[Federal Register: April 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 20521]
[DOCID:fr25ap07-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER07-645-000]

Sleeping Bear, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

April 18, 2007.
    Sleeeping Bear, LLC (Sleeping Bear) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed
market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy, capacity and
ancillary services at market-based rates. Sleeping Bear also requested
waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Sleeping Bear
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability
by Sleeping Bear.
    On April 17, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the blanket
approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by
Sleeping Bear should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance
with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is May
17, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, Sleeping Bear is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of Sleeping Bear, compatible with
the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for
such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Sleeping Bear's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also 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
filed to access the document. 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.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7802 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15333-15336]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04986]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0431; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01277-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2022-25-16, which applies to all ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes. AD 2022-25-
16 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. Since the FAA issued AD 2022-25-16, the FAA has determined
that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary.
This proposed AD would continue to require certain actions in AD 2022-
25-16 and would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by
reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 27,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0431; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0431.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-0431; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-01277-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2022-25-16, Amendment 39-22272 (87 FR 77491,
December 19, 2022) (AD 2022-25-16), for all ATR--GIE Avions de
Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes. AD
2022-25-16 was

prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2022-0062,
dated April 8, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0062) (which corresponds to FAA AD
2022-25-16), to correct an unsafe condition.
    AD 2022-25-16 retains certain requirements of AD 2020-09-16. AD
2022-25-16 also requires revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or
more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0062. The FAA issued AD 2022-
25-16 to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2022-25-16 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2022-25-16, EASA superseded AD 2022-0062
and issued EASA AD 2022-0199, dated September 26, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-
0199) (referred to after this as the MCAI), for all ATR--GIE Avions de
Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes.
The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations
have been developed.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent reduced structural
integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0431.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0199. This service information
specifies new or more restrictive maintenance tasks and airworthiness
limitations for airplane structures and components.
    This proposed AD would also require EASA AD 2022-0062, which the
Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by
reference as of January 23, 2023 (87 FR 77491, December 19, 2022).
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
described above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2022-25-
16. This proposed AD would also require revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are
specified in EASA AD 2022-0199 already described, as proposed for
incorporation by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2022-0199 are
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and
Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance
with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to
paragraph (m)(1) of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to retain the IBR of EASA AD 2022-0062 and incorporate
EASA AD 2022-0199 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD
would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2022-0199 and EASA AD
2022-0062 through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in EASA AD 2022-0199 or EASA AD 2022-0062 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2022-
0199 or EASA AD 2022-0062. Service information required by EASA AD
2022-0199 and EASA AD 2022-0062 for compliance will be available at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-0431
after the FAA final rule is published.

Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using the New Process

    The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the
primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs
has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service
bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the
actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the
process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness
limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
    For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes
airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged.
Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new
airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must
be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
    The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a
paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions,
intervals, and CDCCLs are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the
procedures specified in the AMOCs paragraph under ``Additional AD
Provisions.'' This new format includes a ``New Provisions for
Alternative Actions, Intervals, and CDCCLs'' paragraph that does not
specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may still request an AMOC to
use an alternative action, interval, or CDCCL.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 26 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2022-25-16 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-

hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may
vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance
or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate.
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed
actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2022-25-16, Amendment 39-22272
(87 FR 77491, December 19, 2022); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional: Docket No. FAA-2023-
0431; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01277-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by April 27, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2022-25-16, Amendment 39-22272 (87 FR 77491,
December 19, 2022) (AD 2022-25-16).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-200, -300, and -320 airplanes,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Retained Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection
Program, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2022-25-16, with no changes. Except as specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times
specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety
agency (EASA) AD 2022-0062, dated April 8, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0062).
Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection
program required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the
requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0062, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph
(k) of AD 2022-25-16, with no changes.
    (1) The requirements specified in paragraph (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2022-0062 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0062 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, within 90 days after January 23, 2023 (the effective
date of AD 2022-25-16).
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0062 is at the applicable
``limitations'' and ``associated thresholds'' as incorporated by the
requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0062, or within 90
days after January 23, 2023 (the effective date of AD 2022-25-16),
whichever occurs later.
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2022-0062 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0062.

(i) Retained Provisions for Alternative Actions, Intervals, and
Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2022-25-16, with no changes. Except as required by paragraph (j) of
this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program has
been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and CDCCLs are allowed
unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the
``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2022-0062.

(j) New Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2022-0199, dated September 26, 2022 (EASA
AD 2022-0199). Accomplishing the revision of the existing
maintenance or inspection program required by this paragraph
terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0199

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2022-0199 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0199 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0199 is at the applicable
``limitations'' and ``associated thresholds'' as incorporated by the
requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0199, or within 90
days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2022-0199 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0199.

(l) New Provisions for Alternative Actions, Intervals, and CDCCLs

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and CDCCLs are allowed
unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the
``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2022-0199.

(m) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (n) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or ATR--GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(n) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
206-231-3220; email [email protected].

