department,
Prestwick

International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom;
telephone +44 1292 675207; facsimile +44 1292 675704; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.baesystems.com/
Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0642;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-332-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0270 R1, dated November 7, 2007 (referred
to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    British Aerospace originally issued Service Bulletin (SB) 57-033
in 1989 to detect fuel leaks and failed fasteners in the region of
the rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing rib 2.
Accomplishment of this SB was mandated by the [Civil Aviation
Authority] CAA United Kingdom AD 044-09-89. Revisions 1 through 7 of
this SB were introduced to inspect pre mod HCM01447A standard
installations for fuel leaks and loose or broken bolts. Modification
HCM01447A introduced tension bolts in the attachment fitting instead
of the previous Hi-Lok bolts. Revision 8 of the SB introduced
inspection instructions for post modification HCM01447A
installations because fuel tank leaks and failed fasteners have
subsequently been found on aircraft post modification HCM01447A.
Inspections of the post-mod HCM01447A standard are required to
maintain the structural integrity of the wing. BAE Systems has now
published SB 57-033 Revision 9 that specifies additional, calendar-
time based, inspection criteria to control the stress corrosion
failures of the pre and post modification HCM01447A installations.
    EASA AD 2007-0270 supersedes CAA UK AD 044-09-89 and requires
the accomplishment of inspections and corrective actions, as
necessary, in accordance with BAE Systems SB 57-033 Revision 9.
    This [EASA] AD [2007-0270 R1] is revised to clarify that the
calendar compliance times are to be counted from the effective date,
not from the SB issue date.

The unsafe condition is stress corrosion failures in the region of the
rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing rib 2, which could lead
to reduced structural integrity of the wing, and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane. Required actions include a general
inspection to identify the type of bolt and nut at each location,
external inspections of the bolt installation of the fuel tanks,
related investigative actions, and corrective actions, as applicable.
    The general inspection includes identifying the type of bolt and
nut at each location.
    External inspections of the bolt installation include:
     Visually inspecting for proper nut installation, nut
seating, and fuel seepage.
     Checking for gaps between the fitting and wing structure.
     Checking the nuts with a suitable torque spanner to the
specifications in the torque figures shown in Table 2. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10,
2006, if Hi-Loks are installed, and
     Doing either an ultrasonic inspection for damaged bolts or
torque check of the tension bolts.
    Related investigative actions include:
     Inspecting the condition of the sealant at and around all
rear spar root joint attachment bolts.
     Checking the bolt for damage or evidence of the nut being
tightened to the end of the thread.
     Examining the wear pattern on the seating surfaces of the
bolt and nut to determine if the bolt and nut have been evenly seated
on the structure.
     Visually inspecting bolt hole and surrounding area for
damage, and
     Confirming that the hole edge radius on the forward face
of the rear spar complies with the specifications in Table 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10,
2006.
    Corrective actions include either replacing the bolt, or repairing
the defect in accordance with approved repair data from BAE Systems.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in

general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 1 product of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $255.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Docket No. FAA-2010-0642;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-332-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 16, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A series airplanes, and Model
Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes, certificated in
any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    * * * [F]uel leaks and failed fasteners [have been reported] in
the region of the rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing
rib 2. * * *
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is stress corrosion failures in the region of
the rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing rib 2, which
could lead to reduced structural integrity of the wing, and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) At the applicable time in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this
AD, do a general visual inspection to identify the type of bolt and
nut at each location, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006.
    (1) For airplanes on which neither Modification HCM01447A nor
repair information leaflet (RIL) HC536H9156 (at any location) has
been done as of the effective date of this AD, the compliance time
for the inspection is at the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, or
within 2 years after the last inspection done in accordance with BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033,
whichever occurs later, without exceeding 4,000 flight cycles after
the last inspection.
    (ii) Within 250 flight cycles or 3 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes on which either Modification HCM01447A or RIL
HC536H9156 (at any location) has been done as of the effective date
of this AD, the compliance time for the inspection is at the latest
of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and
(g)(2)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 4,000 total flight cycles.
    (ii) Within 4,000 flight cycles after all bolts are inspected
and replaced in accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033.
    (iii) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (h) At the applicable time in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this
AD, do detailed inspections of the bolt installation for proper nut
installation, nut seating, and fuel seepage; a detailed inspection
for gaps between the fitting and wing structure; if Hi-Loks are
installed, measure the torque of the nuts to determine the
specifications in the torque figures shown in Table 2. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October
10, 2006; and either an ultrasonic inspection for damaged bolts or a
torque measurement of the tension bolts to determine the
specifications in the torque figures shown in Table 3. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October
10, 2006. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006.
    (i) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this
AD, any defect (e.g., evidence of fuel seepage, damaged bolts or

low bolt torque, loose or rotating nuts, suspect integrity of the
bolt/nut assembly, or gaps between the fitting and wing structure)
is found, before further flight, do the actions specified in
paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(4), and (i)(5) of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033,
Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the sealant for cracks at and
around all rear spar root joint attachment bolts.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection of the bolt for damage or evidence
of the nut being tightened to the end of the thread.
    (3) Do a detailed inspection of the wear pattern on the seating
surfaces of the bolt and nut to determine if the bolt and nut have
been evenly seated on the structure.
    (4) Do a detailed inspection of the bolt hole and surrounding
area for damage.
    (5) Do a detailed inspection to determine that the hole edge
radius on the forward face of the rear spar meets the dimensions
specified in Table 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033,
Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006.
    (j) If during any inspection required by paragraph (h) or (i) of
this AD, any defects (e.g., evidence of fuel seepage, damaged bolts
or low bolt torque, loose or rotating nuts, suspect integrity of the
bolt/nut assembly, gaps between the fitting and wing structure,
cracked sealant, bolt damage or evidence of the nut being tightened
to the end of the thread, uneven seating of the bolt and nut, bolt
hole and surrounding area damage, or hole edge radius out of
dimensions specified in Table 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin
ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006), is found, before
further flight, do all applicable correction actions, which include
either replacing the bolt or repairing the defect, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated
October 10, 2006.
    (k) Repeat the inspections in paragraph (h) of this AD
thereafter, at the applicable time specified in Table 1 of this AD,
for each individual location.

