Vol. 76 Tuesday, No. 163 August 23, 2011

Pages 52533–52850

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:37 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\23AUWS.LOC 23AUWS emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES4 II Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011

The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records PUBLIC Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Paper or fiche 202–741–6005 Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions 202–741–6005 Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the issuing agency requests earlier filing. For a list of documents currently on file for public inspection, see www.ofr.gov. The seal of the National Archives and Records Administration authenticates the Federal Register as the official serial publication established under the Federal Register Act. Under 44 U.S.C. 1507, the contents of the Federal Register shall be judicially noticed. The Federal Register is published in paper and on 24x microfiche. It is also available online at no charge at www.fdsys.gov, a service of the U.S. Government Printing Office. The online edition of the Federal Register is issued under the authority of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register as the official legal equivalent of the paper and microfiche editions (44 U.S.C. 4101 and 1 CFR 5.10). It is updated by 6:00 a.m. each day the Federal Register is published and includes both text and graphics from Volume 59, 1 (January 2, 1994) forward. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800 or 866-512-1800 (toll free). E-mail, [email protected]. The annual subscription price for the Federal Register paper edition is $749 plus postage, or $808, plus postage, for a combined Federal Register, Federal Register Index and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA) subscription; the microfiche edition of the Federal Register including the Federal Register Index and LSA is $165, plus postage. Six month subscriptions are available for one-half the annual rate. The prevailing postal rates will be applied to orders according to the delivery method requested. The price of a single copy of the daily Federal Register, including postage, is based on the number of pages: $11 for an issue containing less than 200 pages; $22 for an issue containing 200 to 400 pages; and $33 for an issue containing more than 400 pages. Single issues of the microfiche edition may be purchased for $3 per copy, including postage. Remit check or money order, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents, or charge to your GPO Deposit Account, VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover. Mail to: U.S. Government Printing Office—New Orders, P.O. Box 979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000; or call toll free 1- 866-512-1800, DC area 202-512-1800; or go to the U.S. Government Online Bookstore site, see bookstore.gpo.gov. There are no restrictions on the republication of material appearing in the Federal Register. How To Cite This Publication: Use the volume number and the page number. Example: 76 FR 12345. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Superintendent of Documents, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, along with the entire mailing label from the last issue received.

.

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:37 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\23AUWS.LOC 23AUWS emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES4 III

Contents Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 163

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Agriculture Department Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES See Food and Nutrition Service Determination to Remove Product Currently Listed under See Forest Service CAFTA–DR Agreement, 52640–52641 See Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Comptroller of the Currency Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, NOTICES Submissions, and Approvals, 52633 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52735 Air Force Department NOTICES Defense Department Performance Review Board Members, 52643 See Air Force Department NOTICES Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Meetings: RULES Advisory Council on Dependents’ Education, 52641– Asian Longhorned Beetle; Quarantined Areas and Regulated 52642 Articles, 52541–52543 U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group, 52642 European Larch Canker; Expansion of Regulated Areas, Wage Committee, 52642–52643 52543–52544 Importation of Horses from Contagious Equine Metritis- Education Department Affected Countries, 52547–52548 NOTICES Importation of Peppers from Panama, 52544–52547 Meetings: National Veterinary Accreditation Program: Advisory Commission on Accessible Instructional Currently Accredited Veterinarians Performing Materials in Postsecondary Education for Students Accredited Duties and Electing to Participate, 52548– with Disabilities, 52643–52644 52549 NOTICES Employment Standards Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, See Wage and Hour Division Submissions, and Approvals: National Animal Health Monitoring System; Swine 2012 Energy Department Study, 52633–52634 See Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Arts and Humanities, National Foundation See National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Faucets, Showerheads, Water Closets, and Urinals, 52644– NOTICES Affordable Care Act Funding, 52663–52664 52646 Carcinogen and Recommended Exposure Limit Policy Environmental Protection Agency Assessment, 52664–52665 PROPOSED RULES Coast Guard Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: RULES State of Kansas Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Drawbridge Operations: 52604–52623 Anacostia River, Washington, DC, 52566–52567 Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Bonfouca Bayou, Slidell, LA, 52567–52569 New Source Performance Standards and National Illinois Waterway, Joliet, IL, 52565–52566 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Regulated Navigation Areas: Reviews , 52738–52843 Arthur Kill, NY and NJ, 52569–52572 Revisions to California State Implementation Plans: Special Local Regulations: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Sabine River, Orange, TX, 52563–52565 52623–52624 PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Anchorage Regulations: Approval of Program Revision to the National Pollutant Wells, ME, 52599–52602 Discharge Elimination System Program; Alaska, 52658– Drawbridge Operations: 52659 Anacostia River, Washington, DC, 52602–52604 Green Gas Reporting Program: Access by EPA Contractors to Confidential Business Commerce Department Information, 52659–52662 See International Trade Administration Meetings: See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Good Neighbor Environmental Board, 52662 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Executive Office of the President Submissions, and Approvals, 52636 See National Drug Control Policy Office

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:38 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\23AUCN.SGM 23AUCN emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 IV Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Contents

See Presidential Documents Termination of Exemptions by Implied Surrender: See Science and Technology Policy Office Herschel L. Webster; Revonda Amthor, 52657–52658

Federal Aviation Administration Federal Trade Commission PROPOSED RULES PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms Eurocopter Canada Ltd. Model BO 105 LS A–3 and Conditions, etc., 52596–52599 Helicopters, 52593–52596 Establishments of Class C Airspace: Food and Drug Administration Long Beach, CA; Meetings, 52596 NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Online Publication of Office of Commercial Space Submissions, and Approvals: Transportation Current and Future Launch, Site, and Comparing Nutrition Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Reentry Licenses and Permits , 52732–52733 Among English–Dominant Hispanics, Spanish– Requests to Change Use of Aeronautical Property: Dominant Hispanics, and Other Consumers, 52665– Warren County Regional Airport, Bowling Green, KY, 52667 52733–52734 International Conference on Harmonisation: Underwater Locating Devices (Acoustic) (Self–Powered), Guidance on E2F Development Safety Update Report; 52734 Availability, 52667–52668 Meetings: Federal Communications Commission Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory PROPOSED RULES Committee, 52668–52669 Empowering Consumers to Prevent and Detect Billing for Performance of Drug and Biologics Firms in Conducting Unauthorized Charges: Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments; Consumer Information and Disclosure; Truth-in-Billing Correction, 52669–52670 and Billing Format, 52625–52632 Television Broadcasting Services: Food and Nutrition Service Panama City, FL, 52632 PROPOSED RULES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Automated Data Processing and Information Retrieval Submissions, and Approvals, 52662–52663 System Requirements, 52581–52593 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Forest Service NOTICES NOTICES Determination of Insufficient Assets to Satisfy Claims Meetings: Against Financial Institution in Receivership, 52663 Pennington County Recource Advisory Committee, 52634 Federal Emergency Management Agency Geological Survey NOTICES NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Submissions, and Approvals: Level 1 Assessment and Level 3 Evaluations for the Nonferrous Metals Surveys, 52686–52687 Center for Domestic Preparedness, 52672–52673 Major Disaster Declarations: Health and Human Services Department Indiana; Amendment No. 3, 52673 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Texas; Amendment No. 2, 52673 See Food and Drug Administration See National Institutes of Health Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Homeland Security Department Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, See Coast Guard Submissions, and Approvals, 52646–52648 See Federal Emergency Management Agency Applications: NOTICES Golden Triangle Storage, Inc., 52649–52650 Meetings: Konohiki Hydro Power, Inc., 52648–52649 President’s National Security Telecommunications National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 52650 Advisory Committee, 52672 Combined Filings, 52650–52652 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Housing and Urban Development Department Minisink Compressor Project, Millennium Pipeline Co., NOTICES LLC, 52654–52655 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. Northern Access Project; Submissions, and Approvals: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. Station 230c Project, Application for Energy Innovation Fund; Multifamily 52652–52653 Pilot Program, 52677 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Continuum of Care Check-up Assessment Tool, 52676– Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Kilarc–Cow Creek 52677 Hydroelectric Project, 52655–52656 FY 2011 Funding Availability for Neighborhood Preliminary Permit Applications: Stabilization Program Technical Assistance and Lock+Hydro Friends Fund VII, 52656–52657 Capacity Building; Request for Qualifications, 52674 Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrative Fee 52656 Study, 52675–52676

