[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25604-25608]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11824]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0073; FRL-9978-92--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; SC; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4
(Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone
NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take
the following four actions regarding the South Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP): Approve the portion of South Carolina's
September 5, 2017, SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) for certain regional haze requirements; convert EPA's limited
approval/limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze plan to
a full approval; remove EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for
South Carolina, which replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR
to address the deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of
South Carolina's regional haze plan; and convert the conditional
approvals of the visibility prong of South Carolina's infrastructure
SIP submittals for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5),
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2), and 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) to full approvals.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0073 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-
9031 or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Regional Haze Plans and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires
states to submit regional haze plans that contain such measures as may
be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and
operate Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) as determined by the
state. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may
be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a
Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls,
states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. See
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with this flexibility in the
RHR, adopted in 1999, and further refined the criteria for assessing
whether an alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress
in two subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR
39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
    EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable
progress than BART in revisions to the regional haze program made in
2005.\1\ See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA
amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the
CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or
states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected
BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and
maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides
(NOX). As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was
``better-than-BART,'' a number of states in the CAIR region, including
South Carolina, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an
alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and
NOX in designing their regional haze plans. These states
also relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for
achieving their reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional
haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA
without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by
CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (DC Cir. 2008). On
August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule
in CSAPR-subject states.\2\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to
begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states
(and the District of Columbia), including South Carolina, that
contributed to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    \2\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2, annual
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally
flawed'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that
ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze plans to the extent
that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the

requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On
these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of South Carolina's
regional haze plan on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), and in the same
action, promulgated a FIP to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on
CSAPR to address the deficiencies in South Carolina's regional haze
plan. EPA finalized a limited approval of South Carolina's regional
haze plan on June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38509), as meeting the remaining
applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR.
    In the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval action, EPA also amended
the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR
trading program for a given pollutant--either a CSAPR federal trading
program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state
trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--
qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant. See
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous
states covered by CSAPR have come to rely on the provision through
either SIPs or FIPs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for
BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia (77 FR at 33654) and Nebraska (77 FR 40150 (July
6, 2012)). EPA has approved SIPs from several states relying on
CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See, e.g., 82 FR 47393
(October 12, 2017) for Alabama; 77 FR 34801 (June 12, 2012) for
Minnesota; and 77 FR 46952 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir.
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the
high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct.
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most
respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets to
a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d
118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2
SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina,
and Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for 11
states. This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for
three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs
were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs,
to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets that were
originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1,
2017.
    On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA issued a final rule
affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination
that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative
to the application of source-specific BART.\4\ EPA has determined that
changes to CSAPR's geographic scope resulting from the actions EPA has
taken or expects to take in response to the D.C. Circuit's budget
remand do not affect the continued validity of participation in CSAPR
as a BART alternative, because the changes in geographic scope would
not have adversely affected the results of the air quality modeling
analysis upon which EPA based the 2012 determination. EPA's September
29, 2017, determination was based, in part, on EPA's final action
approving a SIP revision from Alabama (81 FR 59869 (August 31, 2016))
adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2 budgets
equivalent to the federally-developed budgets and on SIP revisions
submitted by Georgia and South Carolina to also adopt Phase 2 annual
NOX and SO2 budgets equivalent to the federally-
developed budgets.\5\ Since that time, EPA has approved the SIP
revisions from Georgia and South Carolina. See 82 FR 47930 (October 13,
2017) and 82 FR 47936 (October 13, 2017), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Legal challenges to this rule are pending. Nat'l Parks
Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, No. 17-1253 (DC Cir. filed November 28,
2017).
    \5\ EPA proposed to approve the Georgia and South Carolina SIP
revisions adopting CSAPR budgets on August 16, 2017 (82 FR 38866),
and August 10, 2017 (82 FR 37389), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A portion of South Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP submittal
seeks to correct the deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012,
limited disapproval of its regional haze plan submitted on December 17,
2007, by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.\6\ EPA is
proposing to approve South Carolina's request that EPA amend the
State's regional haze plan by replacing its reliance on CAIR with
CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the SIP
submittal and amend the SIP accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On October 13, 2017 (82 FR 47936), EPA approved the portions
of the September 5, 2017, SIP submission incorporating into South
Carolina's SIP the State's regulations requiring South Carolina EGUs
to participate in CSAPR state trading programs for annual
NOX and SO2 emissions integrated with the
CSAPR federal trading programs and thus replacing the corresponding
FIP requirements. In the October 13, 2017, action, EPA did not take
any action regarding South Carolina's request in this September 5,
2017, SIP submission to revise the State's regional haze plan nor
regarding the prong 4 element of the 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 1-hour
NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Infrastructure SIPs