            Table 1--Compliance Times for Repeat Inspections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         If the location has--             Then repeat the inspection--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Hi-Lok bolt..........................  Within 4,000 flight cycles or
                                          24 months, whichever occurs
                                          earlier, after doing the last
                                          inspection.
A tension bolt that was not replaced     Within 8,000 flight cycles or
 during the inspections in paragraphs     48 months, whichever occurs
 (h) and (i) of this AD and no defects    earlier, after doing the last
 were found.                              inspection.
A tension bolt that was replaced as      Within 4,000 flight cycles or
 required by paragraph (j) of this AD.    24 months, whichever occurs
                                          earlier after doing the
                                          replacement.
A tension bolt that was not replaced     Within 4,000 flight cycles or
 and any defects were repaired as         24 months, whichever occurs
 required by paragraph (j) of this AD.    earlier after doing the repair
                                          specified in paragraph (j) of
                                          this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: Although BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006,
allows additional time to rectify the defect for the corrective
action depending on the condition, this AD requires rectifying the
defect before further flight.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (l) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (m) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2007-0270 R1, dated November 7, 2007; and BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033,
Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 23, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-15981 Filed 6-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 55064]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Availability
of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Midland
International Air and Space Port, City of Midland, Midland County,
Texas, and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

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

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), Council on
Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-
1508), and FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, the FAA is announcing the
availability of the Final EA for the Midland International Air and
Space Port, City of Midland, Midland County, Texas, and FONSI.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Czelusniak, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Suite 325,
Washington, DC 20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or phone (202)
267-5924.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final EA was prepared to analyze the
potential environmental impacts of the City of Midland's proposal to
operate a commercial space launch site at the Midland International
Airport (MAF) in Midland County, Texas and offer the site to XCOR
Aerospace, Inc. (XCOR) for the operation of the Lynx horizontal take-
off and horizontal landing reusable launch vehicle (RLV) and engine
testing. To operate a commercial space launch site, the City of Midland
must obtain a commercial space launch site operator license from the
FAA. Under the Proposed Action addressed in the EA, the FAA would: (1)
Issue a launch site operator license to the City of Midland for the
operation of a commercial space launch site at MAF, (2) issue
experimental permits and/or launch licenses to XCOR that would allow
XCOR to conduct launches of the Lynx RLV from MAF, and (3) provide
approval to modify the existing Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to reflect
the designation of a launch site boundary, installation of aboveground
propellant storage tanks, and construction of a concrete pad for engine
testing. Proposed launch operations would begin in 2014 and continue
through 2018. The frequency of launch operations would initially be one
launch per week, eventually increasing to two launches per day, five
days a week. Fifty-two annual launch operations are proposed in 2014.
The total number of annual launch operations would increase each year
until 2018 when 520 annual launch operations are proposed.
    The Final EA addresses the potential environmental impacts of
implementing the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under
the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch site
operator license to the City of Midland and thus would not issue
experimental permits and/or launch licenses to XCOR for operation of
the Lynx RLV at MAF. Also, there would be no need to update the ALP for
MAF, and thus there would be no approval of a revised ALP. Existing
commercial aviation and military operations would continue at MAF.
    The impact categories considered in the Final EA include air
quality; compatible land use; Department of Transportation Act: Section
4(f); fish, wildlife, and plants; floodplains; hazardous materials,
pollution prevention, and solid waste; historical, architectural,
archaeological, and cultural resources; natural resources and energy
supply; noise; socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice, and
children's environmental health and safety risks; water quality; and
wetlands. The Final EA also considers the potential cumulative
environmental impacts.
    The FAA has posted the Final EA and FONSI on the FAA Web site at
http://www.faa.gov/about/officeorg/
headquartersoffices/ast/environmental/nepadocs/
review/operator/.
    The FAA published a Notice of Availability of the Draft EA in the
Federal Register on March 24, 2014. A Notice of Availability of the
Draft EA was also published in the Midland Reporter-Telegram, Odessa
American, and Big Spring Herald on March 30, 2014 and in the Big Lake
Wildcat on April 3, 2014. The FAA mailed copies of the Draft EA to the
following agencies: Texas Historical Commission (State Historic
Preservation Officer), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. An electronic version of the Draft EA was
also made available on the FAA Web site. In addition, the FAA printed
and mailed a copy of the Draft EA to the following libraries: Midland
County Library, Ector County Library, and Reagan County Library. The
FAA held an open house public meeting on April 8, 2014 from 5:30 p.m.
to 8:30 p.m. at the University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Center
for Energy and Economic Diversification. The public comment period
ended on April 24, 2014. The FAA received two public comments on the
Draft EA, both in support of the Proposed Action. No substantive
changes were made to this Final EA.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2014.
 Daniel Murray,
Manager, Space Transportation Development Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-21905 Filed 9-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 1423]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Application of Aztec Worldwide Airlines, Inc. for Commuter
Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2016-12-26) Docket DOT-
OST-2016-0055

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Aztec
Worldwide Airlines, Inc., fit, willing, and able, to provide scheduled
passenger service as a commuter air carrier using small aircraft
pursuant to Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, and awarding
it a Commuter Air Carrier Authorization.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
January 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Docket DOT-OST-2016-0055 and addressed to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590,
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the
order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Snoden, Office of Aviation
Analysis (X-56, Office W86-471), U.S. Department of Transportation,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 28, 2016.
Jenny T. Rosenberg,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016-31978 Filed 1-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 551-552]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33279]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0130; FRL-8855-2]