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:38 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\23AUCN.SGM 23AUCN emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Contents V

Multifamily Financial Management Template, 52676 National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Procedures for Appealing Section 8 Rent Adjustments, NOTICES 52674–52675 Meetings: Buy American Exceptions under American Recovery and Humanities Panel, 52697–52698 Reinvestment Act, 52678 Request for Qualifications: National Institutes of Health Fellowship Placement Pilot Program, 52678–52686 NOTICES Meetings: Indian Affairs Bureau 2011 Technology Transfer Summit North America NOTICES Conference, 52670 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Clinical Center, 52671 Submissions, and Approvals: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Adult Education Program, 52687 Health and Human Development, 52671 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Interior Department 52670–52671 See Geological Survey National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, See Indian Affairs Bureau 52672 See Land Management Bureau See National Park Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Internal Revenue Service Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, RULES Submissions, and Approvals: Election to Expense Certain Refineries, 52556–52561 Shipboard Observation Form for Floating Marine Debris, Timely Mailing Treated as Timely Filing, 52561–52563 52638 NOTICES Southeast Region Vessel Identification Requirements, Members of Senior Executive Service Performance Review 52637–52638 Boards, 52735–52736 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review: International Trade Administration Gulf of Mexico Menhaden and Gulf of Mexico and South NOTICES Atlantic Yellowtail Snapper, 52638–52639 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews; Partial Meetings: Rescissions: New England Fishery Management Council, 52639–52640 Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Republic of Pacific Fishery Management Council, 52640 Korea, 52636–52637 National Park Service NOTICES Justice Department Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: NOTICES Nabesna Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan, Wrangell– Lodging of Consent Decrees Under the Toxic Substances St. Elias National Park and Preserve, 52690–52691 Control Act, 52692 Meetings: Lodgings of Consent Decrees under Clean Air Act, 52692– Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail 52693 Advisory Council, 52691–52692

Labor Department Natural Resources Conservation Service See Wage and Hour Division NOTICES Proposed Change to Section IV of Virginia State Technical Land Management Bureau Guide, 52634–52635 NOTICES Proposed Changes to National Handbook of Conservation Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Practices, 52635–52636 Castle Rocks and Cedar Fields Areas, Burley Field Office, Burley, ID, 52687–52688 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: NOTICES Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, Fremont County, WY, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, 52688–52690 Submissions, and Approvals, 52698–52699 Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating NDM 94247, NDM 94249, and NDM 94263, 52690 Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations, 52699–52715 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Meetings: NOTICES Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, 52716–52717 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Launch of NASA Routine Payloads on Expendable Subcommittee on Digital Instrumentation and Launch Vehicles, 52694–52696 Control Systems, 52715–52716 Intents to Grant Partially Exclusive Licenses, 52696 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures, 52717 National Drug Control Policy Office Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards NOTICES Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices, Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, 52715 Submissions, and Approvals, 52696–52697 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 52717–52718

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:38 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\23AUCN.SGM 23AUCN emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 VI Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Contents

Personnel Management Office Textile Agreements Implementation Committee RULES See Committee for the Implementation of Textile Federal Employees Retirement System: Agreements Present Value Conversion Factors for Spouses of Deceased Separated Employees, 52539–52540 Transportation Department Pay for Sunday Work, 52537–52539 See Federal Aviation Administration Personnel Records, 52533–52537 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Postal Regulatory Commission Submissions, and Approvals: NOTICES On-Line Complaint Form for Service-Related Issues in Complaints about Postal Services, 52718–52720 Air Transportation, 52731–52732 Post Office Closings, 52720–52721

Postal Service Treasury Department RULES See Comptroller of the Currency Procedures To Adjudicate Claims for Personal Injury or See Internal Revenue Service Property Damage Arising Out of the Operation of the NOTICES U.S. Postal Service, 52580 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52735 Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Veterans Affairs Department Government Agencies and Employees: RULES Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce Health Care for Homeless Veterans Program, 52575–52580 Intiative; Establishment (EO 13583), 52845–52849 Rules Governing Hearings Before the Agency of Original Science and Technology Policy Office Jurisdiction and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals; NOTICES Clarification, 52572–52575 Meetings: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Wage and Hour Division Technology, 52721–52722 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Securities and Exchange Commission Submissions, and Approvals, 52693–52694 RULES Suspension of Duty to File Reports for Classes of Asset- Backed Securities, 52549–52556 NOTICES Separate Parts In This Issue Meetings; Sunshine Act, 52722 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Part II Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 52722–52724 Environmental Protection Agency, 52738–52843 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 52724–52727 NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, 52729–52730 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 52724, 52727–52729 Part III Presidential Documents, 52845–52849 Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Reader Aids Submissions, and Approvals, 52730–52731 Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this page for State Department phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws. NOTICES Determinations on Bilateral Assistance Relating to the To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents Government of the Russian Federation, 52731 LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http:// Meetings: listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Scientific archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change Advisory Board, 52731 settings); then follow the instructions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:38 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4748 Sfmt 4748 E:\FR\FM\23AUCN.SGM 23AUCN emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Contents VII

CFR PARTS AFFECTED IN THIS ISSUE

A cumulative list of the parts affected this month can be found in the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue.