    By statute, plans meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or
less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred
to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure
SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address
basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements,
and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More
specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2)
lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure
SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The
contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon
the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the
provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the
time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new
or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit
emissions activity in one state

from interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from
interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong
4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions
ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to
interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to convert the conditional
approvals of the prong 4 portions of South Carolina's infrastructure
SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2,
2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS to
full approvals, as discussed in section III of this notice.\7\ All
other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP
submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A
brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is
provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please
refer to the Federal Register notices cited in the following
subsections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On August 22, 2016, EPA conditionally approved the prong 4
portions of South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone
submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission;
May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 18,
2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS submission. See 81 FR
56512. The notice of final rulemaking for the conditional approval
inadvertently identified the date of South Carolina's infrastructure
SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS as July 17, 2008, rather than
the correct date of July 17, 2012, presented in the notice of
proposed rulemaking (81 FR 36842 (June 8, 2016)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. South Carolina
submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS on May 8, 2014. This proposed action only
addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ With the exception of the interstate transport requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), the
other portions of South Carolina's May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour
SO2 infrastructure submission were addressed in a
separate action. See 81 FR 32651 (May 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. South
Carolina submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS on April 30, 2014. This proposed action only
addresses the prong 4 element of this submission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for
major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) and
the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), the other portions of South
Carolina's April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 infrastructure
submission were addressed in a separate action. See 81 FR 63704
(September 16, 2016). EPA previously acted on the PSD elements of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) of South Carolina's
April 30, 2014, SIP submission in a separate action. See 80 FR 14019
(March 18, 2015). EPA acted on South Carolina's December 7, 2016,
SIP submission addressing prongs 1 and 2 for the 2010 NO2
NAAQS in a separate action. See 82 FR 45995 (October 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).
See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to
EPA no later than December 14, 2015. South Carolina submitted an
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on
December 18, 2015. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4
element of that submission.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ With the exception of the interstate transport requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), the
other portions of South Carolina's December 18, 2015,
PM2.5 infrastructure submission were addressed in a
separate action. See 82 FR 16930 (April 7, 2017). No action has been
taken with respect to prongs 1 and 2 for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075
parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were
required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. South Carolina
submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS on July
17, 2012. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of
that submission.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for
major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II)
(prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J), the other portions of South Carolina's July 17, 2012,
2008 ozone infrastructure SIP submission were addressed in a
separate action. See 80 FR 11136 (March 2, 2015). EPA subsequently
acted on the PSD elements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i),
and (J) of South Carolina's July 17, 2012, SIP submission in a
separate action. See 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the prong 4 requirements?

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation
plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from
emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's
efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes
sections 169A and 169B). EPA most recently issued guidance for
infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\12\ The 2013
Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by
approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any
contribution of that state's sources that impacts the visibility
program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states
that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the
infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for
interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP
submission may satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the
requirements is via confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission
that the state has an approved regional haze plan that fully meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309
specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning
process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A
fully approved regional haze plan will ensure that emissions from
sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with
measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to
protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze
plan, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and

ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional
haze RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

III. What is EPA's analysis of how South Carolina addressed prong 4 and
regional haze?

    South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; April
30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; May 8, 2014, 2010 1-
hour SO2 submission; and December 18, 2015, 2012 annual
PM2.5 submission rely on the State having a fully approved
regional haze plan to satisfy its prong 4 requirements.\13\ However,
EPA has not fully approved South Carolina's regional haze plan, as the
Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's original regional
haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission;
May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 18,
2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission also cite to the
State's December 2012 regional haze progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 19, 2016, South Carolina submitted a commitment letter to
EPA to submit a SIP revision that adopts provisions for participation
in the CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading
programs, including annual NOX and annual SO2
budgets that are at least as stringent as the budgets codified for
South Carolina, and revises its regional haze plan to replace reliance
on CAIR with CSAPR for certain regional haze provisions. In its letter,
South Carolina committed to providing this SIP revision within one year
of EPA's final conditional approval of the prong 4 portions of the
infrastructure SIP revisions. On August 22, 2016 (81 FR 56512), EPA
conditionally approved the prong 4 portion of South Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour
NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS based on this commitment letter from the State.
In accordance with the State's April 19, 2016, commitment letter, South
Carolina submitted a SIP revision on September 5, 2017, to adopt
provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual NOX and
annual SO2 trading programs and to replace reliance on CAIR
with reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze provisions. As noted
above, EPA approved the portion of South Carolina's September 5, 2017,
SIP revision adopting CSAPR. See 82 FR 47936 (October 13, 2017).
    EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the
State's September 5, 2017, SIP revision replacing reliance on CAIR with
CSAPR, and to convert EPA's previous action on South Carolina's
regional haze plan from a limited approval/limited disapproval to a
full approval because final approval of this portion of the SIP
revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's limited
approval/limited disapproval of the State's regional haze plan.
Specifically, EPA's approval of the regional haze portion of South
Carolina's September 5, 2017, SIP revision would satisfy the
SO2 and NOX BART requirements and first
implementation period SO2 reasonable progress requirements
for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR and the requirement that a LTS
include measures as necessary to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. Thus,
EPA is also proposing to remove EPA's FIP for South Carolina which
replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the
deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of South Carolina's
regional haze plan. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 requirements
through a fully approved regional haze plan, EPA is therefore also
proposing to convert the conditional approvals to full approvals of the
prong 4 portion of South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone
submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; May
8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 18, 2015,
2012 annual PM2.5 submission.