Pesticide Product Registrations; Conditional Approval

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces Agency approval of an application to
register the pesticide products Spirotetramat Technical, Movento, BYI
8330 150 OD Insecticide, Ultor, and Spirotetramat 240 SC Greenhouse &
Nursery Insecticide/Miticide containing an active ingredient not
included in any previously registered products pursuant to the
provisions of section 3(c)(7) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. Spirotetramat is a tetramic
acid derivative (ketoenole), and is active against sucking insects in
vegetables, citrus, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes, cotton and other
plants. It is systemic (xylem and phloem mobile) and can control hidden
pests and protect new shoots.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Kumar, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0130. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved
labels, the list of data references, the data and other scientific
information used to support registration, except for material
specifically protected by section 10 of FIFRA, are also available for
public inspection. Requests for data must be made in accordance with
the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and must be addressed
to the Freedom of Information Office (A-101), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Such requests should: Identify the
product name and registration number and specify the data or
information desired.
    A paper copy of the fact sheet, which provides more detail on this
registration, may be obtained from the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.

II. Did EPA conditionally approve the application?

    A conditional registration may be granted under section 3(c)(7)(C)
of FIFRA for a new active ingredient where certain data are lacking, on
condition that such data are received by the end of the conditional
registration period and do not meet or exceed the risk criteria set
forth in 40 CFR 154.7; that use of the pesticide during the conditional
registration period will not cause unreasonable adverse effects; and
that use of the pesticide is in the public interest. The Agency has
considered the available data on the risks associated with the proposed
use of spirotetramat, and information on social, economic, and
environmental benefits to be derived from such use. Specifically, the
Agency has considered the nature and its pattern of use, application
methods and rates, and level and extent of potential exposure. Based on
these reviews, the Agency was able to make basic health and safety
determinations which show that use of spirotetramat during the period
of conditional registration will not cause any unreasonable adverse
effect on the environment, and that use of the pesticide is in the
public interest.
    Consistent with section 3(c)(7)(C) of FIFRA, the Agency has
determined that these conditional registrations are in the public
interest. Use of the pesticides are of significance to the user
community, and appropriate labeling, use directions, and other measures
have been taken to ensure that use of the pesticides will not result in
unreasonable adverse effects to man and the environment.

III. Approved Applications

    EPA issued a notice, published in the Federal Register of February
26, 2010 (75 FR 8939) (FRL-8812-8), which announced that Bayer
CropScience and Bayer Environmental Science had submitted applications
to register the pesticide products, Spirotetramat Technical, Movento,
BYI 8330 150 OD Insecticide, Ultor, and Spirotetramat 240 SC Greenhouse
& Nursery Insecticide/Miticide, for control of insect pests, (EPA File
Symbols 264-RNUO, 264-RNLN, 264-RNLR, 264-RNAL, and 432-RUTR),
containing 97.37%, 22.4%, 15.3%, 14.5%, and 22.4% active ingredient
respectively. These products were previously registered in 2008, but
the registrations were vacated by court order on December 23, 2009, due
to lack of publication of a notice of receipt of the registration
applications in the Federal Register under section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. As
a result of the vacatur, EPA treated Bayer's earlier-filed applications
for registration as then-pending before the Agency.
    The applications were conditionally approved on October 15, 2010,
as Spirotetramat Technical, Movento, BYI 8330 150 OD Insecticide,
Ultor, and Spirotetramat 240 SC Greenhouse & Nursery Insecticide/
Miticide (EPA Registration Numbers 264-1049, 264-1050, 264-1051, 264-
1065, and 432-

1471 respectively) for insect control on citrus, grapes, pome fruit,
stone fruit, tree nuts, hops, Christmas tree plantations, vegetables
except cucurbits, potato, greenhouses, nurseries, and interiorscapes.
The registrations for end-use products were limited to 3 years,
expiring on October 15, 2013.

IV. Missing Data

    1. Conditional data required for Spirotetramat Technical consists
of:
    a. Avian Reproduction Study with the Mallard Duck (Anas
platyrhynchos) (OPPTS Guideline 850.2300).
    b. Immunotoxicity Study (OPPTS Guideline 870.6200).
    c. Subchronic Neurotoxicity Study (OPPTS Guideline 870.6200).
    d. Full-scale five-batch preliminary analysis of the technical
material (OPPTS Guideline 830.1700).
    2. Conditional data required for the end-use products consists of:
    a. Residue Analysis of Nectar and Pollen in Flowering Citrus (OPPTS
Guideline: Special Study).
    b. Residue Analysis of Nectar and Pollen in Flowering Tree Crops
OPPTS Guideline: Special Study).

V. Response to Comments

    EPA issued a notice, published in the Federal Register of February
26, 2010 (75 FR 8939), which announced that Bayer CropScience and Bayer
Environmental Science had submitted applications to register the
pesticide products, Spirotetramat Technical, Movento, BYI 8330 150 OD
Insecticide, Ultor, and Spirotetramat 240 SC Greenhouse & Nursery
Insecticide/Miticide. During the public comment period of this notice,
comments were received from growers, non-governmental organizations,
and the applicant. EPA's response to these comments is posted to the
docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0130.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pests and pesticides.

