[Federal Register: June 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 103)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26099-26103]
[DOCID:fr01jn09-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0797-200824(a); FRL-8911-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans:
South Carolina; Approval of Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the
1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for Cherokee County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the
maintenance plan addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Cherokee
County, South Carolina. This maintenance plan was submitted for EPA
action on December 13, 2007, by the State of South Carolina, and
ensures the continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) through the year 2014. EPA is
approving the SIP revision pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). The maintenance plan meets all the statutory and regulatory
requirements, and is consistent with EPA's guidance. On March 12, 2008,
EPA issued a revised ozone standard. Today's action, however, is being
taken to address requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Requirements for the Cherokee County Area under the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard will be addressed in the future.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 31, 2009 without further notice,
unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by July 1, 2009. If EPA
receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2008-0797, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0797,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2008-0797.'' 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 through http:/
/www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. 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/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http: //www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Zuri Farngalo may be reached
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by electronic mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Analysis of the State's Submittals
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    In accordance with the CAA, the Cherokee County Area in South
Carolina was designated as a nonattainment area effective November 6,
1991 (56 FR 56694) because the area did not meet the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS.
    On December 15, 1992, the State of South Carolina submitted a
request to redesignate the Cherokee County Area

to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. Included in the same
package along with the redesignation request, South Carolina submitted
the required 1-hour ozone monitoring data and maintenance plan ensuring
the areas would remain in attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard for
a period of 10 years. The maintenance plan submitted by South Carolina
followed applicable law and EPA guidance for the required period.
    EPA approved South Carolina's request to redesignate the Cherokee
County, South Carolina area (67 FR 20647) to attainment for the 1-hour
ozone standard. The maintenance plan for Cherokee County was approved
on April 26, 2002, with an effective date of June 25, 2002 (67 FR
2647).
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858), and published the final Phase 1 Rule
for implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951), also
known as the ``Phase 1 Implementation Rule.'' The Cherokee County Area
was designated as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
effective June 15, 2004. The attainment area consequently was required
to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section 110(a) (1) of the
CAA and the Phase 1 Implementation Rule. On May 20, 2005, EPA issued
guidance providing information on how a State might fulfill the
maintenance plan obligation established by the CAA and the Phase 1
Implementation Rule (Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman to Air Division
Directors, Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone
Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act, May 20, 2005--hereafter
referred to as `` Wegman Memorandum''). On December 22, 2006, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
issued an opinion that vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for
the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard. (South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006).) The Court vacated those
portions of the Phase 1 Implementation Rule that provided for
regulation of the 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas designated
under Subpart 1 in lieu of Subpart 2 (of part D of the CAA), among
other portions. The Court's decision does not alter any requirements
under the Phase 1 Rule for this maintenance plan. South Carolina's
December 13, 2007, proposed SIP revision satisfies the section
110(a)(1) CAA requirements for a plan that provides for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Cherokee County Area.

II. Analysis of the State's Submittals

    On December 13, 2007, the State of South Carolina submitted a SIP
revision containing the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the
Cherokee County Area as required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA and
the provisions of EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule (see 40 CFR
51.905(a)(4)). The purpose of this plan is to ensure continued
attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the
Cherokee County Area until 2014.
    As required, this plan provides for continued attainment and
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the area for 10 years
from the effective date of the area's designation as attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and includes components illustrating how the
Cherokee County Area will continue attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and provides contingency measures. Each of the section 110(a)(1)
plan components is discussed below for each area.
    (a) Attainment Inventory. South Carolina developed comprehensive
inventories of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxide
(NOX) emissions from area, stationary point, stationary
area, on-road mobile, biogenic, and non-road mobile sources using 2002
as the base year to demonstrate maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the Cherokee County Area. The year 2002 is an appropriate
year for South Carolina to base attainment level emissions because
States may select any one of the three years on which the 1997 8-hour
attainment designation was based (2001, 2002, and 2003). The State's
submittal contains the detailed inventory data and summaries by source
category. Using the 2002 inventory as a base year reflects one of the
years used for calculating the air quality design values \1\ on which
the 1997 8-hour ozone designation decisions were based. It also is one
of the years in the 2000-2004 period used to establish baseline
visibility levels for the regional haze program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The air quality design value at a monitoring site is defined
as that concentration that when reduced to the level of the standard
ensures that the site meets the standard. For a concentration-based
standard, the air quality design value is simply the standard-
related test statistic. Thus, for the primary and secondary ozone
standards, the 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentration is also the air quality design
value for the site. 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Section 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A practical reason for selecting 2002 as the base year emission
inventory is that Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA and the Consolidated
Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) require States to
submit emissions inventories for all criteria pollutants and their
precursors every three years, on a schedule that includes the emissions
year 2002. The due date for the 2002 emissions inventory is established
in the rule as June 2004. In accordance with these requirements, South
Carolina compiles a Statewide emissions inventory for point sources on
an annual basis. On-road mobile emissions of VOC and NOX
were estimated using MOBILE 6.2 motor vehicle emissions factor computer
model. Non-road mobile emissions data were derived using the U.S. EPA's
Non-Road model.
    In projecting data for the attainment year 2014 inventory, South
Carolina used several methods to project data from the base year 2002
to the years 2010, 2012, and 2014. These projected inventories were
developed using EPA-approved technologies and methodologies. EPA's
Emissions Growth Analysis System model was used to derive growth
factors for area source data. These growth factors were used to
estimate projected area source emissions. The 2020 emissions inventory
was used to develop projections for stationary point, stationary area
and nonroad mobile sources. The projections for stationary point
sources and nonroad mobile sources were calculated by applying a one
percent per year industrial growth rate, based on forecasted economic
indicators listed in University of South Carolina Moore Business School
publications.
    The following table provides VOC and NOX emissions data
for the 2002 base attainment year inventory, as well as projected VOC
and NOX emissions inventory data for 2010 2012, and, 2014.