IV. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions:
(1) Approve the regional haze plan portion of South Carolina's
September 5, 2017, SIP submission to change reliance from CAIR to
CSAPR; (2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of South
Carolina's December 17, 2007, regional haze plan to a full approval;
(3) remove EPA's FIP for South Carolina which replaced reliance on CAIR
with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the
limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze plan; and (4)
convert EPA's September 26, 2016, conditional approvals to full
approvals of the prong 4 portion of South Carolina's July 17, 2012,
2008 8-hour Ozone submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour
NO2 submission; May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2
submission; and December 18, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5
submission. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the
infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in
separate rulemakings.

V. 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. See 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, these
proposed actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and remove a FIP, and do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these
proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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, these proposed actions for South Carolina do not have
Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000) because they do not have substantial direct effects
on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located
within the boundary of York County, South

Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and
are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' However, EPA has determined that this proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe because, as it
relates to prong 4, this proposed action is not approving any specific
rule, but rather proposing to determine that South Carolina's already
approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. As it relates to the
regional haze SIP, the proposal to replace reliance on CAIR with
reliance on CSAPR has no substantial direct effects because the
reliance on CSAPR for regional haze purposes in South Carolina already
existed through a FIP. EPA notes that these proposed actions will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: May 18, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-11824 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33527-33528]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13431]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0115; FRL-10024-92-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Multi-Pollutant Standards Rule,
Control of Emissions From Large Combustion Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) to amend
requirements applicable to certain coal-fired electric generating units
(EGUs) in the Illinois Administrative Code, also known as the Multi-
Pollutant Standards (MPS) Rule. On January 23, 2020, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted a request to amend the
provisions of the MPS Rule in the Illinois regional haze SIP. EPA is
approving the revision because it will result in a significant decrease
in emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur Dioxide, meets the
applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and does not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress.

DATES: The final is effective July 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0115. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (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
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Charles
Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the
Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-
19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    This rule approves IEPA's January 23, 2020, submission to amend
requirements applicable to certain coal-fired EGUs in the Illinois
Administrative Code, also known as the MPS Rule. The background for
this action is discussed in detail, and EPA's reasons for proposing
approval were provided, in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
dated March 8, 2021 (86 FR 13260), and will not be restated here.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?

    In the NPRM, EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for
the proposed rule. The comment period ended on April 7, 2021. We
received one comment supportive of the proposed rule and no adverse
comments were received.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving IEPA's January 23, 2020 request to revise the
Illinois SIP to amend all the provisions of MPS Rule, section 225.233,
except for subsections 225.233(c), (d), and (i).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Illinois
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at the EPA
Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 24, 2021. 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 14, 2021.
Cheryl Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.720, the table in paragraph (c) is amended under ``Part
225: Control of Emissions From Large Combustion Sources'', ``Subpart B:
Control of Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired Electric Generating
Units'' by revising the entry for `225.233' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Illinois Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
       Illinois citation              Title/subject       effective date   EPA approval date       Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Part 225: Control of Emissions From Large Combustion Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Subpart B: Control of Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
225.233........................  Multi-Pollutant               8/23/2019  6/25/2021, [INSERT  Except (c), (d),
                                  Standard (MPS).                          FEDERAL REGISTER    and (i).
                                                                           CITATION].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-13431 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request: US EPA, OECA, Office of Compliance 2. OMB control number b. G None a__ 2 _ 0_ 6_ 0 _  0_ 3_ 7_ 0 _ __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Pesticide Active Ingredient Production, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMM 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) [ ICR # 1807.2]