    Dated: December 23, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-33279 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37213-37214]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-497-000]

Southern Union Company, d/b/a Missouri Gas Energy; Laclede Gas
Company; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on June 12, 2013, Southern Union Company, d/b/a
Missouri Gas Energy (MGE Southern Union), 3420 Broadway, Kansas City,
Missouri 64111, and Laclede Gas Company (Laclede), 720 Olive Street,
St. Louis, Missouri 63101, jointly filed in Docket No. CP13-497-000 an
application: (1) Requesting authorization for MGE Southern Union
pursuant to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) to abandon by
transfer to Laclede its limited jurisdiction certificate to transport
gas on a no-fee exchange basis and (2) for Laclede pursuant to section
7(c) of the NGA to be issued a limited jurisdiction certificate for the
purpose of transporting natural gas in the same manner as MGE Southern
Union. In addition, Laclede requests: (1) a determination that the
limited jurisdiction certificate will not affect the non-jurisdictional
status of the remainder of its facilities and operations and (2) that
the Commission waive the requirements of Part 154 of the Commission's
Regulations for as long as no fee is charged by Laclede for the
exchange.
    Specifically, MGE Southern Union and Laclede are public utilities
providing natural gas service in Missouri. Pursuant to its limited
jurisdiction certificate issued on January 12, 1994, in Docket No.
CP93-750-000, MGE Southern Union also provides transportation service
on a no-fee exchange basis through its Missouri facilities to supply a
few stranded retail customers of ONEOK, Inc. located in Kansas and
Oklahoma. Southern Union Company and Laclede have entered into an
agreement whereby Laclede will acquire the assets of MGE Southern Union
utilized to provide such service to ONEOK's stranded customers. The
requested authorizations will allow Laclede to continue such service in
the same manner as MGE Southern Union. No construction of facilities is
proposed. The applicants request that an order be issued by July 31,
2013 granting the requested authorizations.
    Any questions regarding the joint application should be directed
to: Gearold L. Knowles, Attorney for Missouri Gas Energy, Schiff Hardin
LLP, 901 K Street NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001, by phone at
(202) 778-6400, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mark C.
Darrell, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Compliance
Officer, The Laclede Group, Inc., 720 Olive Street, St. Louis, Missouri
63101, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit an original and 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and
must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the
proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426. This filing

is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary''
link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference
Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web
site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: July 1, 2013.

    Dated: June 14, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14730 Filed 6-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 77)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21292-21294]
[DOCID:fr21ap08-25]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1926

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0026]
RIN 1218-AB47

Confined Spaces in Construction

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of hearing.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is convening an informal public hearing to receive
testimony and documentary evidence on the proposed rule for Confined
Spaces in Construction.

DATES: Informal Public Hearing. The Agency will hold the informal
public hearing in Washington, DC beginning July 22, 2008. The hearing
will commence at 10 a.m. on the first day. If necessary, a second or
third day will be scheduled. The hearing will begin at 9 a.m. on
subsequent days.
    Notice of intention to appear to provide testimony at the informal
public hearing. Parties who intend to present testimony at the informal
public hearing must notify OSHA in writing of their intention to do so
no later than May 21, 2008.
    Hearing Testimony and Documentary Evidence. Parties who are
requesting more than 10 minutes to present their testimony, or who will
be submitting documentary evidence at the hearing, must provide the
Agency with copies of their full testimony and all documentary evidence
they plan to present by June 20, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Informal Public Hearing. The informal public hearing will be
held in Washington, DC, in the auditorium on the plaza level of the
Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    Notices of intention to appear at the hearing, hearing testimony,
and documentary evidence. Submit notices of intention to appear at the
informal public hearing, hearing testimony, and documentary evidence,
identified by the docket number (OSHA 2007-0026) or the regulatory
information number (RIN; 1218-AB47), using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting the material.
     Facsimile: Send submissions consisting of 10 or fewer
pages to the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Hard copies of these
documents are not required. Instead of transmitting facsimile copies of
attachments that supplement these documents (e.g., studies, journal
articles), submit these attachments, in triplicate hard copy, to the
OSHA Docket Office, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210.
These attachments must clearly identify the sender's name, date,
subject, and docket number (i.e., OSHA-2007-0026) so that the agency
can attach them to the appropriate document.
     Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and courier
service: Send submissions in triplicate (3 copies) to the OSHA Docket
Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0026, Technical Data Center, Room N-2625,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number is
(877) 889-5627). Note that security-related problems may result in
significant delays in receiving submissions by regular mail. Please
contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures concerning delivery of materials by express delivery, hand
delivery, or courier service. The OSHA Docket Office and Department of
Labor hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., ET.
    Instructions. All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (i.e., OSHA-2007-0026). All submissions, including
any personal information, are placed in the public docket without
revision, and will be available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, OSHA cautions members of the public against submitting
information and statements that should remain private, including
comments that contain personal information (either about themselves or
others) such as social security numbers, birth dates, and medical data.
For additional information on submitting notices of intention to
appear, the text of testimony, and documentary evidence, see the Public
Participation--Comments and Hearings section below.
    Docket. To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the OSHA Docket Office
at the address above. Documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. However, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Contact
the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in locating docket submissions,
including notices of intention to appear, the text of testimony, and
documentary evidence.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries, contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Director, Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
1999. For technical inquiries, contact Mr. Garvin Branch, Directorate
of Construction, Room N-3468, OSHA,