                            Table 1--Cherokee County VOC and NOX Emissions Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Emissions                          2002            2010            2012            2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total VOC (tons per day)........................           46.61           46.44           46.51           46.63
Total NOX (tons per day)........................           11.21            8.84            8.24            7.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1 above, the Cherokee County Area is projected to
decrease total NOX emissions from the base year of 2002 to
the maintenance year of 2014. Total VOC emissions steadily decreased
from the base year of 2002 through 2010, but are then projected to
increase by 0.12 tons per day between the years 2012 to the maintenance
year of 2014. However, year 2014 emissions are only slightly more than
the baseline year emission level. Thus South Carolina demonstrated that
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard will continue to be maintained. This
small increase of 0.02 tons per day above the base year 2002 inventory
is not expected to have an impact on maintenance of the 1997 standard,
particularly because the VOC inventory in this area is dominated by
biogenic sources. On-road mobile emission projections were calculated
by using EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission factor model.
    As shown in the table above, South Carolina has demonstrated that
the future year emissions will be less than or consistent with the 2002
base attainment year's emissions for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
attainment inventory submitted by South Carolina for this area is
consistent with the criteria as discussed in the Wegman Memorandum. EPA
finds that the future emissions levels in 2010, 2012, and 2014 are
expected to be similar to or less than the emissions levels in 2002. In
the event that a future 8-hour ozone monitoring reading in this area is
found to violate the 1997 ozone standard, the contingency plan section
of the maintenance plan includes measures that will be promptly
implemented to ensure that this area returns to maintenance of the 1997
ozone standard. Please see section (d) Contingency Plan, below, for
additional information related to the contingency measures.
    (b) Maintenance Demonstration. The primary purpose of a maintenance
plan is to demonstrate how an area will continue to remain in
attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the 10-year period
following the effective date of designation as unclassifiable/
attainment. The end projection year for the maintenance plan for the
Cherokee County Area is 2014. As discussed in section (a) Attainment
Inventory above, South Carolina identified the level of ozone-forming
emissions that were consistent with attainment of the NAAQS for ozone
in 2002. South Carolina projected VOC and NOX emissions for
the years 2010, 2012, and 2014 in the Cherokee County Area; and EPA
finds that the future emissions levels in those years are expected to
be similar to or below the emissions levels in 2002.
    South Carolina's SIP revisions also rely on several air quality
measures that will provide for additional 8-hour ozone emissions
reductions in the Cherokee County Area. These measures include the
implementation of the following, among others: (1) Tier 2 Motor Vehicle
Emissions and Fuel Standards, (2) Heavy-Duty Gasoline and Diesel
Highway Vehicles Standard, (3) Large Nonroad Diesel Engines Rule, (4)
Nonroad Spark Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines Standard, (5)
NOX SIP Call, (6) New Source Review (NSR) program, (7)
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) (8), and (9) Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Despite the legal status of CAIR as remanded, many
facilities have already installed or are continuing with plans to
install emission controls that may benefit the Cherokee County Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring. The table below shows design
values for the Cherokee County Area. The ambient ozone monitoring data
was collected at sites that were selected with assistance from the U.S.
EPA and are considered to be representative of the area of highest
concentration.
    There is one monitor in the Cherokee County Area. There were no
recent design values above the 1997 0.08 ppm standard and it is
anticipated that the monitors will remain at current locations, unless
otherwise allowed to be removed in consultation with the EPA and in
accordance with the 40 CFR part 58.

                 Table 2--Design Values for 8-Hour Ozone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cherokee
                          Year                              County (in
                                                               ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000-2002...............................................           0.087
2001-2003...............................................           0.084
2002-2004...............................................           0.080
2003-2005...............................................           0.075
2004-2006...............................................           0.074
2005-2007...............................................           0.073
2006-2008...............................................           0.074
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Table above, the most recent design values identified
demonstrate attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Further, these
design values indicate that the Cherokee County Area is expected to
continue attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The attainment
level for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is effectively 0.084 ppm.
However, in the event that a design value at the Cherokee County Area
monitor exceeds the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 84 parts per billion,
the Contingency Plan included in South Carolina's maintenance plan
submittal includes contingency measures which will be promptly
implemented in section (d) Contingency Plan, below.
    (d) Contingency Plan. The section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans
include contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that occurs. The contingency indicator for the
Cherokee County Area maintenance plan is based on updates to the
emission inventories. The triggering mechanism for activation of
contingency measures is a ten percent or greater increase in emissions
of either VOC or NOX based on the 2002 emissions inventory.
In this maintenance plan, if contingency measures are triggered, South
Carolina is committing to implement the measures as expeditiously as
practicable, but no longer than twenty-four months. Some of the
contingency measures include: (1) Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for NOX and VOC on existing stationary
sources; (2) implementation of diesel retrofit programs, including
incentives for performing retrofits for fleet vehicle operations \3\;
(3) alternative fuel