9. Keywords pesticide active ingredient production, clean air act 10. Abstract Respondents are owners and operators of pesticide active ingredient production operations. Respondents must submit one time reports of initial compliance and either semi annual reports or quarterly reports of compliance. Recordkeeping of parameters related to process and air pollution control technologies is required. The reports and records will be used to demonstrate compliance with the standards.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 84 b. Total annual responses 375 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 20 % c. Total annual hours requested 53,752 d. Current OMB inventory 89,173 e. Difference ( 35,421) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change ( 521) 2. Adjustment ( 34,909) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 2,210 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 58 c. Total annualized cost requested 2,268 d. Current OMB inventory 369 e. Difference 1899 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 1866 2. Adjustment 3 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f.. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biennually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Stephen J. Howie Phone: 202 564 4146 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been collected; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

10/ 95


This company noted that there is no load in the certification test, so this begs the question, Why is capacity important? An experienced operator should be able to control the hook on any capacity of crane. Type plus capacity for certification is just a financial burden for the employer.
This company representative believes that operator certification alone, without the employer duty to ensure competence, would be worse than before the 1990s.  In this company's experience, the certification companies always said that certification did not equate with qualification. New operators must perform work under the strict guidance of the employer with many years of experience to become qualified.   Crane configurations also matter for operator qualification.
In earlier decades, a union could assign 2 men to work on any crane down to a 50 ton capacity crane. This provided an opportunity to train oilers, because they could be assigned to work with an experienced crane operator.  With competition from non-union companies, the 2-man crew began to deteriorate, from 50 to 80 to 100 to 300-ton cranes with just 1 operator.  That eliminated a primary source of new crane operators.  For very big cranes, there is increased safety from having two set of eyes. A problem occurs when the union needs a 300-ton crawler crane operator and only has a guy who has been running a 150-ton truck crane.
Note on training: it can be general and bland -- that is, it may not provide much experience or specific experience.
Other note:  Keeping logs on operators in a "taxi" fleet, where an operator may move from crane to crane frequently, is very challenging.

Interview #26- Midsized Framing Company (1 or fewer cranes)

I. Introduction/Background

OSHA staff met with the owner and safety director of a midsized framing company which does framing work in several states in the mid-Atlantic region. A representative of the National Association of Homebuilders was also present.

This company has been in business for more than 30 years. It originally focused on residential construction projects local to the DC metropolitan area, but expanded to serve a greater area and to also perform construction on military housing and multifamily housing. The company uses cranes for many projects, and currently owns two truck cranes: one 60-ton rough terrain crane and one 40-ton truck crane. The company employs two crane operators. In the past, the company owned up to 4 cranes.

In addition, the company rents self-erecting tower cranes and other cranes to complete jobs on an occasional business, and also occasionally subcontracts crane work to other crane operators. This company provides its own crane operator services about three-fourths of the time, and about half of that work is done with the cranes this company owns. This company will rent equipment the other half of the time, but provide the operator. This company rents self-erecting tower cranes for jobs where the mobile crane won't fit on the site. This company will also rent tower cranes with operators or work as a subcontractor with a general contractor that has a tower crane subcontractor on site.

In the past, this owner also ran an equipment leasing business that rented cranes to other businesses, usually with operators, but occasionally as bare rentals (usually with companies they knew well).

This company used to have about 400 employees, but now it generally employs supervisors and uses subcontractors and oversees the work.

II. Training new operators

When this company bought its first crane 30 years ago, a person with forklift, loader and manlift experience was chosen to become the crane operator. First, this person was sent to the crane manufacturer for several days to learn how the crane worked, and for another week to learn to understand load charts. Then this individual spent several days practicing using the boom with crane manufacturer representatives. After he came back from this training, the company had this employee practice using the crane in a field for several days and practice driving the boom truck.

More recently, when this company had another employee that wanted to become an operator, who they felt had the aptitude, they took a similar approach and sent this individual to crane certification training and to take the certification exam. He also completed tower crane certification. After this, they had this individual practice using the crane under supervision in a parking lot, and brought an experienced retired crane operator in to provide oversight and on the job training. The safety manager and owner followed this new operator around until they determined he was ready to do jobs on his own.

Ultimately, the safety director and the owner make the final decision after getting feedback from those who have watched the operator to decide if that person is fit to go out alone and work safely. The safety director has several certifications including rigging, signaling and other certifications, although he is not an operator.