3 CFR Executive Orders: 13583...... 52847 5 CFR 293...... 52533 532...... 52537 550...... 52537 843...... 52539 7 CFR 301 (2 documents) ...... 52541, 52543 319...... 52544 Proposed Rules: 277...... 52581 9 CFR 93...... 52547 161...... 52548 14 CFR Proposed Rules: 39...... 52593 71...... 52596 16 CFR Proposed Rules: 239...... 52596 700...... 52596 701...... 52596 702...... 52596 703...... 52596 17 CFR 240...... 52549 249...... 52549 26 CFR 1...... 52556 301...... 52561 602...... 52556 33 CFR 100...... 52563 117 (3 documents) ...... 52565, 52566, 52567 165...... 52569 Proposed Rules: 110...... 52599 117...... 52602 38 CFR 3...... 52572 20...... 52572 63...... 52575 39 CFR 912...... 52580 40 CFR Proposed Rules: 52 (2 documents) ...... 52604, 52623 60...... 52738 63...... 52738 47 CFR Proposed Rules: 64...... 52625 73...... 52632

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:38 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4711 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\23AULS.LOC 23AULS emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES3 52533

Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 163

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER containing records reflecting an agencies. These changes clarify which contains regulatory documents having general employee’s appointment, employment agencies are or are not bound by subpart applicability and legal effect, most of which history and benefits information. OPFs C. are keyed to and codified in the Code of contain long-term records that serve to • In § 293.303, amending the heading Federal Regulations, which is published under protect the legal and financial rights of from ‘‘Ownership of the folder’’ to ‘‘The 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. the Government and the employee. roles of the Office, agencies, and The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by Pursuant to Executive Order 12107 custodians’’ and revising and clarifying the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of (December 28, 1978), OPFs are the text of the section. These changes new books are listed in the first FEDERAL designated as records of OPM, and the clarify the intent of the section. REGISTER issue of each week. President has delegated authority to the • In § 293.303, removing the phrase Director of OPM to regulate the ‘‘under the jurisdiction and control of’’’ establishment, maintenance, and to eliminate confusion about the OFFICE OF PERSONNEL transfer of OPFs. meaning of this clause. Also, adding the MANAGEMENT Although OPFs are designated as phrase ‘‘each former employee’’ to records of OPM, agencies have recognize that this section also covers 5 CFR Part 293 significant responsibilities related to OPFs of former employees. The RIN 3206–AM05 OPFs. OPM regulations require agencies remaining language has been designated to establish OPFs for most employees. paragraph (a). Personnel Records OPM’s regulations also specify the • In § 293.303, adding paragraph (b) content of the OPF, which each agency to clarify the role and responsibilities of AGENCY: U.S. Office of Personnel must maintain. Moreover, agencies are OPM; paragraph (c) to clarify the roles Management. generally required to retain the OPF of and responsibilities of agencies, ACTION: Final rule. a separated employee for 30 working generally; paragraph (d)(1) to establish days after separation and to transfer that the definition of the term ‘‘custodian’’ SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel OPF thereafter to the National Personnel for purposes of this section; and Management (OPM) is amending the Records Center (NPRC). Further, if an paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(5) to regulations governing disposition of employee’s OPF is lost or destroyed, the establish the roles and responsibilities Official Personnel Folders of Federal current (or former) employing agency of custodians. employees to clarify the roles and must reconstruct the OPF. • In § 293.303. adding paragraph (e) responsibilities of OPM and Federal The transfer of an OPF from the NPRC to clarify that agencies and custodians agencies. can be the result of an agency initially will carry out their roles and DATES: Effective September 22, 2011. submitting the OPF to the NPRC responsibilities for OPFs pursuant to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: improperly, an activity such as this subpart and OPM’s Guide to amending or correcting the OPF of a Personnel Recordkeeping. Tanya Bennett, at (202) 606–4054, by • facsimile at (202) 606–1719, or by e-mail current or former employee, the rehiring In § 293.307, adding paragraphs (c) at [email protected]. of a former Federal employee, or a need and (d) to specify that agencies are to produce the document for litigation. responsible for costs associated with SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. The return of the OPF to the NPRC transferring OPFs to and from the NPRC. Office of Personnel Management is produces a subsequent and additional Comments and Responses amending subpart C of part 293 of title transfer expense. 5, Code of Federal Regulations OPM published its proposed rule with (Personnel Records) to clarify agency Purpose and Summary of Changes request for comments on January 19, responsibilities concerning Official The purpose of this rule is to clarify 2010. 75 FR 2821 (Jan. 19, 2010). OPM Personnel Folders (OPFs) of current and the roles and responsibilities of OPM received comments from two former Federal employees in the civil and other agencies with respect to OPFs individuals, four different components service. by articulating, delineating, and of the Department of Defense, and two Background differentiating the responsibilities of other Federal agencies, including the OPM as regulator of OPFs and the NPRC. Below is a summary of the Generally, OPM and the other responsibilities of other agencies, who comments received, which is followed agencies share responsibility for have a variety of reasons to use OPFs in by OPM’s responses. personnel management in the Executive connection with the appointment and Branch. OPM functions as a employment of Federal employees. To 1. Storage Costs government-wide regulator of personnel clarify these roles and responsibilities, Two commenters opposed the management. Agencies, on the other this rule makes the following changes to amendment to 5 CFR 293.307, which hand, are required to maintain and subpart C of 5 CFR part 293: adds paragraphs (c) and (d) to clarify the establish their own personnel office • In § 293.301, inserting language OPF-related costs for which agencies are within their agency, and the head of excluding agencies from the application responsible, because the commenters each agency, in accordance with of subpart C when they are exempt from believe these provisions will shift the applicable statutes, Executive orders OPM recordkeeping requirements by cost of storing OPFs with NARA to other and rules, is responsible for personnel statute, regulation, or formal agreement agencies. management in their agency. The OPF is with OPM. Further, inserting a sentence OPM believes these commenters a critical tool for personnel stating that OPM’s Guide to Personnel misconstrued the rule. Nothing in this management. An OPF is a file Recordkeeping will list the excluded rule shifts the cost of storing OPFs with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