programs for fleet vehicles \4\; (4) gas can and lawnmower replacement
programs; (5) voluntary engine idling reduction programs; (6)
implementation of additional control in upwind areas; and (7) other
measures deemed appropriate at the time as a result of advances in
control technologies.
    These contingency measures and schedules for implementation satisfy
EPA's long-standing guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(1)
of continued attainment. Continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Cherokee County Area will depend, in part, on the air
quality measures discussed previously (see section II). In addition,
South Carolina commits to verify the 1997 8-hour ozone status in each
maintenance plan through annual and periodic evaluations of the
emissions inventories. In the annual evaluation, South Carolina will
review VOC and NOX emission data from stationary point sources. During
the periodic evaluations (every three years), South Carolina will
update the emissions inventory for all emissions source categories, and
compare the updated emissions inventory data to the projected 2010,
2012, and 2014 attainment emissions inventories to verify continued
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ At this time, there is not an approved method for
determining emission reductions from a Diesel Inspection and
Maintenance program. Therefore, there is no technical basis to award
emission credits for a heavy duty diesel inspection and maintenance
program in the SIP. However, we do not want to preclude future
technical changes that may make awarding such emission credits
possible. If it is necessary to implement contingency measures for
this area, South Carolina, in coordination with EPA, will evaluate
the feasibility of this program as a contingency measure at that
time. If a technical basis for emission credits is not available,
other contingency measures will need to be implemented.
    \4\ If this contingency measure is necessary it will be
considered and evaluated in accordance with Section 211(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving the
maintenance plan addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in Cherokee
County, South Carolina which was submitted by South Carolina on
December 13, 2007, and ensures continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS through the year 2014. EPA has evaluated South Carolina's
submittal and has determined that it meets the applicable requirements
of the CAA and EPA regulations, and is consistent with EPA policy.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comment be filed. This rule will be effective on July 31, 2009
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comment by
July 1, 2009. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a
document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no such comments
are received, the public is advised this rule will be effective on July
31, 2009 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2009. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 15, 2009.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart PP--South Carolina

0
2. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by adding a new entry for the
``Cherokee County 8-Hour Ozone Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2210  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved South Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Applicable
  Name of nonregulatory SIP    geographic or                     EPA approval
          provision            nonattainment   Effective date        date                  Explanation
                                    area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Cherokee County 110(a)(1)     Cherokee County      12/13/2007  July 31, 2009.
 Maintenance Plan for the                                       [Insert
 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard.                                    citation of
                                                                publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E9-12546 Filed 5-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 100 (Friday, May 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31198-31199]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4542-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

South Carolina; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-4542-DR), dated May 1,
2020, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued May 1, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 1, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of South Carolina resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and
straight-line winds during the period of April 12 to April 13, 2020,
is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of South Carolina.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public
Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout
the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance
be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act
for Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
under section 408 will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Allan Jarvis, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of South Carolina have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Aiken, Colleton, Hampton, Marlboro, Oconee, Orangeburg, and
Pickens Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Barnwell, Colleton, Georgetown, Hampton, Oconee, Orangeburg, and
Pickens Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of South Carolina are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-11109 Filed 5-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 92)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22712-22714]
[DOCID:fr14my09-16]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0447; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-172-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB
340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B 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:

    During refueling, the ground crew detected smoke from the
refuel/defuel panel illuminated placard 160VU. * * *
* * * * *

The unsafe condition is an electrical malfunction in the illuminated
placard of the refuel and defuel panel, which could result in fire. 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 June 15, 2009.

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
Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aerosystems, SE-581 88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden;
telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.saabgroup.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<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: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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-2009-0447;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-172-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 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 2008-0127R1, dated August 7, 2008 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During refueling, the ground crew detected smoke from the
refuel/defuel panel illuminated placard 160VU. The design of the
refuel/defuel panel illuminated placard was changed during 1997 from
its original specification, to fill the cavity inside the placard
with silicone to avoid moisture/fluid ingress. SAAB has reviewed the
working procedure and has developed a placard filled with a bi-
component silicone-based material to minimize the cavity inside the
panels.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA AD requires the
identification of the manufacturing date of the affected placard, a
visual inspection of the placard for heat and/or burn marks and the
installation of a new placard in accordance with the instructions of
SAAB Service Bulletin (SB) 340-28-027.
    This AD has been revised to identify the affected VIBRACHOC (the
part manufacturer) placard with Part Number (P/N) C4FL5031C001,
instead of the corresponding SAAB P/N 9303719-001, which was (also)
quoted inaccurately. In addition, it has been recognised that the
original AD did not allow installation of the placards with a
manufacturing date before 31/97; that has now been corrected.

    The unsafe condition is an electrical malfunction in the
illuminated placard of the refuel and defuel panel, which could result
in fire. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in
the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Saab has issued Service Bulletin 340-28-027, Revision 01, dated
July 7, 2008. 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 141 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,500 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $234,060, or $1,660 per product.

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, Incorporated 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:

Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems: Docket No. FAA-2009-0447; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NM-172-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by June 15, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and
SAAB 340B airplanes; certified in any category; all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

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

    During refueling, the ground crew detected smoke from the
refuel/defuel panel illuminated placard 160VU. The design of the
refuel/defuel panel illuminated placard was changed during 1997 from
its original specification, to fill the cavity inside the placard
with silicone to avoid moisture/fluid ingress. SAAB has reviewed the
working procedure and has developed a placard filled with a bi-
component silicone-based material to minimize the cavity inside the
panels.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA AD requires the
identification of the manufacturing date of the affected placard, a
visual inspection of the placard for heat and/or burn marks and the
installation of a new placard in accordance with the instructions of
SAAB Service Bulletin (SB) 340-28-027.
    This AD has been revised to identify the affected VIBRACHOC (the
part manufacturer) placard with Part Number (P/N) C4FL5031C001,
instead of the corresponding SAAB P/N 9303719-001, which was (also)
quoted inaccurately. In addition, it has been recognised that the
original AD did not allow installation of the placards with a
manufacturing date before 31/97; that has now been corrected.