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
[DATE 35 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0199,
dated September 26, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 23, 2023 (87 FR 77491, December 19, 2022).
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0062,
dated April 8, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0062).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For EASA ADs 2022-0199 and 2022-0062, contact EASA, Konrad-
Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000;
email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find these
EASA ADs on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 7, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-04986 Filed 3-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 14243]
[DOCID:fr17mr08-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD08-1-004]

Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for
Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice of Technical
Conference

March 10, 2008.
    In its Order On Rehearing Consolidating Administrative Annual
Charges Bill Appeals and Modifying Annual Charges Billing Procedures
(109 FERC ] 61,040), the Commission set forth an annual deadline for
Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) to submit their costs related to
Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act. The Commission required
the OFAs to submit their costs by December 31st of each fiscal year
using the OFA Cost Submission Form. The order also announced that a
technical conference would be held for the purpose of reviewing the
submitted cost forms and detailed supporting documentation.
    The Commission will hold a technical conference for reviewing the
submitted OFA costs. The purpose of the conference will be for OFAs and
licensees to discuss costs reported in the forms and any other
supporting documentation or analyses.
    The Conference will be held on March 27, 2008, in Conference Room
3M-4A/B at the Commission's headquarters at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC. The conference will begin at 2 p.m. (EST).
    The technical conference will also be transcribed. Those interested
in obtaining a copy of the transcript immediately for a fee should
contact the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or 1-800-336-
6646. Two weeks after the post-forum meeting, the transcript will be
available for free on the Commission's e-library system. Anyone without
access to the Commission's Web site or who has questions about the
technical conference should contact Troy Cole at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice),<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-5236 Filed 3-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this 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 October 18, 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 5, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    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.

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2220 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (c):
0
i. In Table 1, removing the heading and all entries for ``Chapter 1200-
3-29--Light Duty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance'' in their
entirety; and
0
ii. In Table 5, under the heading ``Article II. Standards for
Operation,'' removing the entry for ``Regulation No. 8--Regulation of
Emissions from Light-Duty Motor Vehicles through Mandatory Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program'' in its entirety.
0
b. In paragraph (e), in the table, revising the entry for ``Attainment
Demonstrations for Early Action Compact Areas''.
    The revision reads as follows:

Sec.  52.222052  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Tennessee Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP         geographic or          State       EPA approval          Explanation
            provision               nonattainment area  effective date       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Attainment Demonstrations for      Chattanooga,               12/31/04       8/17/2021  With the exception of
 Early Action Compact Areas.        Nashville, and Tri-                                  Tennessee Regulation
                                    Cities Early                                         Chapter 1200-3-29 and
                                    Action Compact                                       Nashville-Davidson
                                    Areas.                                               County Regulation No.
                                                                                8, with a State
                                                                                effective date of 2/26/
                                                                                2020.

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

[FR Doc. 2021-17214 Filed 8-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Memorandum To: Suzie Kocchi, U. S. EPA From: Nimmi Damodaran, Betsy David, and Joanna Pratt, Stratus Consulting Inc.; Robert Russell, RJR Consulting; Mike Cartmell, Independent Consultant Date: September 29, 2004 Subject: Economic impacts on small businesses in the spray foam industry due to a use ban on HCFC 141b ( Revised, original dated June 14, 2004)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( RFA/ SBREFA) requires EPA to carefully consider the economic impacts of its rules on small entities. The RFA/ SBREFA requires the agency to determine, to the extent feasible, the rule's economic impact on small entities, explore regulatory options for reducing any significant economic impact on a substantial number of such entities, and explain its ultimate choice of regulatory approach. It does not require agencies to minimize a rule's impact on small entities if there are legal, policy, factual, or other reasons for not doing so. Since its enactment in 1980, the RFA/ SBREFA has required every federal agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule for which the agency is required to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. This requirement is not necessary if the agency certifies that the rule " will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." A small entity is defined as ( 1) a small business that has fewer than 500 employees; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

This memorandum examines whether there is a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in the spray polyurethane foam industry due to a ban on the use of HCFC 141b according to the type of business. Two types of businesses may be affected by an HCFC 141b use ban in the spray foam sector:

businesses that manufacture polyurethane/ polyisocyanurate foam systems ( NAICS 326150), hereafter referred to as " systems houses"

businesses that use polyurethane/ polyisocyanurate systems to apply insulation to buildings, roofs, pipes, etc. ( NAICS 326150), hereafter referred to as " spray foam contractors."

Systems Houses The majority of spray foam systems houses are currently making significant technical progress toward conversions in essentially all applications ( see memorandum dated February 23, 2004 on Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 9/ 29/ 2004)

Page 2 SC10457 the status of HCFC 141b requirements based on 2004 petitions, available stockpile, and conversion to alternatives, found in EPA docket OAR 2003 0228 009). The primary zero ozone depletion potential ( ODP) blowing agents are HFC 245fa, HFC 134a, water, and hydrocarbonbased systems. Of these three, HFC 134a is not readily suited to use in spray foam due to its very low boiling point. There are fewer than 20 spray foam systems houses in the United States. Nine of these systems houses petitioned for an exemption allowance for the production of HCFC 141b to meet their stated needs for 2004. At least three of these petitioners have already developed systems with alternative blowing agents.