NARA from OPM to other agencies. recovery, this rule is not intended to provided feedback to OPM in this Under the rule, OPM remains enable OPM to shift the costs of such process. The same commenter wanted responsible for the cost of storing OPFs. third-party requests to another agency OPM to provide the cost studies, In addition, OPM remains responsible and will not effectuate such a cost- statistical analysis, and raw data used to under the Privacy Act for all costs shifting. Once an OPF has been justify the rule and the human capital associated with responding to a former accepted by the NPRC, OPM becomes cost increase to implement and track employee’s request for a review or a the custodian until and unless another agency transactions. copy of her or his OPF, and under the agency requests the OPF. OPM will not OPM did not call for data from other Freedom of Information Act for charge agencies for the costs associated agencies or conduct cost studies and responses to third party (public) with responding to requests from former statistical analysis in preparing this requests for information from OPFs Federal employees or members of the rule. The purpose of the rule is to (although, as noted below, OPM may public for records currently stored at the correct a misunderstanding of the roles seek reimbursement from such third- NPRC. and responsibilities of OPM and the party requesters). The change made by other agencies with respect to the the rule is that transfer of custody for 3. Requests for OPF Information From transfer of OPFs to NPRC. This storage of OPFs is now predicated on Federal Agencies misunderstanding has resulted in OPFs being accepted for storage by A commenter stated that the rule agencies avoiding part of the cost of NARA. would allow OPM to charge other administering their own responsibilities Another commenter requested that agencies that are requesting OPF with respect to OPFs. The commenter the rule specify the NARA actual costs information. appears to misconstrue the rule as that OPM will be responsible for and OPM believes that the commenter has simply seeking a more beneficial cost those that will be the responsibility of slightly confused requesting information arrangement for OPM; instead, the the other agencies for storage, transfers, from an OPF and requesting the actual purpose is to differentiate the activities references, interfile, and disposition OPF. Currently, the NPRC does not that are properly considered functions (destruction or accessioning into the charge for OPF information. For of agency human resources offices and Archives of the United States) of OPFs. requests from agencies to the NPRC for thus ensure that an agency that initiates As clarified by the rule, agencies will an actual OPF, however, the NPRC the transfer of an OPF assumes the costs be responsible for the costs associated charges a handling fee associated with associated with that action (just as that with transferring OPFs to NPRC, transferring the file to and receiving it agency bears the costs associated with requesting OPFs from NPRC, and for from an agency. Fees charged by the establishing and maintaining OPFs for any other service initiated by an agency. NPRC associated with handling OPFs as its appointees and employees). OPM will be responsible for the storage part of transferring OPFs will now be 6. Employee Medical Folders and charges of OPFs that have been accepted the responsibility of the agencies under Employee Performance Files by the NPRC and placed into storage, this rule. and for all charges associated with A commenter asked that OPM address responding to requests from former 4. Effect on Electronic OPFs how this rule will affect Employee employees and the public under the Several commenters expressed Medical Folders (EMFs) and Employee Privacy Act and Freedom of Information concern that the amended rule may be Performance Files (EPFs). Act (subject to possible reimbursement construed to include electronic OPFs EMFs contain information determined from such third-party requesters). OPM (eOPFs). One commenter mentioned by an agency’s medical staff to be will be charged in the same manner as that the migration to eOPF was required occupational medical records, which other agencies for the OPFs of its own by 2012 and recommended that OPM can follow the employee from agency to current and former employees. not implement the changes to this rule agency or be sent to NPRC if the OPM has chosen not to specify in the until that time to alleviate any financial employee separates from Federal rule the actual costs charged by the impact on agencies. Another commenter service. The rule for disposition of NPRC for services because such costs stated that the OPM’s Enterprise Human EMFs, 5 CFR 293.510, which is not will be established pursuant to the Resource Integration (EHRI) had already amended by this rule, instructs agencies NPRC’s revolving fund authority. OPM factored NPRC transactions into to follow the same procedures has an interagency agreement with the maintenance costs for eOPFs. Three established for disposition of OPFs, 5 NPRC that specifies the services commenters recommended that the rule CFR 293.307. Because this rule amends provided to OPM and the corresponding specify it applies only to paper OPFs 5 CFR 293.307 to clarify that agencies costs. This interagency agreement is and/or include a statement excluding are responsible for the costs associated regularly updated. eOPFs. with the transfer of OPFs to NPRC, the OPM agrees that a distinction should same requirements will apply to 2. Requests for Copies of OPFs From be made between the roles and transferring EMFs to NPRC. As for EPFs, Former Employees or OPF Information responsibilities for paper OPFs and there is no separate cost associated with From the Public eOPFs. OPM has added language to transferring EPFs because any A commenter stated that this rule § 293.303 to distinguish between paper information transferred is contained in would allow OPM to charge another OPFs and eOPFs. OPM acknowledges the OPF as part of the left (temporary) agency for costs associated with a that it has already factored NPRC side of the OPF (See 5 CFR 293.402 and request by a former employee for a copy transactions into maintenance costs for 5 CFR 293.404). of the employee’s OPF or a request for eOPFs with respect to EHRI. OPF information by a member of the 7. Other Agency’s Records Management public. 5. Data Calls, Cost Studies and Policies OPM may well seek to recover the Statistical Analysis Three commentators suggested that costs of some of these requests from A commenter wanted to know what this rule might cause other agencies to third-party requesters (pursuant to data calls were issued to collect amend their records management FOIA, for example), but whether or not information in preparation for this policies in order to charge agencies for OPM undertakes that sort of cost- regulation and which specific agencies use of their records.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52535

OPM is not in a position to predict confusion about the delineation of separates, and because the agency is what other agencies might do in terms responsibilities and costs associated responsible only during the period of of their own records management with carrying out those responsibilities. employment, the agency is not policies in response to this rule or to The purpose of this concept was to responsible for transfer costs. comment on the position other agencies recognize that although other agencies OPM agrees that an agency is the adopt or may adopt regarding records are often in possession of the OPFs, the custodian during the period of an for which they are the custodian but authority for the establishment, employee’s employment. An agency that are not maintained in the OPF. maintenance and transfer of them remains the custodian, however, even resides with OPM. The same purpose is 8. Change to the Title of Section 293.303 after an employee separates, while it reflected in this rule’s revision in performs its personnel management One commenter stated that the § 293.303 by creating paragraph (a), responsibilities, which typically take 30 existing title of § 293.303, ‘‘Ownership which keeps much of the original days. Agencies complete actions such as of the Folder,’’ is not confusing and, language from the section but eliminates resignation, termination, or retirement therefore, need not be changed. the phrase ‘‘jurisdiction and control.’’ after an employee separates from the OPM disagrees with the commenter. Further, this rule revises § 293.303 by losing agency. In addition, in the case of In OPM’s experience, the use of the introducing several additional some actions outlined in Chapter 7 of word ‘‘ownership’’ in the title of paragraphs that define the term the Guide to Personnel Recordkeeping, § 293.303 has resulted in disagreements custodian and specify the the OPF may remain in the possession over the meaning and scope of the word. responsibilities of OPM, agencies, and of an agency for longer than 30 days. In In particular, it has created ambiguity in custodians pertaining to establishing, order to accomplish these vital actions; delineating the responsibilities of OPM maintaining, and transferring OPFs. ensure the accuracy, completeness, and the other agencies with regard to Executive Order 12107 grants OPM necessity, timeliness, and relevance of the cost of transferring OPFs to and from authority to promulgate regulations the actions; and ensure the fairness of the NPRC. The new title for § 293.303, pertaining to the establishment, decisions involving the subject of the ‘‘The roles and responsibilities of the maintenance, and transfer of OPFs. OPF, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1), Office, agencies, and custodians,’’ Defining a term to be used by OPM the folder remains in the physical provides a clearer statement of the within those regulations is consistent possession of the agency for some time purpose of the section and its new with this authority. Moreover, after separation. To clarify when an content. regulating the activities and agency is no longer the custodian of an responsibilities of agencies in physical 9. Definition of Custodian OPF, the rule amends § 293.303 by possession of OPFs is inherently part of adding paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5). Four commenters submitted the maintenance and transfer of OPFs. comments about adding a definition of OPM does not agree that the 11. Potential Augmentation of OPM’s the term ‘‘custodian’’ to § 293.102. Two definition of custodian contained in this Appropriation commenters sought general clarification rule is inconsistent with OPM’s use of about the definition. A commenter the term in the Guide to Personnel Three commenters suggested that the contended that the definition was Recordkeeping. However, to the extent rule would result in an augmentation of beyond OPM’s authority under that an inconsistency arises, the OPM’s appropriation because OPM Executive Order 12107 and inconsistent definition of custodian in this rule is receives appropriated funds for with prior use of the term in OPM’s controlling for purpose of implementing reimbursing the NPRC for costs Guide to Personnel Recordkeeping. these regulations. The Guide to associated with OPFs. Another commenter wanted the Personnel Recordkeeping will be Although OPFs are designated as definition to be revised in order to make revised to resolve any inconsistency that records of OPM, some of the clear that the NPRC, although in comes to OPM’s attention. administrative expenses associated with physical possession of OPFs, is not Instead of revising the definition of OPFs flow logically from each agency’s responsible for the cost associated with custodian to ensure that the NPRC is not requirements of maintaining its own the maintenance and disposition of the responsible for costs associated with the workforce, including compliance with OPF once it arrives at NPRC. maintenance and disposition of OPFs OPM’s regulations. Indeed, having OPFs Rather than amending § 293.102, the once they arrive at NPRC, OPM has is part and parcel of having employees. definitions section for all of 5 CFR part added paragraph (d)(5) to § 293.303 to Each agency is responsible for its own 293, OPM has decided to include the clarify that OPM is the custodian once personnel management, and definition solely in the regulations for the NPRC approves the transfer of an establishing, maintaining, and OPFs by amending § 293.303. In this OPF from an agency. transferring OPFs are necessary rule, § 293.303 replaces the ‘‘jurisdiction functions of each agency’s personnel and control’’ language that was 10. When an Agency Is No Longer a office. This includes remedying OPFs introduced in 1954 by Executive Order Custodian submitted improperly, as well as 10561 (September 13, 1954) and Three commenters noted that the amending or correcting OPFs of current included in Civil Service Commission proposed definition of custodian and former employees, rehiring former regulations implementing that order (19 seemed to indicate that agencies no Federal employees, and utilizing OPFs FR 6899 (October 28, 1954)), with the longer have responsibility for the cost of in litigation. Therefore, each agency’s concept of custodian in order to more transferring OPFs to NPRC after an general operating appropriation is clearly articulate the responsibilities of individual separates from Federal available to reimburse the NPRC for OPM and the other agencies. Although service because an agency is the legal expenses related to these functions. At Executive Order 10561 was revoked by custodian of an employee’s OPF during the same time, OPM’s appropriation is Executive Order 12107 (December 28, the period of the employee’s available for expenses necessary to carry 1978), OPM continued to use the employment at that agency. The out OPM’s Governmentwide functions ‘‘jurisdiction and control’’ language that argument was that because agencies are regarding OPFs, such as storage of OPFs was borrowed from it. The notion of required to hold the folders for a and servicing OPFs that have been jurisdiction and control has led to minimum of 30 days after an employee transferred and accepted by the NPRC.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52536 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