The unsafe condition is an electrical malfunction in the illuminated
placard of the refuel and defuel panel, which could result in fire.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect
the illuminated placard of the refuel and defuel panel, part number
(P/N) C4FL5031C001, for signs of heat and burn marks, in accordance
with Saab Service Bulletin 340-28-027, Revision 01, dated July 7,
2008.
    (2) If any sign of heat or burn marks are found, before further
flight, replace the illuminated placard of the refuel and defuel
panel with a new illuminated placard of the refuel and defuel panel,
having part number C4FL5031C001, and marked with a manufacturer date
before 31/97 (i.e., week 31 of 1997), or a manufacturing date of 37/
07 (i.e., week 37 of 2007) or higher and marked `Amdt:A.', in
accordance with Saab Service Bulletin 340-28-027, Revision 01, dated
July 7, 2008.
    (3) If no signs of heat and burn marks are found, within 12
months after accomplishing the inspection required by (f)(1) of this
AD is done, replace the illuminated placard of the fuel and defuel
panel with a new illuminated placard of the refuel and defuel panel,
having part number C4FL5031C001, and marked with a manufacturer date
before

31/97 (i.e., week 31 of 1997) or a manufacturing date of 37/07
(i.e., week 37 of 2007) or higher and marked `Amdt:A.', in
accordance with Saab Service Bulletin 340-28-027, Revision 01, dated
July 7, 2008.
    (4) As of 15 months after the effective date of this AD,
installing an illuminated placard of the refuel and defuel panel is
prohibited on any airplane, unless it has a manufacturing date
before 31/97, or unless it has a manufacturing date of 37/07 or
higher and is marked `Amdt:A'.
    (5) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Saab Service Bulletin 340-28-027, dated April 30,
2008, are considered acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and
(f)(3) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) 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:
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
227-1149. 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, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2008-0127R1, dated August 7, 2008; and Saab Service
Bulletin 340-28-027, Revision 01, dated July 7, 2008, for related
information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 6, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-11281 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8711-8712]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Public Notice: Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Docket No.                File date                       Presenter or requester
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    CP18-46-000.....................      2/21/19  Richland Township.

    P-1267-000......................      2/21/19  Robert H. Brewer.
    P-2082-000......................      2/26/19  Ursula Bendix.
Exempt:
    P-2305-000......................      2/21/19  State Representative James White.
                                                   Senator John Cornyn.
                                                   Senator Ted Cruz.
                                                   Congressman Brian Babin.
    CP16-480-000....................      2/26/19  State Representative Alex Dominguez.
                                                   Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick.
    CP18-102-000....................      2/28/19  FERC Staff.
    CP18-103-000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 5, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-04320 Filed 3-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEGTEC Systems A Unit of Sequa Corporation 830 Prosper Road, PO Box 5030 De Pere, WI 54115 5030 Telephone: ( 920) 339 2789 Fax: ( 920) 339 2784 Email: srach@ megtec. com 21 June 2006 Mr. David Salman United States EPA U. S. EPA ( MD 13) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Dear David:

In our discussion on the 13th of this month, we discussed your desire to obtain data on flows and VOC loading for both flexographic and rotogravure presses used in flexible packaging. This request is due to your providing assistance to your associates in relationship to the 183e determination on a national rule vs. a CTG for flexible packaging.

As I noted, both flows and VOC loading for these presses are extremely variable due to factors like, age of the press, printed product layout, press speeds, and many other items. In our conversation we did not discuss the subject of capture and destruction efficiency, which I noted was covered in the materials sent to you by Ram Singhal of the Flexible Packaging Association following the visit to RTP on May 22nd by some of the Environmental Committee members of the association. Therefore, let's address what I found based on your request on the 13th.

I have spend the past few evenings reviewing various client project files to look at existing as well as new presses. What I found was even more diverse than I thought I would find. We can start with flexographic presses, where the exhaust flows vary from 1,500 scfm to 9,000 scfm for existing presses. The variables include; web width, number of colors, web speed, if recirculation is included or not. For new presses the range is even larger, due to some of the presses being provided to operate at speeds approaching 2,000 fpm and web widths that are double what was offered a number of years ago. At the opposite end are small presses designed for specific market segments that can have flows as low as 1,000 scfm. When we at MEGTEC Systems look at a press, we are concerned with the maximum VOC loading to insure the oxidizer can handle that loading, while also looking at averages to insure the technology can operate in a manner that is energy efficient. A " typical" flexible packaging application would have an average VOC loading of 1.5 to 2.5% LFL concentrations, with the upper end being in the 10% range. Mr. David Salman 21 June 2006 United States EPA Page 2 In the rotogravure packaging printing presses, I looked at the same data on flows and VOC loading. The variability in both areas mirrors what is seen in the flexographic process. At one time rotogravure was a technology that was almost exclusively for high speed, heavy ink coverage, long run printing projects. In the past few years that has changed with newer presses that allow for fast changeover and short runs, to compete with the flexographic vendors. We have seen gravure presses with exhaust rates under 2,000 scfm and at the other end of the spectrum we see flows of over 30,000 scfm. There has always been a perception that VOC loading from gravure presses were very high and the clients of the flexible packaging gravure printers and the press manufacturers have changed that. Today we see VOC loadings from 1.5% to 5% LFL, so the amount of VOCs are similar, but the average may be slightly higher due to the number of older presses still installed and in operation.