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. For hearing
information, contact Ms. Veneta Chatmon, Office of Communications, Room
N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Electronic copies of
this Federal Register notice, as well as news releases and other
relevant documents, are available at OSHA's homepage at http://
www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSHA published the proposed Confined Spaces
in Construction Standard on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67351). The period
for submitting written comments was to expire on January 28, 2008, but
was extended to February 28, 2008 (73 FR 3893). During this comment
period, a number of commenters (see, e.g., Exs. OSHA-2007-0026-0024.1,
-0026, -0030.1, -0032, -0027, -0032, -0057) requested an informal
public hearing. With this notice, OSHA is granting these requests.
    Public Participation--Comments and Hearings: OSHA encourages
members of the public to participate in this rulemaking by providing
oral testimony and documentary evidence at the informal public hearing.
Accordingly, the Agency invites interested parties having knowledge of,
or experience with, the issues raised in the NPRM to participate in
this process, and welcomes any pertinent data that will provide the
Agency with the best available evidence to use in developing the final
rule. This section describes the procedures the public must use to
schedule an opportunity to deliver oral testimony and to provide
documentary evidence at the informal public hearing.
    Hearing Arrangements. Pursuant to section 6(b)(3) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act; 29 U.S.C. 655), members of
the public have an opportunity at the informal public hearing to
provide oral testimony concerning the issues raised in the NPRM. An
administrative law judge (ALJ) will preside over the hearing, and will
resolve any procedural matters relating to the hearing on the first
day.
    Purpose of the Hearing. The legislative history of Section 6 of the
Act, as well as the Agency's regulation governing public hearings (29
CFR 1911.15), establish the purpose and procedures of informal public
hearings. Although the presiding officer of the hearing is an ALJ, and
questions by interested parties are allowed on pertinent issues, the
hearing is informal and legislative in purpose. Therefore, the hearing
provides interested parties with an opportunity to make effective and
expeditious oral presentations in the absence of procedural restraints
that could impede or protract the rulemaking process. The hearing is
not an adjudicative proceeding subject to the technical rules of
evidence. Instead, it is an informal administrative proceeding convened
for the purpose of gathering and clarifying information. The
regulations that govern the hearing, and the pre-hearing guidelines
issued for the hearing, will ensure that participants are treated
fairly and have due process. This approach will facilitate the
development of a clear, accurate, and complete record. Accordingly,
application of these rules and guidelines will be such that questions
of relevance, procedures, and participation will be decided in favor of
developing a complete record.
    Conduct of the Hearing. Conduct of the hearing will conform to the
provisions of 29 CFR 1911.5. Although the ALJ presiding over the
hearing makes no decision or recommendation on the merits of the NPRM
or the final rule, the ALJ has the responsibility and authority to
ensure that the hearing progresses at a reasonable pace and in an
orderly manner. To ensure that interested parties receive a full and
fair informal hearing, the ALJ has the authority and power to: regulate
the course of the proceedings; dispose of procedural requests,
objections, and similar matters; confine the presentations to matters
pertinent to the issues raised; use appropriate means to regulate the
conduct of the parties who are present at the hearing; question
witnesses, and permit others to question witnesses; and limit the time
for such questions. At the close of the hearing, the ALJ will establish
a post-hearing comment period for parties who participated in the
hearing. During the first part of this period, the participants may
submit additional data and information to OSHA, and during the second
part of this period, they may submit briefs, arguments, and summations.
    Notice of intention to appear to provide testimony at the informal
public hearings. Hearing participants must file a notice of intention
to appear that provides the following information: The name, address,
and telephone number of each individual who will provide testimony; the
capacity in which the individual will testify (e.g., name of the
establishment/organization the individual is representing; the
individual's occupational title and position); approximate amount of
time requested for the individual's testimony; specific issues the
individual will address, including a brief description of the position
that the individual will take with respect to each of these issues; and
any documentary evidence the individual will present, including a brief
summary of the evidence.
    OSHA emphasizes that, while the hearing is open to the public and
interested parties are welcome to attend, only a party who files a
proper notice of intention to appear may ask questions and participate
fully in the hearing. A party who did not file a notice of intention to
appear may be allowed to testify at the hearing if time permits, but
this determination is at the discretion of the presiding ALJ.
    Hearing Testimony and Documentary Evidence. OSHA will review each
submission and determine if the information it contains warrants the
amount of time requested. OSHA then will allocate an appropriate amount
of time to each presentation, and will notify the participants of the
time allotted to their presentations. Prior to the hearing, the Agency
will notify the participant if the allotted time is less than the
requested time, and will provide the reasons for this action. OSHA may
limit to 10 minutes the presentation of any participant who fails to
comply substantially with these procedural requirements. The Agency
also may request a participant to return for questions at a later time.
    Certification of the record and final determination after the
informal public hearing. Following the close of the hearing and post-
hearing comment period, the ALJ will certify the record to the
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. This
record will consist of all of the written comments, oral testimony,
documentary evidence, and other material received during the hearing.
Following certification of the record, OSHA will review the proposed
provisions in light of all the evidence received as part of the record,
and then will issue the final determinations based on the entire
record.

Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the authority of Edwin G. Foulke,
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210, pursuant to Sections 6(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR
31160), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 15th day of April 2008.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E8-8460 Filed 4-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


From:
"Jones, DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tue, 30 Aug 2022 14:28:52
To:
"Ulatowski; Rhiannon"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Zavoda; Rich"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Kistler; Katie E"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Maicher; Thomas W."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Beranek; Rob"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Long; Michael E"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Coke ICR Fenceline Monitoring - Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
Hello Ms. Ulatowski, et al: Thank you for the submission of your QAPP in response to the 2022 Clean Air Act section 114 test request for the Coke Ovens RTR. We had the following comments and requests:

"This plan needs some corrections. The area of the coke oven part of the facility (17 acres) was used to determine the number of sample location, but the samples were then located at the boundary of the entire facility (~1900 acres). The sample locations will need to be redone, either by bringing the circle of samples so that they are around just the coke oven facility, or by increasing the number of samplers to reflect the total facility area used (~1900 acres). There are no issues with the current interior sampling locations or the location of the TO-13/15 fenceline locations. The locations across the highway could be problematic due to the introduction of interferents and mobile sources, so you might want to reconsider those positions."

Please submit a revised QAPP documents addressing these deficiencies by Monday, September 12, 2022 COB.