With respect to the RFA/ SBREFA, there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses in this type of business. A section of the EPA's guidelines relevant to impacts on systems houses stipulates that if fewer than 100 businesses experience an economic impact, then the rule is presumed not to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ( details are found in Chapter 2 of Revised Interim Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, March 29, 1999, http:// www. epa. gov/ sbrefa/ documents/ iguid99. pdf). There are fewer than 20 spray foam systems houses in total. A footnote in the guidelines indicates that " there may be cases where the extent of the impact ( measured in quantitative or qualitative terms) is particularly severe, even though the number of affected small entities totals fewer than 100 ." We expect that the extent of the impact will not be particularly severe on this sector, since ( as noted in the previous paragraph) about half did not petition for an exemption allowance and a third of those that did have already developed alternative blowing agents. This suggests that the sector will be able to transition into alternatives.

Spray Foam Contractors According to information provided by the Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance ( SPFA), the U. S. spray foam industry comprises more than 3,000 suppliers, distributors, and contractors. A majority of these are small businesses employing fewer than 50 people. Over the past 12 years, the spray polyurethane industry has faced two major disruptions relating to changes in the blowing agent used in the systems. The first occurred at the end of 1993 after the EPA banned the use of CFC 11. Although supplies of the new replacement blowing agent, HCFC 141b, were available before the forced switch, the development and testing of proven non CFC systems did not proceed in a totally smooth fashion. Some field related problems surfaced after the spray foam insulation with HCFC 141b had been applied. The second disruption is the transition away from HCFC 141b to new zero ODP blowing agents. The spray foam industry has sought to avoid a similar experience with this second transition and has committed to following a structured approach to ensure products are fully tested before their introduction.

To gauge the potential impacts of an HCFC 141b use ban on small businesses, we conducted telephone interviews with seven distributors and contractors between May 14 and May 24, 2004. Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 9/ 29/ 2004)

Page 3 SC10457 To obtain a geographical representation, we selected companies located in all the main regions of the country. Following is a brief summary of the issues identified by each respondent:

Montana Urethane Systems Supply ( MUSS), located in Bozeman, Montana, is a distributor of spray polyurethane systems and equipment and has three employees. It serves the roofing and wall sectors of residential, light commercial, and agricultural construction. The products it supplies compete with other insulation materials, including fiberglass, cellulose, and polyiso and polystyrene boardstock.

MUSS has first hand experience with each of the three replacement blowing agents under development for use in spray foam [ i. e., hydrocarbon, water ( CO2), and HFC 245fa]. However, it is concerned about safety issues associated with hydrocarbons and does not feel that the water blown systems will provide adequate properties for the Rocky Mountain region. Therefore, contractors in Montana are focusing on HFC 245fa as the preferred alternative to HCFC 141b. To date, MUSS estimates that approximately 25% of the systems being sold today are based on HFC 245fa, with the rest using HCFC 141b. Costs for newer systems were said to be 20% to 22% higher, although some of these increases are the result of higher steel costs for the thicker gauge drums required with HFC 245fa systems. MUSS believes, however, that some of the chemical cost increases will decline over time. Products from several systems houses have been evaluated in the field and all seem to have more cold weather problems than the HCFC 141b based systems. The most common complaint is that the current HFC 245fa systems cannot be applied at temperatures below 40 ° F, which will affect the length of the spraying season.

Another issue is that because the new systems are higher in viscosity, many of the older spray foam machines are not totally suitable and should be refurbished. The cost of a new machine is approximately $ 15,000$ 20,000; alternatively, new heaters can be installed for $ 2,500$ 3,000. Finally, because of the lower boiling point of HFC 245fa, the newer systems have a higher vapor pressure and drums arrive in Bozeman, Montana, severely bulged because of the region's high elevation.

According to MUSS, the installed price of foam from HCFC 141b systems today is about 300% higher than the price for competing insulation materials. This gives some idea of the additional features and benefits provided by spray polyurethane foam. However, MUSS is not sure how much of an additional premium the market in Montana can bear. MUSS believes that up to 20% of the contractors that apply other insulation materials in addition to spray foam may drop out of the spray market primarily because of the expected shorter spraying season.

Central Coatings Inc. is a spray foam roofing contractor located in Madera, California with between 30 and 35 employees. The company has been in business since 1967. It has tested each of the alternative technologies and has concluded that HFC 245fa offers the Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 9/ 29/ 2004)

Page 4 SC10457 best combination of properties, safety, and performance. One of its systems house suppliers has switched entirely to HFC 245fa blown products and another is in the process of completing all the testing.

Although some problems still exist due to the higher vapor pressure and lower boiling point of HFC 245fa, Central Coatings is being advised by systems houses that these will become less of an issue over time and the operating window with the new blowing agent will eventually be wider than with HCFC 141b. Central Coatings' current costs for systems based on HFC 245fa are approximately 5% higher than those based on HCFC 141b. Overall, Central Coatings thinks the transition out of HCFC 141b will go fairly smoothly and the company does not anticipate any competitive issues with other insulation materials.