OPM is also responsible for expenses a negative impact on the NPRC’s billing § 293.101(b) of 5 CFR 293, subpart A related to its own employees’ OPFs. and business practices because it will (Basic Policies on Maintenance of Prior to Fiscal Year (FY) 2000, NARA have to initiate agreements with each Personnel Records) contains similar financed the activities of the NPRC agency for billing and services and it language that may have been considered related to OPFs out of its own general may be necessary to charge OPM by applicable to subpart C. Section operating appropriation. During this folder rather than by cubic foot. 293.101(b) makes the basic policies on period, the NPRC paid the costs of OPM appreciates the concern for the maintenance of personnel records transferring, storing, and providing potential impact this rule may have for applicable ‘‘to any department or other services associated with OPFs out the NPRC. However, OPM does not independent establishment in the of an appropriation to NPRC for this control the NPRC’s billing and business Executive Branch of the Federal purpose. OPM did not reimburse the practices, or how it will adjust to this Government * * * except those NPRC for costs associated with OPFs. rule. As noted previously, this rule is specifically excluded from Office (And agencies were—and still are— being adopted in order to rectify the recordkeeping requirements by statute, responsible for costs associated with ambiguity of which responsibilities are Office regulation, or formal agreement establishing and maintaining OPFs for OPM’s and which are responsibilities of between the Office and that agency.’’ their employees). the other agencies. Resolving this However, as stated in § 293.101(b), it Beginning with FY 2000, however, ambiguity ultimately should help the applies only to subpart A, not subpart Congress changed the financing of the NPRC determine the appropriate billing C. Therefore, the exclusionary language NPRC activities by establishing the and business practices to adopt and of § 293.101(b), as written, does not Records Center Revolving Fund (Fund) implement. affect § 293.301. The current language of and authorizing the NPRC to credit the 13. Excluded Agencies § 293.301 appears to apply to agencies Fund with fees charged to other regardless of whether they are subject to agencies (Pub. L. 106–58, 113 Stat. 430, While OPM was preparing the rule for OPM’s basic policies on maintenance of 460–61 (Sept. 29, 1999), codified at 44 publication and in discussions with the personnel records. U.S.C. 2901 note). NPRC about the interagency agreement At any rate, in practice, OPM has Currently, each agency incurs the cost that governs the operating relationship continued to consider agencies that are of establishing OPFs for its own between the NPRC and OPM, the NPRC specifically excluded from OPM employees as a necessary expense of brought to OPM’s attention the potential recordkeeping requirements by statute, maintaining its workforce. Similarly, for § 293.301, the applicability provision regulation or formal agreements each agency has incurred costs for subpart C (OPF regulations), to be between OPM and other agencies (i.e., associated with maintaining OPFs for its read more broadly than OPM intended. exempt from subpart A) as exempt from own employees. Agencies do not seek, Section 293.301 states that the OPF OPM’s OPF regulations (i.e., exempt or receive, reimbursement from OPM for regulations apply to ‘‘each executive from subpart C). This practice is these costs. Rather, agencies understand department and independent reflected in Chapter 2, Section 2–A of that they are required by regulation to establishment of the Federal OPM’s Guide to Personnel perform these tasks and incur costs Government, each corporation wholly Recordkeeping, which is entitled associated with fulfilling their owned or controlled by the United ‘‘Employment Systems Outside the responsibilities as employing agencies. States, and with respect to positions Office of Personnel Management’s However, because of the confusion subject to civil service rules and Recordkeeping Authority.’’ created by the title of § 293.303, regulations, the legislative and judicial After consulting with the NPRC, OPM ‘‘Ownership of the Folder,’’ and its branches of the Federal Government.’’ has addressed the potential to read mention of ‘‘jurisdiction and control’’ of Prior to 1985, § 293.301 included a § 293.301 more broadly then intended OPFs, the costs of transferring OPFs to clause that exempted agencies from the by reinserting the original, pre-1985 and from the NPRC have been avoided OPF regulations if they were exclusionary language at the end of the by the other agencies. By specifically ‘‘specifically excluded from [OPM] current § 293.301. Moreover, OPM has providing that the costs associated with recordkeeping requirements by statute, added an additional sentence following transferring OPFs are the responsibility Office regulation or formal agreement this language that identifies OPM’s of the transferring agencies, OPM has between the Office and the agency’’ (5 Guide to Personnel Recordkeeping as now eliminated this confusion. CFR 293.301 (1985)). the document where excluded agencies This rule reflects OPM’s position that However, the exclusionary language will be listed, which will allow for more services the NPRC provides to agencies was subsequently removed from efficient updates and revisions, rather transferring OPFs to the NPRC are not § 293.301. On October 19, 1982, OPM than listing the agencies in the rule. services that benefit OPM, but rather are issued a notice in the Federal Register services that allow agencies to fulfill proposing to amend part 293 in order to 14. Need for an Effective Date their responsibilities as employers (and move the guidelines on accessing OPFs A commenter requested the rule have under OPM’s regulations). Similarly, the from 5 CFR part 294 to 5 CFR part 293 an established effective date that is far services the NPRC provides to agencies (See 47 FR 46513 (Oct. 19, 1982)). As enough in the future to allow agencies’ initiating requests for OPFs from the part of this proposed amendment, for human resource offices and the NPRC to NPRC are also services that benefit reasons not stated, OPM amended prepare for the changes made by this agencies, not OPM. Although OPM has § 293.301 by removing the clause rule. incurred these costs since FY 2000, it exempting agencies specifically The proposed rule was published on would not be appropriate to continue excluded from OPM’s recordkeeping January 19, 2010. Since that time, such an arrangement now that the roles requirements. The rule became final on personnel offices have been on notice of and responsibilities of OPM and the January 24, 1985, with no mention in the impending changes made by this other agencies have been clarified. the final notice of why the exclusionary rule and the NPRC has implemented a language was removed (See 50 FR 3307 system that will permit it to bill 12. NPRC Billing and Business Practices (Jan. 24, 1985)). individual agencies for the costs they A commenter stated that the Removal of the exclusionary language incur. OPM is confident that agencies implementation of this rule would have was probably due to the fact that and the NPRC are capable of meeting