The data I reviewed are those clients who we have worked on in the US where we have between 400 & 450 units installed. In addition I also looked at an added 50 printers in Canada where they are still awaiting final regulations for the flexible packaging printing community. In my initial effort to delve into this subject, I had some pre conceived notions that the flows and VOC loadings would be rather tightly grouped together. In looking at the detailed data, I found I was wrong, the variability is quite high and the numbers I was looking for were based on market sub segment, age of presses, and how the printers accomplish their goals of meeting client expectations. This supports my long held belief that of the hundreds of industries we supply equipment to; the flexible packaging industry has due to product and client expectations, the highest variability in their facilities of any other industry.

I would guess with a couple weeks time, I could prepare a detailed chart showing all of those variables, but at this point, I wanted to get this letter back to you as soon as possible as you noted you are under a very tight schedule. If you have questions on this letter or I can be of added assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Steven E. Rach MEGTEC Systems, Industrial Emission Control Products CC: R. Singhal   Flexible Packaging Association K. Zak  MEGTEC Systems


[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 41751-41752]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-82]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8447-5]

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Request for Nominations
for 2007 Clean Air Excellence Awards Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for nominations for Clean Air Excellence Awards.

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

SUMMARY: EPA established the Clean Air Excellence Awards Program in
February, 2000. This is an annual awards program to recognize
outstanding and innovative efforts that support progress in achieving
clean air. This notice announces the competition for the Year 2007
program.

DATES: All submissions of entries for the Clean Air Excellence Awards
Program must be postmarked by September 21, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Concerning the Clean Air Excellence
Awards Program please use the CAAAC Web site and click on awards
program

or contact Mr. Pat Childers, U.S. EPA at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Fax), mailing address: Office of Air and Radiation (6102A), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Awards Program Notice: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
7403(a)(1) and (2) and sections 103(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), notice is hereby given that the EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR) announces the opening of competition for the Year 2007
``Clean Air Excellence Awards Program'' (CAEAP). The intent of the
program is to recognize and honor outstanding, innovative efforts that
help to make progress in achieving cleaner air. The CAEAP is open to
both public and private entities. Entries are limited to the United
States. There are five general award categories: (1) Clean Air
Technology; (2) Community Action; (3) Education/Outreach; (4)
Regulatory/Policy Innovations; (5) Transportation Efficiency
Innovations; and two special awards categories: (1) Thomas W. Zosel
Outstanding Individual Achievement Award, and (2) Gregg Cooke Visionary
Program Award. Awards are given on an annual basis and are for
recognition only.
    Entry Requirements: All applicants are asked to submit their entry
on a CAEAP entry form, contained in the CAEAP Entry Package, which may
be obtained from the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Web site
at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac by clicking on Awards Program or by

contacting Mr. Pat Childers, U.S. EPA at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax, mailing address: Office of Air and Radiation (6102A), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. The entry form is a
simple, three-part form asking for general information on the applicant
and the proposed entry; asking for a description of why the entry is
deserving of an award; and requiring information from three (3)
independent references for the proposed entry. Applicants should also
submit additional supporting documentation as necessary. Specific
directions and information on filing an entry form are included in the
Entry Package.
    Judging and Award Criteria: Judging will be accomplished through a
screening process conducted by EPA staff, with input from outside
subject experts, as needed. Members of the CAAAC will provide advice to
EPA on the entries. The final award decisions will be made by the EPA
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Entries will be judged
using both general criteria and criteria specific to each individual
category. There are four (4) general criteria: (1) The entry directly
or indirectly (i.e., by encouraging actions) reduces emissions of
criteria pollutants or hazardous/toxic air pollutants; (2) The entry
demonstrates innovation and uniqueness; (3) The entry provides a model
for others to follow (i.e., it is replicable); and (4) The positive
outcomes from the entry are continuing/sustainable. Although not
required to win an award, the following general criteria will also be
considered in the judging process: (1) The entry has positive effects
on other environmental media in addition to air; (2) The entry
Demonstrates effective collaboration and partnerships; and (3) The
individual or organization submitting the entry has effectively
measured/evaluated the outcomes of the project, program, technology,
etc. As previously mentioned, additional criteria will be used for each
individual award category. These criteria are listed in the 2007 Entry
Package.

    Dated: July 25, 2007.
Patrick Childers,
Designated Federal Official for Clean Air Act Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E7-14731 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 46154]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16815]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Non-Rulemaking Action
To Change Land Use From Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical at Jackson-
Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport, Jackson, Mississippi

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of title 49, U.S.C. 47153(c), notice is
being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Jackson
Municipal Airport Authority to waive the requirement that a 130 acre
parcel of surplus property, located on Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers
International Airport, be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Jackson Airports
District Office, Attn: Jeff Orr, Program Manager, 100 West Cross
Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Carl Newman, Chief Executive Officer,
Jackson Municipal Airport Authority at the following address: P.O. Box
98109, Jackson, MS 39298-8109.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Orr, Program Manager, Jackson
Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS
39208-2307,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may be reviewed in person
at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If the proposal is approved, the airport
layout plan will be updated to reflect the change in the land use on
130 acres from aeronautical to non-aeronautical. The property will then
be leased for Commercial Development. The location of the land relative
to existing or anticipated aircraft noise contours greater than 65 DNL
are not considered to be an issue. The proceeds from the lease of this
property will be used for airport purposes. The proposed use of this
property is compatible with airport operations.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the request,
notice and other documents germane to the request in person at the
Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport.

    Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on July 7, 2016.
William J. Schuller,
Acting Manager, Jackson Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-16815 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2665-2668]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00513]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC21-3-000 and RD20-4-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-725d); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on a renewal of currently approved
information collection, FERC-725D (Facilities Design, Connections and
Maintenance Reliability Standards). This notice includes all modified
standards included in FERC725D (FAC-001-3, FAC-002-3, FAC-010-2, FAC-
011-3, and FAC-014-2) in Docket no. IC21-3-000 for renewal which
already reflect the changes mentioned in version update RD20-4-000
published separately. All burden totals supersede previous notices for
both dockets.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due February 12,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC21-3-000
and RD20-4-000) by one of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov.
     U.S. Postal Service Mail: Persons unable to file
electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426
     Effective 7/1/2020, delivery of filings other than by
eFiling or the U.S. Postal Service should be delivered to Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user
assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725D ,\1\ Facilities Design, Connections and
Maintenance Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This renewal is being submitted to extend the OMB expiration
date and will not have an effect on the Docket No. RD20-4 that was
also addressed separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0247.
    Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-725D information
collection requirements, with no changes to the reporting or
recordkeeping requirements. (There are adjustments to the estimates to
update the totals that represent the numbers reflected in the NERC
Compliance Registry as of July 17, 2020).
    Abstract: On August 8, 2005, The Electricity Modernization Act of
2005, which is Title XII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005),
was enacted into law. EPAct 2005 added a new section 215 to the Federal
Power Act (FPA), which requires a Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable
Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Once
approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject
to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently. Section
215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified ERO to develop mandatory
and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and
approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be enforced by
the ERO subject to Commission oversight or by

the Commission independently. In 2006, the Commission certified NERC
(now called the North American Electric Reliability Corporation) as the
ERO pursuant to section 215 of the FPA. On March 16, 2007 (pursuant to
section 215(d) of the FPA), the Commission issued Order No. 693,
approving 83 of the 107 initial Reliability Standards filed by NERC. In
the intervening years, numerous changes have been made to update,
eliminate, or establish various Reliability Standards.
    The information collected by FERC-725D is required to implement the
statutory provisions of section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16
U.S.C. 824c). The following standards are included in FERC-725D.
     FAC-001-3 (Facility Interconnection Requirements) \2\
requires each transmission owner and applicable generator owner to
document facility interconnection requirements, and to make them
available upon request to entities seeking to interconnect. In
addition, Reliability Standard FAC-001-3 requires each transmission
owner and applicable generator owner to include procedures for
coordinating studies to determine the impact of interconnecting
facilities on existing interconnections as well as on affected systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FAC-001-3 is included in the OMB-approved inventory for
FERC-725D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FAC-002-3 (Facility Interconnection Studies) \3\ requires
each transmission planner and each planning coordinator to study the
reliability impact of interconnecting new--or materially modifying
existing--generation, transmission, or electricity end-user facilities
on affected systems. In particular, Reliability Standard FAC-002-3
requires transmission planners and planning coordinators to perform
steady-state, short-circuit, and dynamic studies to evaluate system
performance under both normal and contingency conditions. In addition,
Reliability Standard FAC-002-3 requires each generator owner seeking to
interconnect, each transmission owner, each distribution provider, and
each load-serving entity that is seeking to interconnect new--or
materially modifying existing--transmission facilities or end-user
facilities to coordinate and cooperate on studies with its transmission
planner and planning coordinator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The burden associated FAC-002-2 is included in the OMB-
approved inventory for FERC-725D. Reliability Standard FAC-002-3 was
approved October 30, 2020 by order in Docket No. RD20-4-000. The net
reduction in burden associated with FAC-002-3 is pending OMB
approval in Docket No. RD20-4-000 and is reflected in this request
for a three-year renewal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FAC-010-3 (System Operating Limits Methodology for the
Planning Horizon) \4\ requires the planning authority to have a
documented methodology for use in developing system operating limits
(SOLs) and must retain evidence that it issued its SOL methodology to
relevant reliability coordinators, transmission operators and adjacent
planning authorities. Likewise, the planning authority must respond to
technical comments on the methodology within 45 days of receipt.
Further, each planning authority must self-certify its compliance to
the compliance monitor once every three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The burden associated with FAC-010-2 is included in the OMB-
approved inventory for FERC-725D. Reliability Standard FAC-010-2.1
was approved April 19, 2010 by order in Docket No. RD10-9-000. FAC-
010-2.1 did not change the burden associated with FAC-010-2 because
it included errata renumbering of specific requirements. Reliability
Standard FAC-010-3 was approved November 19, 2015 in FERC Order No.
818, Docket No. RM15-13-000. The only change to the standard was
replacing the term ``special protection system'' with ``remedial
action scheme.'' This change did not result in a change in the
information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FAC-011-3 (System Operating Limits Methodology for the
Operations Horizon) \5\ requires the reliability coordinator to have a
documented methodology for use in developing SOLs and must retain
evidence that it issued its SOL methodology to relevant reliability
coordinators, transmission operators and adjacent planning authorities.
Likewise, the reliability coordinator must respond to technical
comments on the methodology within 45 days of receipt. Further, each
reliability coordinator must self-certify its compliance to the
compliance monitor once every three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The burden associated with FAC-011-2 is included in the OMB-
approved inventory for FERC-725D. Reliability Standard FAC-011-3 was
approved November 19, 2015 in FERC Order No. 818, Docket No. RM15-
13-000. The only change to the standard was replacing the term
``special protection system'' with ``remedial action scheme.'' This
change did not result in a change in the information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FAC-014-2 (Establish and Communicate System Operating
Limits) \6\ requires the reliability coordinator, planning authority,
transmission operator, and transmission planner to verify compliance
through self-certification submitted to the compliance monitor
annually. These entities must also document that they have developed
SOLs consistent with the applicable SOL methodology and that they have
provided SOLs to entities identified in Requirement 5 of the
Reliability Standard. Further, the planning authority must maintain a
list of multiple contingencies and their associated stability limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The burden associated with FAC-014-2 is included in the OMB-
approved inventory for FERC-725D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The associated reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in
the Reliability Standards FAC-001-3, FAC010-3, FAC-011-3 and FAC-014-2
above are not being revised, and the Commission requests to extend
these requirements for three years. The Commission's request also
reflects the following:
     Implementation of FAC-002-3 (as approved by order in
Docket No. RD20-4-000).\7\ This includes elimination of the burden
associated with the load-serving entity (LSE) function in Requirement
R3 of proposed Reliability Standard FAC-002-3. The NERC petition states
as the load-serving entity is no longer a NERC registration category,
NERC proposed to remove this entity from the applicability section of
proposed Reliability Standard FAC-002-3 and remove reference to this
entity in Requirement R3.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The burden associated with FAC-002-2 is included in the OMB-
approved inventory for FERC-725D. Reliability Standard FAC-002-3 was
approved October 30, 2020 by order in Docket No. RD20-4-000. The
change in burden associated with FAC-002-3 is pending OMB approval
in Docket No. RD20-4-000 and is reflected in this request for a
three-year renewal.
    \8\ The petition and exhibits are posted in the Commission's
eLibrary system in Docket No. RD20-4-000 (Standards Alignment with
Registration Petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Adjustments to the burden estimates due to changes in the
NERC Compliance Registry for Reliability Standard FAC-002-3.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The adjustments to burden estimates associated with FAC-002-
3 is pending OMB approval in Docket No. RD20-4-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 60-day notice was published on November 5, 2020 (85 FR 70606),
and no comments were received. The burden estimate in the 60-day notice
has been updated below to correct the net decrease in burden for
Reliability Standard FAC-002-3.
    Type of Respondents Type of Respondents: PA/PC, TP, TO, DP, &
GO.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ PA = Planning Authority; PC = Planning Coordinator; TO =
Transmission Owner; GO = Generator Owner; DP = Distribution
Provider; TP = Transmission Provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimate of Annual Burden \11\ and Cost: \12\ Renewal Docket No.
IC21-3.