RPC Industries, in business for over 20 years, has operations in Hampton and Charlottesville, Virginia and employs approximately 30 people. The company is involved in wall and roofing applications with spray foam and other single ply products and has gained some experience with new systems based on HFC 245fa. Generally these experiences have been positive, although there has been a need to pay more attention to heat settings and to protect the drums from high temperatures. RPC Industries indicated that it is too early to tell whether water ( CO2) blowing will provide the ease of use provided with HFC 245fa and is very concerned about the flammability issues associated with the hydrocarbons.

As long as HCFC 141b based systems are still available, RPC does not expect the new HFC 245fa based products to be widely introduced since they are currently about 15% more expensive. After the transition has been completed, RPC thinks there will be some disruption but does not believe that this level of cost increase will be a catastrophe for the industry because spray foam provides many additional features for the price.

West Roofing Systems Inc. is based in LaGrange, Ohio and has been in business since 1979. The company focuses on the roofing sector. Initially, West Roofing Systems was concerned about the transition to the new blowing agents. However, after working with three different systems house suppliers, it is now very comfortable with the new HFC 245fa based products, which it says are better and more controlled than systems based on HCFC 141b. Since their current overall cost increase with HFC 245fa is approximately 5%, West Roofing does not expect any negative impacts from the transition, especially given that the cost of asphalt based roofing materials is rising quickly.

The Phoenix, Arizona based division of D. C. Taylor Co employs 25 30 people and is the only division in the entire company that participates in the spray foam sector. The company is a full spectrum roofing contractor and works with a variety of alternative insulation types, including those used with single ply and ethylene propylene diene Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 9/ 29/ 2004)

Page 5 SC10457 monomer ( EPDM) membranes. D. C. Taylor has reviewed each of the new blowing agent technologies and concluded that despite some difficulties associated with handling HFC 245fa in the desert Southwest, it offers the best combination of cost, ease of use, and performance. The cost increase of going to HFC 245fa is expected to be in the range of 5 to 10% and once everyone has switched out of HCFC 141b, the company does not expect to see any major impacts or competitive disadvantages.

Another Arizona based contractor, Spray Foam Southwest, Inc. ( SFS) of Tempe, stated that none of the alternatives are adequately developed at this point and believes strongly that the industry needs more time to resolve all the existing problems. These problems include foam dimensional stability, issues related to the low boiling point and high cost of HFC 245fa, and the flammability of hydrocarbons. In addition, none of the alternatives has worked sufficiently well for SFS in a wall application. Another major concern is how well the new systems will perform in the very high ambient temperatures of summer, since all of the company's experience to date has been gathered in the winter and spring.

In an effort to narrow the choices and determine the preferred type of system under summer conditions, Spray Foam Southwest has ordered a multifunctional spray foam machine that will be able to spray off ratio water blown systems and flammable hydrocarbons, and even meter HFC 245fa as a third stream. Such a piece of equipment will cost more than $ 30,000, but the company feels such an investment is critical to making the right decision.

With between 50 60 employees and having been established in 1971, Spray Foam Southwest is one of the larger, more experienced contractors in the desert Southwest. The company is optimistic that the basic characteristics of spray polyurethane foam ( such as the absence of thermal bridging and the ability to prevent air infiltration and leaks by virtue of the seamless, homogeneous foam structure) will ensure a continued strong market position in extreme climatic regions. It feels that despite its current increased costs of approximately 20%, HFC 245fa will be the eventual first choice among the new blowing agents.

Specified Urethane Systems Co, Inc. ( SUSCO) is based in Dallas, Texas and employs between 75 and 85 people. Their business is entirely spray polyurethane foam, split 70% roofing and 30% walls. The company is focusing on water ( CO2) blowing for wall systems but is encountering problems with low foam densities resulting in open cells. If possible, the density should be over 1.5 pcf installed with closed cells to provide better thermal insulation performance. SUSCO prefers HFC 245fa for roofing.

The main issue the company sees currently is that full testing and code approvals have not been finalized and therefore it feels that more time should be allowed to consume the entire stockpile HCFC 141b and complete all the necessary testing. Water blown systems Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 9/ 29/ 2004)

Page 6 SC10457 are expected to be equal in cost to current HCFC 141b systems, although some investment in new pumps and heaters will be required to handle the off ratios and higher viscosity of water blown formulations. They believe the cost is likely to be 15% to 25% higher for HFC 245fa products.

The contractors interviewed for this memorandum generally view HFC 245fa as the preferred new blowing agent, especially for roofing. Despite some handling issues, most of these contractors do not expect the conversion from HCFC 141b to create any major concerns in California or east of the Mississippi. The two areas where contractors believe they may encounter problems are the Rocky Mountain states, because of the high elevation and the colder temperatures, and the desert Southwest, where extreme summer conditions may cause problems not yet foreseen. It is our understanding that Honeywell, the supplier of HFC 245fa, is working with spray foam systems houses to address problems as they surface.