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52537

the requirements of this rule. Therefore, subject to civil service rules and (d) Agencies are responsible for all the effective date of these changes will regulations and of each former costs associated with agency-initiated be 30 days from the date of publication employee who held such a position is requests for OPFs or services from the of this rule in the Federal Register. part of the records of the Office of National Personnel Records Center. Personnel Management (Office). Regulatory Flexibility Act [FR Doc. 2011–21395 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] (b) The Office has Government-wide BILLING CODE 6325–47–P I certify that these regulations will not responsibility for developing have a significant economic impact on regulations, practices and procedures a substantial number of small entities for the establishment, maintenance, and OFFICE OF PERSONNEL because they would apply only to transfer of OPFs. MANAGEMENT Federal agencies and employees. (c) Agencies shall be responsible for Executive Order 13563 and Executive the following: 5 CFR Parts 532 and 550 Order 12866 (1) The establishment of the OPF for RIN 3206–AM08 a new appointee or a new employee for The Office of Management and Budget whom no OPF has previously been Pay for Sunday Work has reviewed this rule in accordance established; and with E.O. 13563 and 12866. (2) The maintenance of a previously AGENCY: Office of Personnel List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 293 existing OPF during the period any new Management. ACTION: Final rule. Government employees, Privacy, appointee or employee remains an agency’s employee. Records. SUMMARY: The U.S. Office of Personnel (d)(1) Custodian means the agency in Management is issuing final regulations U.S. Office of Personnel Management. physical possession of an OPF. In the to implement the ruling in the case of John Berry, case of an electronic OPF (eOPF), the Fathauer v. United States, 566 F.3d Director. custodian is the agency that has primary 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In this decision, access to an eOPF contained within a Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part the United States Court of Appeals for document management system 293, subpart C as follows: the Federal Circuit ruled that part-time approved by the Office. PART 293—PERSONNEL RECORDS employees are covered under the (2) A custodian shall be responsible provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5546(a), the for the maintenance and transfer of the Subpart C—Official Personnel Folder statute governing the payment of OPF or eOPF, and the costs associated Sunday premium pay for work ■ 1. The authority citation for part 293, with these activities. performed on Sundays. The revised subpart C, is revised to read as follows: (3) An agency is the custodian of an Sunday premium pay regulations OPF it requests from the National Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 5 eliminate references to ‘‘full-time’’ Personnel Records Center (NPRC), for employees, which will permit Sunday U.S.C. 1103; 5 U.S.C. 1104; 5 U.S.C. 1302, 5 any temporary use, from the date that U.S.C. 2951(2), 5 U.S.C. 3301; 5 U.S.C. 4315; premium payments to part-time E.O. 12107 (December 28, 1978), 3 CFR the OPF is transmitted by the NPRC to employees, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 1954–1958 Compilation; E.O. 9830 (February the agency until the date that the NPRC 5546(a). Consistent with the reasoning 24, 1947); 3 CFR 1943–1948 Compilation. receives the OPF back from the agency. in the Fathauer decision, OPM has (4) An agency is no longer the ■ 2. Revise § 293.301 to read as follows: determined that part-time prevailing custodian of an OPF once the OPF has rate employees are also entitled to § 293.301 Applicability of regulations. been transferred to and accepted by the payment of Sunday premium pay, Except for those agencies specifically NPRC. pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5544(a). excluded from Office of Personnel (5) Once NPRC has approved the Intermittent employees continue to be Management (OPM) recordkeeping transfer, the Office is the custodian of excluded from earning Sunday premium requirements by statute, OPM the OPF until the destruction date pay because of the nature of their regulation, or formal agreement between established for the file pursuant to the appointment. OPM and the agency, this subpart National Archive and Records DATES: applies to—and within this subpart Administration’s General Records This rule is effective September agency means—each executive Schedule, unless another agency 22, 2011. department and independent requests the OPF from the NPRC in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: establishment of the Federal interim. David Barash by telephone at (202) 606– Government; each corporation wholly (e) Agencies and custodians shall 2858; by fax at (202) 606–0824; or by owned or controlled by the United carry out their responsibilities with e-mail at [email protected]. States; and, with respect to positions respect to the OPF or eOPF in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April subject to civil service rules and accordance with this subpart and the 9, 2010, the U.S. Office of Personnel regulations, the legislative and judicial Office’s Guide to Personnel Management (OPM) issued proposed branches of the Federal Government. Recordkeeping. regulations at 75 FR 18133 to implement OPM will list agencies to which this ■ 4. Amend § 293.307 by adding new the decision in Fathauer v. United subpart does not apply in the Guide to paragraphs (c) and (d) as follows: States, 566 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009), Personnel Recordkeeping, and will in which the court determined that part- amend the Guide from time to time to § 293.307 Disposition of folders of former time employees are covered under the update that list. Federal employees. Sunday premium pay statute at 5 U.S.C. ■ 3. Revise § 293.303 to read as follows: * * * * * 5546(a). (c) Agencies are responsible for all § 293.303 The roles and responsibilities of costs associated with the establishment Background the Office, agencies, and custodians. and maintenance of OPFs and the Under the Fathauer decision, the (a) The Official Personnel Folder transfer of OPFs to the National United States Court of Appeals for the (OPF) of each employee in a position Personnel Records Center. Federal Circuit held that the definition

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52538 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