III. Evaluating experienced operators

This company has also hired experienced operators. This company would not let anyone operate a crane without evaluating them, even if they are certified. When this company hires an operator with crane certification, it takes steps to make sure that person can operate cranes. This company has considered certified operators who it did not ultimately deem qualified to operate equipment and did not hire.

When this company gets a trained and certified operator, the company will have them practice for about 3 days, and the supervisor will watch them for about 2 days to make sure they know what they are doing. A newly hired experienced operator would have a week or so to go through manuals for the assigned equipment and practice operation. They will operate the crane in a vacant field first to demonstrate that they know how to use the equipment in front of the safety manager, regardless of prior experience. Also, during the first few days on the job, the supervisor would be there to watch and make sure that this individual is qualified.

Sometimes experienced operators are hired to do new types of work, and that also requires training and evaluation. For example, one operator was hired with prior experience setting pipe, who will now be doing roof trusses, so the supervisor must make sure that person can perform the assigned work. There are some aspects to setting trusses, such as visibility issues and the need to use signals that are different skills than would be required for laying pipe.

IV. Monitoring experienced crane operators

This company continues to monitor and train operators after they are evaluated. This company uses "Take 5s" at the beginning of the work day and safety talks to get everyone on the same page. The supervisors on a job will keep an eye on the operators, and if there is an issue the safety director will meet with the operator and foreman and determine if retraining is necessary. This would include near miss situations. The company will also take steps if there are weather issues, such as heavy winds, to decide what the appropriate response is, and whether to hold off on crane operators.

V. Requirements of general contractors

When the general contractor provides the crane and operator on a jobsite that this company is a sub at, this company has concerns because it has no say in the crane or the operator. If there are concerns, the only recourse is through the general contractor. When this company hires subcontractors, they have to monitor them.

When this company performs crane operations as a subcontractor, the types of information and level of scrutiny of the operator's qualifications by the general contractor varies:
   * Residential Construction: Generally the general contractor does not ask any questions about operator qualification and the operator does the whole job without anyone on site asking for certification cards or anything else. Occasionally larger national outfits will require more.
   * Military Housing:  More documentation must be shown to the general contractor, including certification cards and the annual inspections from the cranes. Generally the Air Force and Army reserve the right to inspect the crane operations, but this happens very rarely. The Navy actually has a certified inspector review the crane's annual inspection and watches the operator operating, and inspects the crane.
   * Commercial Projects: Large general contractors on commercial projects generally have more oversight as well, requiring a current inspection on the crane before work starts and have a safety director watch the crane set up and some operations, in addition to requiring certification cards. This is especially common with companies that self-insure.

Sometimes these requirements are part of the contract. This company's best practice, regardless of who the general contractor is, is to include all of this information in a tick list for starting a job and then they put this information on a screen and go through the list with the general contractors before work starts (along with other items, such as the site specific safety program, training program, Safety Data Sheets, etc.).

If a crane operator is obviously being unsafe, a general contractor would generally contact this company to let them know. This company has received very few complaints, however. The general contractor would also let this company know if there was an issue with the equipment.

VI. Operator Certification v. Operator Qualification in OSHA's standards

This company believes that certification does have value  -  it sets a baseline.  The certification should serve as something like a learner's permit, and then the operator needs to spend time in the crane and get familiar with the work and then be evaluated for that crane and type of work. This company believes that the most important aspect of crane operator training is hands-on training.

This company believes that the practical test under current certification requirements can be inadequate or irrelevant to real-life crane operation because the types of activities that those being tested must do are not practical to construction site work. Also, practical tests are often given on very old equipment that uses levers instead of joysticks or computer systems; therefore operators are not tested on a crane that is similar to what they would use on a worksite. The practical test should test more than "just swinging the ball."

The extensive testing on load charts under current certifications may also be overkill for residential construction, where this is not a large part of a residential construction crane operator's job. They are using the computer in the crane to follow what to pick up and there are safety features in the crane's operating system to prevent overextension. Load calculations would be used by operators performing typical residential construction work only a few times in their lives. The time spent learning load chart calculations could be better spent on different operating functions for operators performing quick and varied picks, such as residential construction operators. There should be more emphasis on the physical running of the crane.

There should be a third step to training and certification before an operator can operate independently with different classes for the different types of work that an operator is going to do. The operator should be evaluated on the crane he is actually going to run and be familiar with dangers and issues on the type of worksite where he is actually going to work. This should happen after the operator is trained and acclimated to the crane he is going to be running.