Initial cost increases for HFC 245fa systems are expected to be about 5% to 25% higher than the costs for current HCFC 141b based products. The range reflects the price differences among the different systems houses. However, alternative water blown formulations may offer some protection against higher cost if density and other application issues can be overcome. There was general agreement that the benefits and features of spray polyurethane foam will protect the product against a major market downturn and the consequent direct impact on the livelihoods of contractors. Those contractors whose current suppliers do not have approved systems based on non ODP blowing agents will need to identify other suppliers with approved systems if they want to use this material. It also seems likely that increased costs incurred by the spray foam contractors will be passed on to the customers. Additionally, since all contractors will face the same increased input costs, there will be no competitive disadvantages due to such increases. Based on information obtained in these telephone interviews, one would not expect a significant economic impact on a significant number of small entities.


[Federal Register: December 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 79426]
[DOCID:fr20de10-972]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Form 6-K; OMB Control No. 3235-0116; SEC File No. 270-107]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

    Extension:
    Form 6-K; OMB Control No. 3235-0116; SEC File No. 270-107.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget the request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 6-K (17 CFR 249.306) is a disclosure document under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) that must be
filed by a foreign private issuer to report material information
promptly after the occurrence of specified or other important corporate
events that are disclosed in the foreign private issuer's home country.
The purpose of Form 6-K is to ensure that U.S. investors have access to
the same information that foreign investors do when making investment
decisions. Form 6-K is a public document and all information provided
is mandatory. Form 6-K takes approximately 8.7 hours per response and
is filed by approximately 12,022 issuers annually. We estimate 75% of
the 8.7 hours per response (6.525 hours) is prepared by the issuer for
a total annual reporting burden of 78,444 hours (6.525 hours per
response x 12,022 responses). The remaining burden hours are reflected
as a cost to the foreign private issuers.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number. The Federal Register notice with a 60-
day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of
information was published on October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63215). No
comments were received.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, http://
www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: December 14, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31820 Filed 12-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                 United States Environmental Protection Agency                                                              Docket Index for Proposed Rulemaking                              EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0239                                         Air Plan Approval; Nevada; Clark County Department of Environment and Sustainability; Stationary Source Permits                                                                          January 2023  Note: Copies of the Federal Register (FR) notices listed in Section D are included in the docket only if they are not publicly accessible in an electronic format. Please follow the hyperlink link provided for all other FR   notices; or visit: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=FR.

Docket Index Number Document SIP Submittal Date Section A  -  SIP Submittal Documents A.1 State Implementation Plan Submission for Adoption of Clark County Air Quality Regulations  -  Section 12.1 4/12/19 A.2 State Implementation Plan Submission for Adoption of Clark County Air Quality Regulations  -  Section 12.11 4/12/19 A.3 State Implementation Plan Submissions for Repeal of Clark County Air Quality Regulations  -  Section 10 (rescission) 6/10/19 A.4 State Implementation Plan Submission for Revisions Renaming the Department of Clark County Air Quality Regulations  -  Section 12.0 3/16/20 A.5 State Implementation Plan Submissions for Revisions of Clark County Air Quality Regulations  -  Section 0 1/31/22 A.6 Section 0  -  Definitions, Adopted July 20, 2021 1/31/22 A.7 Section 12.0  -  Applicability and General Requirements, Adopted January 21, 2020 3/16/20 A.8 Section 12.1  -  Permit Requirements for Minor Sources, Adopted December 18, 2018 4/12/19 A.9 Section 12.11  -  General Permits for Minor Stationary Sources, Adopted December 18, 2018 4/12/19 Section B  -  Supporting Materials and Other Documents B.1 Technical Support Document (TSD), dated January 2023.

B.2 State Implementation Plan Submission for Adoption of Clark County Air Quality Regulations  -  Section 0, Adopted December 17, 2019 and Submitted on March 16, 2020.

B.3 Clark County Air Quality Regulations  -  Section 10, Adopted July 24, 1979.

B.4 EPA memorandum entitled "White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of The Part 70 Operating Permits Program" dated March 5, 1996.

B.6 EPA memorandum entitled "Potential to Emit (PTE) Guidance for Specific Source Categories" dated April 14, 1998.

B.7 EPA memorandum entitled "Minor New Source Review Program Public Notice Requirements under 40 CFR 51.161(b)(3)," from Janet McCabe, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, to Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10, dated April 17, 2012.

Section C  -  Referenced Federal Register Notices C.1 46 FR 21758 (April 14, 1981)

C.2 46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981)

C.3 47 FR 26620 (June 21, 1982)

C.4 79 FR 62350 (October 17, 2014)

C.5 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018)

C.6 88 FR 775 (January 5, 2023)


[Federal Register: May 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26783-26784]
[DOCID:fr12my10-83]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0287]

Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the Offshore Supply
Vessel PEYTON CANDIES

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternative
Compliance was issued for the offshore supply vessel PEYTON CANDIES as
required by 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

DATES: The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on April 1,
2010.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2010-0287 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call LTJG Christine Dimitroff, District Eight, Prevention Branch, U.S.
Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing
or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    A Certificate of Alternative Compliance, as allowed under Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulation, Parts 81 and 89, has been issued for the
offshore supply vessel PEYTON CANDIES, O.N. 1219737. Full compliance
with 72 COLREGS and Inland Rules Act would hinder the vessel's ability
to conduct loading and unloading operations. The horizontal distance
between the forward and aft masthead lights may be 6.506 meters.
Placing the aft masthead light at the horizontal distance from the
forward masthead light as required by Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of the 72
COLREGS would result in an aft masthead light location directly over
the aft cargo deck where it would interfere with loading and unloading
operations.
    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance allows for the horizontal
separation of the forward and aft masthead lights to deviate from the
requirements of Annex I, paragraph 3(a) of 72 COLREGS. This notice is
issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c), and 33 CFR 81.18.