of ‘‘employee’’ in 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) is under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5544. The union organization also believes unambiguous under the plain language We are amending § 532.509 to clarify that OPM should issue regulations of the statute and concluded that part- that a wage employee is entitled to directing agencies to pay employees time employees are covered under the Sunday pay for a period of service, a Sunday premium pay retroactive to May Sunday premium pay statute at 5 U.S.C. part of which is on Sunday, of up to 8 26, 2009, without the need to file an 5546(a). Consequently, we have revised hours. This clarification is based on a administrative claim. It asserts that no the Sunday premium pay regulations to Comptroller General opinion (46 Comp. administrative claim is necessary, provide that part-time employees are Gen. 337 (1966)), that the period of which it believes would be consistent entitled to premium pay for Sunday service entitling an employee to Sunday with the approach OPM used in issuing work. premium pay may be less than 8 hours. regulations to implement agency OPM issued a compensation policy Discussion of Comments reimbursement provisions of Title II of memorandum (CPM–2009–21, the Notification and Federal Employee December 8, 2009) to inform The 60-day comment period for the Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act departments and agencies of the proposed regulations ended on June 8, of 2002 (No FEAR Act). However, Title Fathauer decision and to provide 2010. We received five comments in II of the No FEAR Act contains guidance for processing administrative response to the proposed regulations, provisions for agency reimbursement of claims for back pay. The guidance one from a national union organization the Judgment Fund for payment made to covers General Schedule and other and four from individual commenters. employees because of violations of employees covered by 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) As explained below, OPM is adopting antidiscrimination and whistleblower and 5 CFR 550.171(a) and prevailing the proposed regulations as final protection laws, and/or retaliation rate employees (wage grade employees) regulations without further changes. claims arising from the assertion of covered by 5 U.S.C. 5544(a) and 5 CFR Two of the commenters questioned rights under those laws. Unlike the the use of Sunday premium pay and 532.509. Based on the Fathauer compensation claims process, the No questioned the cost to taxpayers. These decision, eligible part-time employees FEAR reimbursement rules are not two comments are beyond the scope of are entitled to Sunday premium pay subject to the provisions of the Barring this regulation. Sunday premium pay is under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a), effective as of Act or the Back Pay Act of 1966 (as authorized by statute. We are merely May 26, 2009. amended) and apply specifically to one altering the Sunday premium pay Government agency reimbursing Eliminate Restriction for Sunday regulations to ensure part-time another. Therefore, the administrative Premium Pay to Full-Time Employees employees are not excluded from claims process is the appropriate means Only receiving this entitlement pursuant to for employees to recover any unpaid OPM’s final regulations amend the statute at 5 U.S.C. 5546(a), Sunday premium pay owed them as a §§ 550.103 and 550.171(a) to remove consistent with a decision of the United references to ‘‘full-time’’ employee, States Court of Appeals for the Federal result of the Fathauer decision. which eliminate the restriction on the Circuit. Employee Coverage payment of Sunday premium pay to Administrative Claims full-time employees only. The final One commenter thought OPM regulations clarify, in accordance with The union organization supported the diverged from the analysis of the the Fathauer decision, that part-time proposed rules, but expressed concern Fathauer decision by limiting Sunday employees who are regularly scheduled that agencies may not notify employees premium pay only to full-time and part- to perform work on a Sunday are in a timely manner of their right to file time employees in which Sundays are entitled to Sunday premium pay for the administrative pay claims. The union part of their regularly scheduled tour of non-overtime hours worked. However, urged OPM to take more aggressive duty. The commenter asserted that the intermittent employees will continue to action by requiring agencies to advise proposed regulations do not reflect the be excluded from earning Sunday part-time employees promptly of their Court of Appeals conclusions regarding premium pay because of the nature of right to file claims. While agencies are the definition of ‘‘employee,’’ (i.e., their appointment and irregular work responsible for notifying their generally, ‘‘those who work for pay’’), schedule. Sunday premium pay may be employees regarding actions that affect and ‘‘full-time and part-time’’ workers paid only to full-time and part-time them, OPM took a proactive role in do not encompass all types of employees who have Sundays as part of advising agencies in CPM 2009–21 that employees who should be eligible to their non-overtime regularly scheduled they should inform employees of the earn Sunday premium pay. The tour of duty. holding by the Court of Appeals in order commenter also stated that the statutory to give notice to potential claimants. requirement in which an employee Prevailing Rate Employees OPM provided thorough guidance in its performs work during a ‘‘regularly OPM applied the reasoning in the memorandum and advised on the scheduled’’ period of service is unduly Fathauer decision to determine that effective date of the decision and the restrictive. part-time prevailing rate employees are time limitations for back pay claims Another commenter also covered under the Sunday premium pay permitted by the Barring Act of 1940, recommended that intermittent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5544(a) (also and noted that agencies could use the employees should receive Sunday effective as of May 26, 2009). While memorandum to inform employees of premium pay. The individual reasoned OPM’s regulation at § 532.509 does not the Fathauer decision. OPM also that since intermittent employees may reference either part-time or full-time provided notification to employees earn overtime pay under 5 U.S.C. employees, we are making a clarifying through its Web site and list server, 5542(a), they should also be permitted amendment to this section. Currently published the proposed Sunday to earn Sunday premium pay. The § 532.509 states that a wage employee premium pay rule changes in the commenter further noted that Sunday whose regular work schedule includes Federal Register as official notice to the work imposes an inconvenience on all an 8-hour period of service which is not public, and required agencies to post a employees, and referred to the Court of overtime work, a part of which is on notice of the rule change in a prominent Appeals conclusion regarding the Sunday, is entitled to additional pay place for employees to view. definition of an ‘‘employee.’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52539

OPM disagrees with the commenters’ PART 550—PAY ADMINISTRATION factor for spouses of deceased recommendations. Employees, within (GENERAL) employees who die in service when the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 5546(a), are those spouses elect to receive the basic entitled to Sunday premium pay when Subpart A—Premium Pay employee death benefit in 36 they work a ‘‘regularly scheduled’’ installments under the Federal ■ 8 hour period of service which is not 3. The authority citation for subpart A Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) overtime work, a part of which falls on of part 550 continues to read as follows: Act of 1986. These rules are necessary Sunday. OPM, by regulation, has Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5304 note, 5305 note, to ensure that the tables conform to the defined ‘‘intermittent employment’’ as 5504(d), 5541(2)(iv), 5545a(h)(2)(B) and (i), economic, demographic and mortality ‘‘employment without a regularly 5547(b) and (c), 5548, and 6101(c); sections assumptions adopted by the Board of scheduled tour of duty.’’ (See 5 CFR 407 and 2316, Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. Actuaries and published in the Federal 340.401(b)). Accordingly, employees 2681–101 and 2681–828 (5 U.S.C. 5545a); Register on June 3, 2011, as required by E.O. 12748, 3 CFR, 1992 Comp., p. 316. who are correctly classified as 5 U.S.C. 8461(i). ■ intermittent employees may not receive 4. In § 550.103, revise the definition of DATES: This rule is effective August 23, Sunday premium pay because, by Sunday work to read as follows: 2011. definition, they do not perform regularly § 550.103 Definitions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: scheduled work. * * * * * Roxann Johnson, (202) 606–0299. Executive Order 13563 and Executive Sunday work means nonovertime SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM has Order 12866 work performed by an employee during published a notice in the Federal a regularly scheduled daily tour of duty Register at 76 FR 32242 (June 3, 2011) The Office of Management and Budget when any part of that daily tour of duty to revise the normal cost percentages has reviewed this rule in accordance is on a Sunday. For any such tour of under the Federal Employees’ with E.O. 13563 and 12866. duty, not more than 8 hours of work are Retirement System (FERS) Act of 1986, Regulatory Flexibility Act Sunday work, unless the employee is on Public Law 99–335, 100 Stat. 514, as a compressed work schedule, in which amended, based on economic I certify that these regulations will not case the entire regularly scheduled daily assumptions, new demographic factors have a significant economic impact on tour of duty constitutes Sunday work. and mortality assumptions adopted by a substantial number of small entities * * * * * the Board of Actuaries of the Civil because they will apply only to Federal Service Retirement System. By statute ■ agencies and employees. 5. In § 550.171, revise paragraph (a) to under 5 U.S.C. 8461(i), the demographic read as follows: factors, economic and mortality List of Subjects § 550.171 Authorization of pay for Sunday assumptions require corresponding 5 CFR Part 532 work. changes in factors used to produce (a) An employee is entitled to pay at actuarially equivalent benefits when Administrative practice and required by the FERS Act. procedure, Freedom of information, his or her rate of basic pay plus premium pay at a rate equal to 25 Section 843.309 of title 5, Code of Government employees, Reporting and Federal Regulations, regulates the recordkeeping requirements. percent of his or her rate of basic pay for each hour of Sunday work (as payment of the basic employee death 5 CFR Part 550 defined in § 550.103). benefit. Under 5 U.S.C. 8442(b), the basic employee death benefit may be * * * * * Administrative practice and paid as a lump sum or as an equivalent [FR Doc. 2011–21397 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] procedure, Claims, Government benefit in 36 installments. These rules employees, Wages. BILLING CODE 6325–39–P amend 5 CFR 843.309(b)(2) to conform U.S. Office of Personnel Management. the factor used to convert the lump sum John Berry, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL to 36-installment payments with the Director. MANAGEMENT revised economic assumptions. Section 843.311 of title 5, Code of Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR 5 CFR Part 843 Federal Regulations, regulates the parts 532 and 550 as follows: benefits for the survivors of separated RIN 3206–AM29 employees under 5 U.S.C. 8442(c). This PART 532—PREVAILING RATE Federal Employees’ Retirement section provides a choice of benefits for SYSTEMS System; Present Value Conversion eligible current and former spouses. If the current or former spouse is the ■ Factors for Spouses of Deceased 1. The authority citation for part 532 Separated Employees person entitled to the unexpended continues to read as follows: balance under the order of precedence Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707 AGENCY: Office of Personnel under 5 U.S.C. 8424, he or she may elect also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. Management. to receive the unexpended balance ACTION: Final rule. instead of an annuity. ■ 2. Revise § 532.509 to read as follows: Alternatively, an eligible current or SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel former spouse may elect to receive an § 532.509 Pay for Sunday work. Management (OPM) is issuing an annuity commencing on the day after A wage employee whose regular work interim rule to revise the table of the employee’s death or on the deceased schedule includes a period of service of reduction factors for early commencing separated employee’s 62nd birthday. If up to 8 hours which is not overtime dates of survivor annuities for spouses the annuity commences on the deceased work, a part of which is on Sunday, is of separated employees who die before separated employee’s 62nd birthday, the entitled to additional pay under the the date on which they would be annuity will equal 50 percent of the provisions of section 5544 of title 5, eligible for unreduced deferred annuity that the separated employee United States Code. annuities, and to revise the annuity would have received had he or she