For example, residential construction uses lower capacity cranes to do different work which carries different hazards. When the cranes standard was being developed, most residential cranes were 30 tons or less, but now 40-60 ton cranes are more common in residential. These are different than a 100 ton crane. In residential work with a 40-60 ton crane, the operator is using every function on the crane to perform picks relatively quickly (50 picks in 2 hrs to set trusses). A different type of operator may use a 100 ton crane to do a complex lift and spend two hours planning 1 pick. Some other operators are going to perform purely repetitive lifts all day  -  e.g. swinging beams into place. Others are going to be doing blind lifts. These are different sets of training and skills. This company's operators would not dare do maximum critical lifts because they are not proficient in that. To qualify someone to do that, the operator needs to physically get in the crane and do it and the tester needs to verify that person is proficient for that scenario of work.

To train an operator requires a lot of time investment and cost. It is not possible to make sure that an employee doesn't get certified and then go to a competitor. This company has experienced this.  The third leg of operator qualification  -  the evaluation  -  which is equipment and job specific, could be something that is not transferable and unique to that employer. However, this company believes that national standards should be set so that everyone is on the same page about what is required for crane operator evaluation. The owner of this company also suggested that an OSHA standard should specify how much training operators need, such as a seat time requirement.

VII. Other Issues

Self-erecting tower cranes: This company is concerned that the OSHA standard should more clearly address what standards apply for self-erecting tower cranes. They have been told to treat them as mobile cranes for certification purposes, but they believe there are differences and it is unclear whether a mobile or tower crane certification would be more appropriate (this company's operator has both certifications). Self-erecting tower crane companies will provide brief training/instruction on how to use the crane they are renting. With OSHA's standard, technology has moved so fast that the cranes standard may not cover everything on the market in terms of what certification is needed and what training is needed.

State and municipality-specific licensing/certification requirements: This company has found it difficult to comply with different certification and licensing requirements for crane operators in different states and cities. They believe consistent requirements across the country would make compliance easier. They also believe that training programs for crane operators should be standardized across the country.

Foreign Language training/testing: The owner of this company sees a change in the construction and crane industries  -  he does not believe it is as popular of a profession with young workers. The current generation of crane operators is retiring. He is concerned that workers that do not speak English, who are interested in operating cranes, do not have testing and resources available in a language they understand.
Interview #27- Framer and Manufacturer/Supplier of Framing Materials

I. Introduction
OSHA visited a large manufacturer/supplier of structural wood framing materials and services to homebuilders. The services provided include framing homes (work after foundation is poured and before work is handed off to trades); however they are not considered the "homebuilder" in industry terms.  OSHA met with two employees, the Market Manager and the Install Manager.
II. Company Background
The company has two separate areas that require the use of cranes: manufacturing/delivery and installation.
III. Manufacturing/delivery
On the manufacturing and delivery side of the business, the work typically falls under general industry rather than construction. The company builds trusses, floor joists/trusses, and panels at multiple plants within a multi-state area of the country. Trusses are typically delivered using 48-foot roll-off trailers. Panels are typically delivered using a boom-truck crane.  The panels are delivered to the ground. The company also uses extended fork-lifts that allow for greater mobility, but add weight to the back of the truck, causing issues with state DOTs.  All operators of delivery trucks and cranes use for unloading are certified in house.
IV. Installation
The company will install any product they manufacture.  If the company installs the trusses and panels there is a company project manager on-site.  The company hires a subcontractor to frame the products. If a project requires a crane, their subcontractor will hire the crane service.   During busy construction periods,  crane operators are difficult to find, specifically ones with "certification" as defined by OSHA.  The company will recommend operators to the subcontractor and help the subcontractor find operators.  Some of the crane rental companies are owner-operators who own and operate a single crane.   The crane operator owns the crane and does not have employees.
The project manager from the install company will observe the crane operator and note the level of efficiency and speed.  Does he have any difficult setting the crane up for operations?  When they talk with the operator, does he show familiarity with the crane, its operations, and construction terms?  If an operator is not up to the company's standards, the company will  remove the crane operator from the site, even though the subcontractor hired the crane operator.
V. Comments
The company developed a safety program and all employees are trained. They require all subcontractors to have a safety program. If a subcontractor does not have a safety program, the company will help them develop one.
The company notes that if OSHA is looking to a similar system as used for training and certifying forklift operators, that system is not very meaningful in their eyes for cranes..  For example, the Install Manager is competent to certify construction forklift operators but is not himself an operator.  He said that would be inadequate for training and evaluating crane operators.
The company would like to know the responsibilities of controlling contractors when the crane operator who is hired is an owner/operator.  Who qualifies the owner/operator?  What documentation would they have?  If, for example, a framing contractor hired an owner-operator crane rental service and "qualified" them under OSHA's draft regulatory text, is the person who "qualifies" the operator liable if there is a violation?  Since they hired the framing subcontractor  for labor to build the house frame, do they have a responsibility for the crane operator's performance or safety?
The company does not consider itself to be crane "experts" and would like to know what they have to do to comply with the standard.
The company is pleased that OSHA is talking to employers of all kinds to gather information for this rulemaking.  In general, the company wants to provide a safe place of employment and is eager to find a workable system to ensure the safe operation of cranes on their worksites. The company has not had any violations or reported incidents related to cranes.
Interview #28- Association of Building Material Dealers