    Dated: April 15, 2010.
J.W. Johnson,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Inspections and Investigations
Branch, By Direction of the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-11264 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 71389]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22904]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:15 p.m. on Thursday, October 19, 2023.

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

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

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

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: October 12, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22904 Filed 10-12-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart O)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants ( 40 CFR, part 60, subpart O) ( Renewal)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Sewage Treatment Plant incinerators ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart O) were promulgated on February 28, 1974 ( 39FR9312) and amended in October 6, 1975, November 10, 1977, October 6, 1988, and October 17, 2000. These standards apply to each incinerator which combusts wastes containing more than 10 percent sewage sludge ( dry basis) produced by municipal sewage treatment plants or each incinerator which charges more than 1000 kg ( 2205 lb.) per day municipal sewage sludge ( dry basis), and any facility that commenced construction or modification after June 11, 1973. Particulate matter ( PM) is the pollutant regulated under this subpart. The standard sets an emission limitation for PM. This information is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart O.

Owners or operators of the facilities regulated under this subpart must make several one time only reports and maintain records. This includes various notifications and records from monitoring devices and facility operations. In general, these notifications, reports and records are required of all sources subject to NSPS.

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

Approximately 54 sources are currently subject to the standard, and it is estimated that there will be no new growth in the industry over the next three years. However, one additional source per year will become subject to the standard over the next three years due to the modification or reconstruction of an existing affected facility. The average annual cost to industry over the next three years of this Information Collection Request ( ICR) is estimated to be $ 390,931.

In the development of the ICR, we addressed the Office of Management and Budget 2 ( OMB) " Terms of Clearance ( TOC) on the active ICR. The TOC are as follows:

This Information Collection Request is approved for three years. When EPA resubmits this ICR for renewal, it should update the wage rates and verify that they have been properly loaded to include overhead, consistent with current EPA and OMB guidelines.

EPA has addressed the items of concern in the TOC as instructed by OMB in the active ICR. See sections 6( b) and 6( c) for updated labor figures and attached Tables 1 and 2 for the specific calculations.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA), as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which ( taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, or any non air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. Section 111( a)( l).

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years.

In the Administrator's judgment, particulate matter emissions from sewage sludge treatment plant incinerators cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subpart O.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of particulate matter from sewage sludge treatment plant incinerators requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of particulate matter from sewage sludge treatment plant incinerators are the result of operation of the affected facilities. The subject standards are achieved by the reduction of particulate matter emissions using control technology and leak detection and repair procedures. The notifications required in the applicable 3 regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated and leaks are being detected and repaired and the regulations are being met.

Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's records of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities being affected by the NSPS continue to operate the control equipment in compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart O).

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

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register ( 68 FR 62289) on November 3, 2003. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations For this information collection, we referenced the most recent ICR, and accessed the most recent data available on the Air Facility System ( AFS) database as maintained by the Office of Compliance. We reviewed information available from the United States Census Bureau, and other websites covering sewage sludge treatment plants. We consulted with the EPA's Office of 4 Air Quality Planning and Standards, Information Transfer, the Program Integration Division and Back River Waste Water Treatment Plant, Mr. Nick Frankos, ( 410) 396 9814.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by these standards was collected less frequently, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR 1320.5.

3( f) Confidentiality Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are sewage sludge treatment plants. The United States Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC ) code for the respondents affected by the standards is 4952 which corresponds to the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS ) 221320 for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants.

4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by New Source 5 Performance Standards, ( NSPS), for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart O).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Standard Citation by Section Notification and application of construction or modification. 60.07( a)( 1)

Notification of anticipated date of initial startup. 60.07( a)( 2)

Notification of actual startup. 60.07( a)( 3)

Notification of physical or operational change which may increase the emission rate. 60.07( a)( 4)

Notification of initial performance tests. 60.08( d)

Demonstration of continuous monitoring system. 60.7( a)( 5)

Date upon which demonstration of continuous monitoring system performance commences. 60.07( a)( 5)

Reports Initial performance test. 60.08( a)

Report of excess emissions. 60.07( c) and 60.155 Owner or operator of any multiple hearth, fluidized bed, or electric sludge incinerator shall submit a semiannual report which contains the following: scrubber pressure drop measurements, oxygen content, temperatures, rate of sludge charged, moisture and volatile solids of daily grab sample of sludge charged to the incinerator, and a record of control device operation measurements for other than a wet scrubber. 60.155( a), 60.155( b), and 60.155( c)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping Startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative. 60.07( b) 6 Recordkeeping Maintain a file of all measurements including, performance test measurements, and all other information required by this subpart recorded in a permanent file suitable for inspection. 60.07( e)