Thank you for your efforts wth this 114 request.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Ulatowski, Rhiannon<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 7:21 PM
To: Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kistler, Katie E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Maicher, Thomas W<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Beranek, Rob<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Long, Michael E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Coke ICR Fenceline Monitoring - Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)

Dr. Jones,

In accordance with EPA's Coke ICR received 6/29/22, Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor timely submits the attached Fenceline Monitoring - Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for EPA's approval.

Thank you,

Rhiannon ulatowski
Environmental Engineer-Air
p<PHONE_NUMBER>   m<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC.


Appendix A LABOR RATES *

Contractor Rates 2005 Hourly 2002 2002 2005 ECI 2005 $ 76.00 $ 69.00 1.10 $ 76.23 Respondent Rates 2005 Hourly 2002 2002 2005 ECI 2005 $ 57.00 $ 52.00 1.10 $ 57.45 State/ Local Agency Rates 2005 Hourly 2002 2002 2004 ECI 2005 $ 54.00 $ 49.00 1.11 $ 54.18 EPA Rates 2005 Hourly 2002 2002 2004 ECI 2005 $ 48.00 $ 43.00 1.12 $ 47.99 * The contractor, respondent, and state/ local agency labor rates used in the 1998 ICR were updated based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment Cost Index ( ECI). The ECI is an economic indicator which measures changes in compensation costs.

The EPA labor rates were updated based upon the US Office of Personnel Management's Federal Pay Scale.

Page A 3 shows the value of the indexes that were used in this analysis.

Page A 2 Appendix A ( Continued)

Indexes for Updating Labor Rates SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics1 Employment Cost Index  Civilian Workers Excluding Sales June 1989 = 100 Jan. 2002 158.4 Dec. 2004 175 16.6 10.48% Incr 2002 2004 1.10 Employment Cost Index  Civilian Workers State and Local Government June 1989 = 100 Jan. 2002 156.1 Dec. 2004 172.6 16.5 10.57% Incr 2002 2004 1.11 SOURCE: US Office of Personnel Management 2 Federal Pay Scale  GS 11 Step 5 2002 $ 51,322.00 2004 $ 57,280.00 5958 11.61% Incr 2002 2004 1.12 1. http:// www. bls. gov/ ncs/ ect/

3. http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 02tables/ RUS. htm Page A 3 Appendix A Universe of Respondents Universe Estimates Sources under EPA authority # New exploration sources 4 # New development/ production sources 0 # Existing sources 15 Sources under State/ local authority # New exploration sources 4 # New development/ production sources 0 # Existing sources 23 # Construction mod to existing sources 3 Total Number of Sources 49 Page A 4 EXHIBIT 1. NEW EXPLORATION SOURCES UNDER EPA AUTHORITY RESPONDENTS' ANNUAL BURDENS Collection Activities Number of Respondents Number of Occurrences for 3 years Occurrences per year Hours per Occurrence1 Cost per Occurrence Contractors Hours per Occurrence Contractors Dollars per Occurrence Total Hours per Year Total Cost per Year O& M Costs per Occurrence2 Capital Costs per Occurrence Total O& M Costs per Year Total Capital Costs per Year Labor Rates $ 57.00 $ 76.00 Read regulations 4 1 1.33 5 285.00 0 $ 0.00 7 $ 380.00 $ 3.88 $ 0.00 $ 5.17 $ 0.00 Consult with EPA,

or State and local agency 4 1 1.33 5 285.00 0 $ 0.00 7 $ 380.00 $ 15.87 $ 0.00 $ 21.15 $ 0.00 Prepare a NOI to construct 4 1 1.33 30 1,710.00 0 $ 0.00 40 $ 2,280.00 $ 116.96 $ 0.00 $ 155.95 $ 0.00 Conduct record keeping and report data to EPA 4 1 1.33 32 1,824.00 0 $ 0.00 43 $ 2,432.00 $ 105.38 $ 0.00 $ 140.51 $ 0.00 Responses per Year 3 Burden 96 $ 5,472.00 $ 322.79 $ 0.00 Collection activities in the shaded boxes require one response per occurrence 1. Assumes hours per occurrence is the same as that in the 1998 ICR.

2. Rates from the 1998 ICR were adjusted to 2002 dollars using the Employment Cost Index for Civilian Workers Excluding Sales ( Appendix A3)

Ex 1 EXHIBIT 2. NEW DEVELOPMENT/ PRODUCTION SOURCES UNDER EPA AUTHORITY RESPONDENTS' ANNUAL BURDENS Collection Activities Number of Respondents Number of Occurrences for 3 years Occurrences per year Hours per Occurrence1 Cost per Occurrence Contractors Hours per Occurrence Contractors Dollars per Occurrence Total Hours per Year Total Cost per Year O& M Costs per Occurrence2 Capital Costs per Occurrence Total O& M Costs per Year Total Capital Costs per Year Rates $ 57.00 $ 76.00 Read regulations 0 1 0.00 5 285.00 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 $ 3.88 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Consult with EPA,

or State and local agency 0 1 0.00 5 285.00 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 $ 35.55 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Prepare a NOI to construct 0 1 0.00 30 1,710.00 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 $ 116.96 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Prepare preconstruction permit application 0 1 0.00 100 5,700.00 585 $ 44,460.00 0 $ 0.00 $ 236.82 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Perform initial compliance test 0 1 0.00 100 5,700.00 764 $ 58,064.00 0 $ 0.00 $ 387.95 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Prepare permit to operate application 0 1 0.00 42 2,394.00 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 $ 236.82 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Conduct record keeping and report data to EPA 0 1 0.00 64 741.00 0 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00 $ 250.14 $ 25,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Responses per Year 0.00 Burden 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Collection activities in the shaded boxes require one response per occurrence 1. Assumes hours per occurrence is the same as that in the 1998 ICR.