I. Introduction
OSHA hosted a call with an association of building material dealers. OSHA staff, the association's regulatory counsel, a regional association representative who deals with smaller members and government compliance, and a member representing a mid-sized independent dealer participated on the call.
II. Association Background
The association represents its members in promoting the industry and working with regulatory bodies on matters that affect the industry. It represents large and small members.
III. Delivery of Building Materials
The industry typically uses articulating boom crane to bring materials to a work site where an operator drops the materials to the ground. Most of the deliveries are general industry or, if construction, are exempt from certification requirements in Subpart CC. Typical materials being delivered include lumber, roofing materials, drywall and other building materials. The crane is controlled from a top seat or from the ground by remote. Some deliveries may require placing the material on an upper level. When delivering to an upper level, the operator will need to hold the crane boom in place while the company who ordered the materials unloads them. The crane has built-in safety features that stop the crane from turning/tipping over. They use fixed-fork assembly, and no rigging. Deliveries are very similar to one another and the work of the operator is repetitious. They do not get contracts to operate cranes for framing work. They are aware of some delivery companies that do but those jobs are done with typical boom trucks and not with an articulating boom crane.
IV. Training and Operator Qualification
Training varies from employer to employer, but may often be similar to fork-lift training. The independent dealer that OSHA spoke with stated that his training typically starts with fork-lift training for new operators. The fork-lift training was developed by the association and has a classroom component, but the crane training may or may not, depending on the employer. Crane training is primarily hands on. Trainees start in the yard, under supervision of an experienced operator. Eventually the trainee moves to a delivery, where the trainee observes deliveries, then makes deliveries to the ground while supervised, and then elevated deliveries while supervised. Finally, the trained operator will make solo deliveries.
Many delivery operators come from farming or other backgrounds with prior experience with heavy machinery or forklifts. Frequently, they will not have a high level of education so taking the certification exam could be a challenge.
The articulating crane does not have a lot of configurations. For jobs that do require certification, such as construction deliveries using non-exempted cranes or jobs using older articulating cranes that do not meet the cranes standard exemption (none of the representatives indicated that they use these cranes, but acknowledge that some members may use these types of cranes) the association stated that the work is the same as the general industry and the exempted work. They are concerned that operators would have to learn things they don't need to know if required to complete certification for these kinds of lifts, and this could potentially take the focus off of the highly focused but limited range of movements delivery operators do every day.
The length of time it takes to train an operator varies. Some operators have prior experience and can be trained quickly, others take longer. The decision as to when an operator can make solo deliveries is left to the employer and supervisor. The employer would also talk to the experienced operator or operators who mentored the trainee. Once an operator is trained, some members will note this in a personnel file, but whether this is standard practice is not certain. Members with larger operations and larger delivery fleets will typically have more sophisticated training and evaluation procedures.
When a member hires an experienced operator he or she will review the resume, call references, and observe the operator in the yard and on deliveries to determine whether the operator is qualified.
Members get ongoing feedback from customers, which typically involves personality differences, rather than problems with the operation of the crane during a delivery.
If a company without an experienced crane operator is going to hire someone new, they will typically not hire a rookie, but will be more likely to hire someone with past experience if they cannot train the operator themselves, because articulating cranes are expensive equipment.
Operators typically do not need to read a load chard to operate the articulating boom crane. Most of the loads are packed to a certain weight in the yard that is a standard weight for the crane. If the load is too heavy the crane will stop the load from being lifted beyond a certain height or reach. If the load is too heavy, the operator will reconfigure the load into smaller loads on site. This happens occasionally when the distance from the crane to the delivery site is farther than planned.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44851-44852]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC16-139-000.
    Applicants: Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
FPA and Request for Waivers, Confidential Treatment, and Expedited
Action of Slate Creek Wind Project, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/30/16.
    Accession Number: 20160630-5426.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-140-000.
    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company, Duquesne Power, LLC, Three
Rivers Utility Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action and Confidential
Treatment of Duquesne Light Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/1/16.
    Accession Number: 20160701-5320.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/16.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1276-006; ER10-1292-005; ER10-1287-005; ER10-
1303-005; ER10-1319-007; ER10-1353-007.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company, CMS Energy Resource
Management Company, Grayling Generation Station Limited Partnership,
Genesee Power Station Limited Partnership, CMS Generation Michigan
Power, LLC, Dearborn Industrial Generation, L.L.C.
    Description: Amendment to May 2, 2016 Notice of Non-Material Change
in Status of Consumer Energy Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/30/16.
    Accession Number: 20160630-5430.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2739-013; ER13-1430-005; ER10-2743-008; ER13-
1561-005; ER10-2755-011; ER16-1652-001; ER10-2751-008.
    Applicants: LS Power Marketing, LLC, Arlington Valley Solar Energy
II, LLC, Bluegrass Generation Company, L.L.C., Centinela Solar Energy,
LLC, Las Vegas Power Company, LLC, LifeEnergy LLC, Renaissance Power,
L.L.C.
    Description: Market Power Update for the Southwest Region of LS
Southwest MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 6/30/16.
    Accession Number: 20160630-5435.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1672-000.
    Applicants: Chaves County Solar, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to May 11, 2016 Chaves County Solar, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 6/30/16.
    Accession Number: 20160630-5431.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2130-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing to Correct
eTariff Record to be effective 10/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 7/1/16.
    Accession Number: 20160701-5282.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2131-000.
    Applicants: Transource West Virginia, LLC.
    Description: Application of Transource West Virginia, LLC regarding
regulatory asset.
    Filed Date: 7/1/16.
    Accession Number: 20160701-5325.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2132-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-07-05_SA 2301
MidAmerican-MidAmerican 3rd Rev GIA (R34/R65/J191) to be effective 7/6/
2016.
    Filed Date: 7/5/16.
    Accession Number: 20160705-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH16-9-000.
    Applicants: Spire Inc.
    Description: Spire Inc. submits FERC 65-A Notice of Non Material
Change in Facts of Exemption Notification.
    Filed Date: 7/1/16.
    Accession Number: 20160701-5326.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/22/16.