Recording of daily charging rates and hours of operations 60.153( a)( 1)

Install, calibrate, maintain and operate weighing device for determination of the mass of any municipal solid waste charged to the incinerator. 60.153( a)( 3)

Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures and records the pressure drop of gas flow through the wet scrubbing device. 60.153( b)( 1)

Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a monitoring device that continuously measures and records the oxygen content of the incinerator exhaust gas. 60.153( b)( 2)

Install, calibrate, maintain and operate temperature measuring devices. The temperature monitoring devices shall be operated continuously and data recorded during all periods of operation of the incinerator. 60.153( b)( 3)

Install, calibrate, maintain and operate a device for measuring the fuel flow to the incinerator. The fuel flow measuring device shall be operated continuously and data recorded during all periods of operation of the incinerator. 60.153( b)( 4)

Collect and analyze a grab sample of the sludge fed to the incinerator once per day. 60.153( b)( 5)

Test methods and procedures for performance tests. 60.154 Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous monitoring system. 60.13 Owner or operator of any multiple hearth, fluidized bed, or electric sludge incinerator subject to the provisions of this subpart, shall retain the following information and make it available for inspection: the measured pressure drop of the gas flow through the wet scrubbing device, a record of the measured oxygen content of the incinerator exhaust gas, record of the rate of sludge charged to the incinerator, the measured temperatures of the incinerator, the fuel flow to the incinerator, and the total solids and volatile solids content of the sludge charges to the incinerator. 60.153( c)( 1), 60.153( c)( 2), and 60.153 ( c)( 3) 7 Recordkeeping The owner or operator of any sludge incinerator other than a multiple hearth, fluidized bed, or electric incinerator or any sludge incinerator equipped with a control device other than a wet scrubber shall submit for approval a plan for monitoring and recording incinerator and control device operation parameters. 60.153( e)

Maintain records for two years. 60.07( f)

Electronic Reporting Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides parameter data in an automated way, e. g., daily sampling and analysis of sludge feed. Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping. In addition, some regulatory agencies are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report electronically which is reducing the reporting burden. However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory agencies. It is estimated that approximately 10 percent of the respondents use electronic reporting.

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a Continuous Monitoring System ( CMS) for opacity, or for pressure drop and liquid supply pressure for wet scrubber.

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 5 and 9 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

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

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information. 8 Respondent Activities Adjust existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

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

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

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

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

Audit facility records.

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

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

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS which is operated and 9 maintained by the EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is the EPA's database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

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

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

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart O).

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

The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 6,214 ( Total Labor Hours from Table 1). These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved 10 ICR, and any comments received.

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

Managerial $ 93.09 ($ 44.33 + 110%) Technical $ 64.13 ($ 30.54 + 110%) Clerical $ 39.65 ($ 18.88 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

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

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

Particulate Matter $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000 $ 35,000 54 $ 1,890,000 The total capital/ startup costs for this ICR are $ 100,000. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 1,890,000. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M). 11 The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance cost to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 1,990,000. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

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

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 41,217. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial $ 54.02 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 33.76 x 1.6) Technical $ 40.08 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.05 x 1.6) Clerical $ 21.70 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 13.56 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden  NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants, ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart O).

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 54 existing sources are currently subject to the standard. It is estimated that no expected additional sources per year will become subject to the standard in the next three years.

Number of respondents is calculated using the following table which addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents Respondents That Submit Reports Respondents That Do Not Submit Any Reports 12 Number of Respondents Year ( A) Number of New Respondents 1 ( B) Number of Existing Respondents ( C) Number of Existing Respondents that keep records but do not submit reports ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents ( E) Number of Respondents ( E= A+ B+ C D)

1 1 54 0 1 54 2 1 54 0 1 54 3 1 54 0 1 54 Average 1 54 0 1 54 1 New respondents include sources with constructed, reconstructed and modified affected facilities.

To avoid double counting respondents, column D is subtracted. As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is 54. This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents.

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

Total Annual Responses ( A)

Information Collection Activity ( B)

Number of Respondents ( C)

Number of Responses ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( BxC)+ D Notification of construction/ reconstruction 1 1 N/ A 1 Notification of physical and operational changes 1 1 N/ A 1 Notification of demonstration of CMS 1 1 N/ A 1 Notification of actual startup 1 1 N/ A 1 Notification of initial performance test 1 1 N/ A 1 Semiannual report of excess emissions 54 2 N/ A 108 Total 113 ( rounded) 13 The number of Total Annual Responses is 113. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 390,931. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart O).

Note that the total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 1,990,000. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents are attached. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information are estimated to average 55 ( rounded) hours per response.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The adjustment decrease in the burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to more accurate estimates of existing and anticipated new sources. Our data indicates that there are approximately fifty four sources with one additional source due to reconstruction, compared to the active ICR that shows one hundred and fifty four sources with an additional seven sources per year. There are no new facilities being constructed at this time. Reconstruction of facilities is the only expected activity.