2. Rates from the 1998 ICR were adjusted to 2002 dollars using the Employment Cost Index for Civilian Workers Excluding Sales ( Appendix A3)

Ex 2 EXHIBIT 3. NEW EXPLORATION SOURCES UNDER STATE/ LOCAL AUTHORITY RESPONDENTS' ANNUAL BURDENS Collection Activitie Number of Respondents Number of Occurrences for 3 years Occurrences per year Hours per Occurrence1 Cost per Occurrence Contractors Hours per Occurrence Contractors Dollars per Occurrence Total Hours per Year Total Cost per Year O& M Costs per Occurrence2 Capital Costs per Occurrence Total O& M Costs per Year Total Capital Costs per Year Rates $ 57.00 $ 76.00 Read regulations 4 1 1.33 5 285.00 0 $ 0.00 7 $ 380.00 $ 3.88 $ 0.00 $ 5.17 $ 0.00 Consult with EPA, or State and local agency 4 1 1.33 5 285.00 0 $ 0.00 7 $ 380.00 $ 15.87 $ 0.00 $ 21.15 $ 0.00 Prepare a NOI to construct and permit application 4 1 1.33 70 3,990.00 0 $ 0.00 93 $ 5,320.00 $ 116.96 $ 0.00 $ 155.95 $ 0.00 Perform initial compliance test 4 1 1.33 100 5,700.00 748 $ 56,848.00 1,131 $ 83,397.33 $ 387.95 $ 0.00 $ 517.26 $ 0.00 Conduct record keeping and report data to local agency 4 1 1.33 64 3,648.00 0 $ 0.00 85 $ 4,864.00 $ 105.38 $ 0.00 $ 140.51 $ 0.00 Responses per Year 4 Burden 1,323 $ 94,341.33 $ 840.05 $ 0.00 Collection activities in the shaded boxes require one response per occurrence 1. Assumes hours per occurrence is the same as that in the 1998 ICR.

2. Rates from the 1998 ICR were adjusted to 2002 dollars using the Employment Cost Index for Civilian Workers Excluding Sales ( Appendix A3)

Ex 3 EXHIBIT 4. EXISTING SOURCES UNDERSTATE/ LOCAL AUTHORITY RESPONDENTS' ANNUAL BURDENS Collection Activities Number of Respondents Number of Occurrences for 3 years Occurrences per year Hours per Occurrence1 Cost per Occurrence Contractors Hours per Occurrence Contractors Dollars per Occurrence Total Hours per Year Total Cost per Year O& M Costs per Occurrence2 Capital Costs per Occurrence Total O& M Costs per Year Total Capital Costs per Year Rates $ 57.00 $ 76.00 Prepare permit to operate application 23 1 8 42 2,394.00 0 $ 0.00 322 $ 18,354.00 $ 236.24 $ 0.00 $ 1,811.19 $ 0.00 Perform annual compliance test 23 3 23 100 5,700.00 764 $ 58,064.00 19,872 $ 1,466,572.00 $ 387.95 $ 0.00 $ 8,922.78 $ 0.00 Conduct record keeping and report data to EPA 23 3 23 64 741.00 0 $ 0.00 1,472 $ 17,043.00 $ 250.14 $ 0.00 $ 5,753.19 $ 0.00 Prepare a NOI to construct 2 1 0.67 30 1,710.00 0 $ 0.00 20 $ 1,140.00 $ 116.96 $ 0.00 $ 77.98 $ 0.00 Prepare preconstruction permit application 2 1 0.67 100 5,700.00 585 $ 44,460.00 457 $ 33,440.00 $ 236.82 $ 0.00 $ 157.88 $ 0.00 Responses per Year 55 Burden 22,143 $ 1,536,549.00 $ 16,723.02 $ 0.00 Collection activities in the shaded boxes require one response per occurrence 1. Assumes hours per occurrence is the same as that in the 1998 ICR.

2. Rates from the 1998 ICR were adjusted to 2002 dollars using the Employment Cost Index for Civilian Workers Excluding Sales ( Appendix A3)