The Commission estimates an increase (adjustment) in the annual public
reporting burden for the FERC-725D that follow the standards FAC-001-3,
FAC-002-3, FAC-010-3, FAC-011-3, and FAC-014-2. The Commission
estimates a net decrease (adjustment) in the annual public reporting
burden for the FERC-725D for the Reliability Standard FAC-002-3. The
estimate for Reliability Standard FAC-002-3 decreased from 399 to 326
responses.\13\ Burden estimates for the remaining Reliability Standards
in FERC-725D are unchanged as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Burden is defined as 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. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \12\ The estimates for cost per hour are derived as follows:
     $83.67/hour, the average of the salary plus benefits
for a manager ($97.15/hour) and an electrical engineer ($70.19/
hour), from Bureau of Labor and Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm, as of June 2020.
     Record and Information Clerks (43-4199): $41.03/hour,
based on a Commission staff study of record retention burden cost.
    \13\ The OMB-approved burden for FAC-002-2 of 399 responses does
not include the responses for record retention as shown in Docket
No. RD14-12-000. The net reduction in burden of 146 responses for
FAC-002-3 is pending OMB approval under Docket No. RD20-4-000 and
reflects
     an adjusted addition of 20 PCs and TPs for studies and
evidence retention, which results in an increase of 40 responses;
and
     a program and adjusted reduction of 63 de-registered
load-serving entities and 30 TOs, GOs, and DPs for coordination and
evidence retention, which results in a decrease of 186 responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FAC-001-3 remain unchanged at 498 responses.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This is the sum of the OMB-approved burden for FAC-001-2 of
337 responses plus the additional OMB-approved burden for FAC-001-3
of 161 responses. These burden estimates do not include the
responses for record retention as shown in Docket No. RD14-12-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     FAC-010-3, FAC-011-3 and FAC-014-2 remains unchanged at
470 responses.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The OMB-approved burden for FAC-010-3, FAC-011-3 and FAC-
014-2 is a joint burden estimate of 470 responses as shown in the
2011 supporting statement for FERC-725D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table shows the previous figures from the 60-day
renewal notice in Docket No. IC21-3, the program changes and
adjustments from Docket No. RD20-4, and the resulting totals. RD20-4
version update); Version Update RD20-4 has a net decrease (-146) in
responses for FAC002-3 (previously FAC002-2) which created a total of
1,957 responses (net change was already calculated in the renewal but
omitted the retention totals in prior renewals. For this notice and
moving forward, Record Retention will be included in the burden
estimates for all standards), as shown below in the table:

         Proposed Changes to Burden Due to Docket No. RD20-4-000 and Adjustments and Clarifications \16\
                               [Version update for FAC-002-3 (formerly FAC-002-2)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average burden    Total annual
                               Number and type   Annual number  Total number of   per response    burden (hours)
                                of respondent    of responses      responses     (hours) & cost   & total annual
                                                per respondent                    per response       cost ($)
                               (1)............             (2)  (1) * (2) = (3)             (4)  (3) * (4) = (5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      FERC-725D, OMB Control No. 1902-0247
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAC-002-3 (Facility            +20 (PC & TP)..               1  +20............              32  640.
 Interconnection Studies) R1
 Record Retention--adjustment.
FAC-002-3 (Facility            +20 (PC & TP)..               1  +20............               1  20.
 Interconnection Studies) R1
 Record Retention--adjustment.
FAC-002-3 (Facility            -93 (TO, GO &                 1   93............              16   1,488.
 Interconnection Studies) R2-   DP) \18\.
 R5 Coordination--(program
 decrease & adjustment
 decrease) \17\.
FAC-002-3 (Facility            -93 (TO, GO &                 1  -93............               1  -93.
 Interconnection Studies) R2-   DP).
 R5 Record Retention--
 (program decrease &
 adjustment decrease) \19\.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Total for FERC-725D..  ...............  ..............  -146 (net        ..............  -921 (net
                                                                 reduction).                      reduction).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Renewal for Docket No. IC21-3-000) FERC-725D: (Mandatory Reliability Standards: FAC (Facilities, Design,
                                        Connections, and Maintenance) **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average burden
                               Number and type   Annual number                    per response     Total annual
                                of respondent    of responses    Total number    (hours) \21\ &   burden (hours)
                                     \20\       per respondent   of responses       cost per      & total annual
                                                                                response      cost \22\ ($)
                               (1)............             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)............  (3) * (4) = (5)
                                                                           (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            FAC-001-3, FAC-002-3, FAC-010-3, FAC-011-3, and FAC-014-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAC-001-3 (Documentation &     GO/TO 498......               1             498  34 hrs.;         16,932 hrs.;
 Updates).                                                                       $1,338.72.       $1,416,700.44.
Record Retention.............  GO 5...........               1               5  1 hr.; $41.03..  5 hrs.;
                                                                                $205.15.
                               TO 332.........               1             332  1 hr.; $41.03..  332 hrs.;
                                                                                $13,621.96.
                               GO/TO 161......               1             161  1 hr.; \23\      161 hrs.; \23\
                                                                                $41.03.          $6,605.83.
FAC-002-3 (Study &             PC, TP 399.....               1             399  32 hrs.;         12,768 hrs.;
 Coordination).                                                                  $2008.08.        \24\
                                                                                $1,068,298.56.
Record Retention.............  PC, TP 183.....               1             183  1 hr.; $41.03..  183 hrs.;
                                                                                $7,325.49.
                               TO, DP, LSE, GO               1             216  1 hr.; $41.03..  216 hrs.;
                                216.                                                              $8,862.48.
FAC-010-2, FAC-011-3, FAC-014- PA/RC/TP/TO 470               1             470  295.7 hrs.;      138,979 hrs.;
 2 (Transmission & Planning).   \25\.                                            $24,741.219.     $11,628,372.93
                                                                                .
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sub-Totals for FERC-725D.  1,367..........               1           1,367  361.7 hrs......  168,679 hrs.;
                                                                                $14,113,371.93
                                                                                .
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        FAC-001-3, FAC-002-3,  1,957..........               1           1,957  366.7 hrs......  168,655 hrs.;
         FAC-010-3, FAC-011-                                                                      \26\
         3, and FAC-014-2                                                                         $14,079,040.68
         Totals including                                                                         .
         Record Retention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \16\ The adjustments, due to normal industry fluctuations, are
based on figures in the NERC registry as of April 10, 2020.
    \17\ The reduction of 93 respondents and corresponding burden
hours include 63 LSEs that were de-registered (program decrease of
1,008 hrs.) and an adjustment decrease of 30 respondents (480 hrs.)
due to normal industry fluctuations.
    Out of the total decrease of 1,488 hours, the program decrease
of 1,008 hours [corresponding decrease of 63 responses] is due to
Docket No. RD20-4-000. The reduction of 480 hours is due to normal
adjustments.
    \18\ Although 1,232 entities are registered as TO, DP, or GO, we
expect at the most 123 entities (ten percent) will seek to
interconnect and go through the study phase that may require
coordination in any given year.
    \19\ For Record retention--The reduction of 93 respondents and
corresponding burden hours include 63 LSEs that were de-registered
(program decrease of 63 hrs., due to Docket No. RD20-4-000) and an
adjustment decrease of 30 respondents (30 hrs.) due to normal
industry fluctuations--this results in doubling of decrease in 93
respondents and increase of 20 additional respondents.
    \20\ The number of respondents is based on the NERC Compliance
Registry as of September 24, 2014. Although 2,163 entities are
registered as TO, DP, LSE, or GO, as relates to Docket RD14-12, we
expect at the most 216 entities (ten percent) will seek to
interconnect and go through the study phase that may require
coordination in any given year.
    \21\ Of the average estimated 295.702 hours per response, 210
hours are for recordkeeping, and 85.702 hours are for reporting.
    \22\ The estimates for cost per hour are derived as follows:
     $83.67/hour, the average of the salary plus benefits
for a manager ($97.15/hour) and an electrical engineer ($70.19/
hour), from Bureau of Labor and Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm, as of June 2020.
     Record and Information Clerks (43-4199): $41.03/hour,
based on a Commission staff study of record retention burden cost.
    \23\ The average burden hours per response related to FAC-001-3
was listed as 2 hours in the RM16-13 Final Rule, resulting in an
annual burden related to FAC-001-3 is 322 hours (from 161 hours in
the issued Final Rule).
    \24\ The Previous burden in 60-day notice published on 11/5/2020
was modified to reflect the net changes in burden mention in RD20-4
and incorporated previously omitted record retention burden.
    \25\ The total number of Planning Authorities, Reliability
Coordinators, Transmission Planners and Transmission Operators
equals 470 (taken from the October 2020, version of NERC's
compliance registry).
    \26\ Deducts net proposed changes (-921 hours) totals with
retention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: January 7, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-00513 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P