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information are estimated to average 55 hours per response. Burdens means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 14 collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2003 0141, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2003 0141 and OMB Control Number 2060 0035 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 15 Table 1: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost  NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart O).

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

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost Per Year a 1. Applications N/ A 2. Survey and Studies N/ A 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 1 1 1 1bc 1 0.05 0.1 $ 72.75 B. Required activities Initial performance test 72 1 72 1bc 72 3.6 7.2 $ 5,237.96 Demonstration of monitoring system Included in performance test Repeat performance test 72 1 72 0.2d 14.4 0.72 1.44 $ 1,047.59 C. Create information Included in 3B D. Gather existing information N/ A E. Write Report Notification of construction/

reconstruction 2 1 2 1bc 2 0.1 0.2 $ 145.50 Notification of physical and operational changes 2 1 2 1 e 2 0.1 0.2 $ 145.50 Notification of demonstration of CMS 40 1 40 1bc 40 2 4 $ 1,037.38 16 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost Per Year a Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 1bc 2 0.1 0.2 $ 145.50 Notification of initial performance test 2 1 2 1bc 2 0.1 0.2 $ 145.50 Performance test report Included in 3B Semiannual reports of excess emissions 40f 2 80 54g 4,320 216 432 $ 314,277.84 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read instructions Included in 4E B. Plan activities Included in 4E C. Implement activities Included in 4E D. Develop record system N/ A E. Time to enter information a. Record of daily production rate and hours of operation 8h 1 8 54 g 432 21.6 43.2 $ 31,427.78 b. Records of startup,

shutdown and malfunction 8 1 8 54 g 432 21.6 43.2 $ 31,427.78 c. Records of performance test data 80i 1 80 1bc 80 4 8 $ 5,819.96 Subtotal Labor Burden 5,404.8 269.97 539.94 $ 390,931.04 17 Burden item ( A) Technical Personhours per occurrence ( B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year ( C) Technical Personhours per respondent per year ( C= AxB) ( D) Respondents per year ( E) Technical personhours per year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management person hours per year ( Ex0.05) ( G) Clerical personhours per year ( Ex0.1) ( H)

Total Cost Per Year a TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST ( rounded) 6,214 $ 390,931 Assumptions:

a This ICR uses the following labor rates: $ 93.09 per hour for Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $ 64.13 per hour for Technical labor, and $ 39.65 per hour for Clerical labor. These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group."

b Assume that there will be one new, modified or reconstructed facility constructed for the next three years.

c Assume that this is a one time only cost.

d Assume that 20 percent would have to repeat the performance testing due to failure.

e Assume that one facility will have a physical or operational change.

f Assume that it will take forty hours to write semiannual reports.

g Assume that there are fifty four sources subject to this rule.

h Assume that it will take eight hours per year to record daily gathering of monitoring data ( which have been automatically recorded).

i Assume that it will take eighty hours per year to record performance test data. 18 Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden  NSPS for Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart O)

Burden Item ( A) Technical Person Hours Per Occurrenc e ( B) Number of Occurrence s Per Year ( C) Technical Person Hours Per Plant Per Year ( C= AxB) ( D)

Plants Per Year ( E) Technical Hours Per Year ( E= CxD) ( F) Management Hours Per Year ( F= 0.05xE) ( G) Clerical Hours Per Year ( G= 0.1xE) ( H) Total a Costs,

Per Year Initial Performance Test 24 1 24 1bc 24 1.2 2.4 $ 1,078.82 Repeat initial performance test 1. Retesting preparation 24 0.2d 4.8 1bc 4.8 0.24 0.48 $ 215.76 Report Review Notification of construction/

reconstruction 2 1 2 1bc 2 0.1 0.2 $ 89.90 Notification of Physical and operational changes 2 1 2 1 e 2 0.1 0.2 $ 89.90 Notification of actual startup 0.5 1 0.5 1bc 0.5 0.025 0.05 $ 22.48 Initial test 0.5 1 0.5 1bc 0.5 0.025 0.05 $ 22.48 Repeat performance test 8 1 8 1bc 8 0.4 0.8 $ 359.61 Semiannual reports 8f 2 16 54 g 864 43.2 86.4 $ 38,837.66 Subtotal 905.8 45.29 90.58 $ 40,716.61 Travel Expenses ( 1 person x 1 plant/ yr x 2 day/ plant x $ 50 per diem) + ($ 400/ round trip x1round trips/ yr) = $ 500 TOTAL LABOR BURDEN and COST ( rounded) 1,042 $ 41,217 Assumptions:

a This cost is based on the following hourly labor rates times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses: $ 54.02 for Managerial ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 33.76 x 1.6), $ 40.08 for Technical ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.05 x 1.6) and $ 21.70 Clerical ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 13.56 x 1.6). These rates are from 19 the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2003 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay.

b Assume that there will be one new, modified or reconstructed facility constructed over the next three years.

c Assume that this is a one time only cost.

d Assume that 20 percent would have to repeat the performance testing due to failure.

e Assume that one facility will have a physical or operational change.

f Assume that it will take eight hours to review semiannual reports.

g Assume that there are fifty four sources subject to this rule. 20