Ex 4 EXHIBIT 5. NEW EXPLORATION SOURCES UNDER STATE/ LOCAL AUTHORITY STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES' ANNUAL BURDENS Collection Activities Number of Respondents Number of Occurrences for 3 years Occurrences per year Hours per Occurrence* Cost per Occurrence Total Hours per Year Total Cost per Year Rates $ 54.00 Consult with sources 4 1 1.33 5 $ 270.00 7 $ 360.00 Review NOI to construct 4 1 1.33 55 $ 2,970.00 73 $ 3,960.00 Review permit to operate application 4 1 1.33 40 $ 2,160.00 53 $ 2,880.00 Oversee initial compliance test 4 1 1.33 67 $ 3,618.00 89 $ 4,824.00 Conduct inspections 4 2 2.67 16 $ 864.00 43 $ 2,304.00 Review data reports 4 1 1.33 8 $ 432.00 11 $ 576.00 Burden 276 $ 14,904.00 * Assumes hours per occurrence is the same as that in the 1998 ICR. Ex 5 EXHIBIT 6. EXISTING SOURCES UNDERSTATE/ LOCAL AUTHORITY STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES' ANNUAL BURDENS Collection Activities Number of Respondents Number of Occurrences for 3 years Occurrences per year Hours per Occurrence* Cost per Occurrence Total Hours per Year Total Cost per Year Rates $ 54.00 Oversee annual compliance test 23 3 23 67 $ 3,618.00 1,541 $ 83,214.00 Conduct inspections 23 12 92 16 $ 864.00 1,472 $ 79,488.00 Review permit to operate application 23 1 7.666666667 40 $ 2,160.00 307 $ 16,560.00 Review data reports 23 3 23 8 $ 432.00 184 $ 9,936.00 Review NOI to construct and permit application 2 1 0.67 35 $ 1,890.00 23 $ 1,260.00 Burden 3,504 $ 189,198.00 * Assumes hours per occurrence is the same as that in the 1998 ICR. Ex 6 EXHIBIT 7. NEW EXPLORATION SOURCES UNDER EPA AUTHORITY EPA'S ANNUAL BURDEN Collection Activities Number of Respondents Number of Occurrences for 3 years Occurrences per year Hours per Occurrence* Cost per Occurrence Total Hours per Year Total Cost per Year Rates $ 48.00 Consult with sources 4 1 1.33 5 $ 240.00 7 $ 320.00 Review NOI to construct and permit application 4 1 1.33 35 $ 1,680.00 47 $ 2,240.00 Review data reports 4 1 1.33 8 $ 384.00 11 $ 512.00 Burden 64 $ 3,072.00 * Assumes hours per occurrence is the same as that in the 1998 ICR. Ex 7 EXHIBIT 8. NEW and EXISTING DEVELOPMENT/ PRODUCTION SOURCES UNDER EPA AUTHORITY EPA'S ANNUAL BURDEN Collection Activities Number of Respondents Number of Occurrences for 3 years Occurrences per year Hours per Occurrence* Costs per Occurrence Total Hours per Year Total Cost per Year Rates $ 48.00 Consult with sources 15 1 5.00 5 $ 240.00 25 $ 1,200.00 Review NOI to construct and permit application 15 1 5.00 263 $ 12,624.00 1,315 $ 63,120.00 Review preconstruction permit application 15 1 5.00 100 $ 4,800.00 500 $ 24,000.00 Oversee initial compliance test 15 1 5.00 67 $ 3,216.00 335 $ 16,080.00 Review operating permit application 0 1 0.00 40 $ 9,600.00 0 $ 0.00 Review data reports 15 1 5.00 8 $ 624.00 40 $ 3,120.00 Burden 2,215 $ 107,520.00 * Assumes hours per occurrence is the same as that in the 1998 ICR. Ex 8 EXHIBIT 9. CONSISTENCY UPDATES AND OVERSEEING STATE/ LOCAL ACTIVITIES EPA'S ANNUAL BURDEN Collection Activities Number of Respondents Number of Occurrences for 3 years Occurrences per year Hours per Occurrence* Cost per Occurrence Total Hours per Year Total Cost per Year Rates $ 48.00 Perform consistency updates 7 3 7 150 7,200.00 1,050 $ 50,400.00 Oversee State/ local agencies' activities 4 12 4 40 1,920.00 160 $ 7,680.00 Burden 1,210 $ 58,080.00 * Assumes hours per occurrence is the same as that in the 1998 ICR. Ex 9 EXHIBIT 10. OCS AIR REGULATIONS INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDEN SUMMARY OF ANNUAL BURDENS AND COSTS Responses Respondent Hours Respondent Costs O& M Costs Capital Costs Agency Hours Agency Costs New Exploration Sources Under EPA Authority ( Exhibit 1) 3 96 $ 5,472 $ 323 $ 0 New Development / Production Sources Under EPA Authority Exhibit 2) 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 New Exploration Sources Under Local Authority ( Exhibit 3) 4 1,323 $ 94,341 $ 840 $ 0 Existing Development / Production Sources Under Local Authority ( Exhibit 4) 55 22,143 $ 1,536,549 $ 16,723 $ 0 Subtotal of Industry Burden 62 30,244 $ 1,636,362 $ 17,886 $ 0 New Exploration Sources ( Exhibit 5) 276 $ 14,904 Existing Development/ Production Sources ( Exhibit 6) 3,504 $ 189,198 Subtotal of State/ Local Burden 3,780 $ 204,102 New Exploration Sources ( Exhibit 7) 64 $ 3,072 New and Existing Development/ Production Sources ( Exhibit 8) 2,215 $ 107,520 Consistency Updates ( Exhibit 9) 1,210 $ 58,080 Subtotal of EPA Burden 3,489 $ 168,672 Total Annual Cost / Burden for the Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations 62 34,024 $ 1,840,464 $ 17,886 $ 0 3,489 $ 168,672 Ex 10


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 226 (Monday, November 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82946-82947]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26175]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: December 4, 2023, 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern time.

PLACE: This meeting will be accessible via conference call and via Zoom
Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-205-
6099 (US Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (US Toll), Meeting ID: 995 6422 1765,
to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to participate
via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJ0oce2qrDotHNEDNYl_EsnEU6knje_9p_nd.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Industry Advisory Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'') will conduct a
meeting to continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified
Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement. The subject matter of this
meeting will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Call to Order--UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair

    The Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair will welcome attendees,
call the meeting to order, call roll for the Industry Advisory
Subcommittee, confirm whether a quorum is present, and facilitate self-
introductions.

II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director

    The UCR Executive Director will verify the publication of the
meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact
list via email followed by the subsequent publication of the notice in
the Federal Register.

III. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Agenda--UCR Industry Advisory
Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    The proposed Agenda will be reviewed, and the Subcommittee will
consider adoption.
Ground Rules
    [rtarr8]Subcommittee action only to be taken in designated areas on
agenda.

IV. Review and Approval of Minutes from the January 17, 2023 Meeting--
UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair

For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action

    Draft minutes from the January 17, 2023 Industry Advisory
Subcommittee meeting via teleconference will be reviewed. The UCR
Industry Advisory Subcommittee will consider action to approve.

V. 2024 Priorities and Project Development for the Subcommittee--UCR
Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair

    The UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair will lead a discussion
on the 2024 calendar year priorities and project development for the
Subcommittee.

VI. Other Items--UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair

    The UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair will call for any
other items Subcommittee members would like to discuss.

VII. Adjournment--UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair

    The UCR Industry Advisory Subcommittee Chair will adjourn the
meeting.
    The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
November 27, 2023 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2023-26175 Filed 11-22-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P