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

    Dated: July 5, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16340 Filed 7-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM Subject: Phone Conversations with Kinder Morgan Regarding Transmix Processing From: Jeff Herzog, Mechanical Engineer Office of Transportation and Air Quality To: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), Air Docket A 2001 28 Date: April 27, 2004 On October 22nd and 24th, 2003, I talked to Michael Vanderberg regarding transmix process operations.


[Federal Register: April 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 20274-20275]
[DOCID:fr15ap08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12486-002]

Twin Lakes Canal Company; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

April 8, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12486-002.
    c. Date filed: February 5, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Twin Lakes Canal Company.
    e. Name of Project: Bear River Narrows Project.
    f. Location: On the Bear River, in Franklin County, Idaho.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Nicholas Josten, Twin Lakes Canal Company
Authority,

C/O GeoSense, 2742 Saint Charles Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83404, (208)
528-6152.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12486-002) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of:
(1) A proposed 700-foot-long, 108-foot-high embankment dam, (2) a
proposed reservoir having a surface area of 420 acres, having a storage
capacity of 17,300 acre-feet and normal water surface elevation of
4,734 feet above mean sea level, (3) a proposed powerhouse containing
two generating units with a total installed capacity of 11 megawatts,
(4) a proposed 0.8-mile-long transmission line, and (5) appurtenant
facilities. The applicant estimates that the average annual generation
would be 51 gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local utility.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 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, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
     o. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-7922 Filed 4-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 122)]
[Notices]
[Page 36471-36472]
[DOCID:fr25jn10-118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Seventh Meeting--RTCA Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight
Guidance and Control

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight Guidance
and Control meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight Guidance and
Control.

DATES: The meeting will be held July 13-15, 2010. July 13th and 14th
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and July 15th from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Bourbon Orleans Hotel, 717
Orleans Street, New Orleans, LA 70116, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax: 504-
525-8166, E-Mail: http://www.bourbonorleans.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street,
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight Guidance
and

Control meeting. The agenda will include:
     Welcome/Agenda Overview.
     Consider for Approval--New Document--Minimum Operational
Performance Standards (MOPS) for Automatic Flight Guidance and Control
Systems and Equipment, RTCA Paper No. 088-10/SC220-042.
     Continue Development of Installation Guidance White
Papers.
     Wrap-up and Review of Action Items.
     Establish Dates, Location, Agenda for Next Meeting, Other
Business.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2010.
Meredith Gibbs,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-15430 Filed 6-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P