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52540 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

attained age 62. If the current or former PART 843—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES Age of separated employee at Multiplier spouse elects the earlier commencing RETIREMENT SYSTEM—DEATH birthday before death date, the annuity is reduced using the BENEFITS AND EMPLOYEE REFUNDS factors in Appendix A to subpart C of 57 ...... 6588 58 ...... 7152 part 843 to make the annuity actuarially ■ 1. The authority citation for part 843 continues to read as follows: 59 ...... 7767 equivalent to the present value of the 60 ...... 8441 Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8461; §§ 843.205, annuity that the spouse or former 61 ...... 9183 spouse would have received if the 843.208, and 843.209 also issued under 5 annuity had commenced on the retiree’s U.S.C. 8424; § 843.309 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8442; § 843.406 also issued under 5 With at least 20, but less than 30 years of 62nd birthday. These rules amend that U.S.C. 8441. creditable service— appendix to conform to the revised economic assumptions. Age of separated employee at Subpart C—Current and Former birthday before death Multiplier Waiver of General Notice of Proposed Spouse Benefits Rulemaking 36 ...... 1516 ■ 2. In § 843.309, revise paragraph (b)(2) 37 ...... 1636 Under section 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) of to read as follows: 38 ...... 1756 title 5, United States Code, I find that § 843.309 Basic employee death benefit. 39 ...... 1915 good reason exists for waiving the 40 ...... 2066 * * * * * general notice of proposed rulemaking 41 ...... 2233 and for making these amendments (b) * * * 42 ...... 2410 (2) For deaths occurring on or after effective in less than 30 days. The 43 ...... 2606 October 1, 2004, 36 equal monthly amendments made by this rule are 44 ...... 2811 installments of 3.01643 percent of the statutorily mandated as a result of 45 ...... 3032 amount of the basic employee death 46 ...... 3279 changes in economic assumptions that benefit. were published on June 3, 2011. 47 ...... 3549 Providing a comment period on the * * * * * 48 ...... 3829 result of mathematical computations ■ 3. Revise Appendix A to subpart C of 49 ...... 4143 resulting from the changed economic part 843 to read as follows: 50 ...... 4475 51 ...... 4843 assumptions is unnecessary and, to the Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 843— 52 ...... 5235 extent that it would delay benefit Present Value Conversion Factors for 53 ...... 5669 payments, is contrary to the public Earlier Commencing Date of Annuities 54 ...... 6139 interest. of Current and Former Spouses of 55 ...... 6652 Diseased Separated Employees Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 56 ...... 7208 Review With at least 10 but less than 20 years of 57 ...... 7811 creditable service— 58 ...... 8476 This rule has been reviewed by the 59 ...... 9203 Office of Management and Budget in Age of separated employee at Multiplier accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) birthday before death With at least 30 years of creditable service— 12866, as amended by E.O. 13258 and 26 ...... 0581 E.O. 13422. Multiplier by sepa- 27 ...... 0620 rated employee’s 28 ...... 0687 year of birth Regulatory Flexibility Act 29 ...... 0723 Age of separated 30 ...... 0807 employee at birthday I certify that this regulation will not before death From 31 ...... 0869 After 1950 have a significant economic impact on 32 ...... 0933 1966 through a substantial number of small entities 33 ...... 1013 1966 because the regulation will only affect 34 ...... 1086 retirement payments to surviving 35 ...... 1186 46 ...... 4213 .4572 current and former spouses of former 36 ...... 1273 47 ...... 4557 .4943 employees and Members who separated 37 ...... 1376 48 ...... 4918 .5335 from Federal service with title to a 38 ...... 1474 49 ...... 5318 .5768 39 ...... 1612 50 ...... 5744 .6231 deferred annuity. 40 ...... 1737 51 ...... 6213 .6738 List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 843 41 ...... 1877 52 ...... 6714 .7282 42 ...... 2026 53 ...... 7267 .7880 Air traffic controllers, Disability 43 ...... 2192 54 ...... 7866 .8528 44 ...... 2365 benefits, Firefighters, Government 55 ...... 8518 .9233 45 ...... 2550 employees, Law enforcement officers, 46 ...... 2757 56 ...... 9227 1.0000 Pensions, Retirement. 47 ...... 2987 48 ...... 3222 [FR Doc. 2011–21396 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 49 ...... 3488 BILLING CODE 6325–38–P John Berry, 50 ...... 3767 Director. 51 ...... 4079 52 ...... 4410 For the reasons stated in the 53 ...... 4776 preamble, the Office of Personnel 54 ...... 5176 Management amends 5 CFR part 843 as 55 ...... 5609 follows: 56 ...... 6081

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52541

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Background prevent the spread of ALB to other The Asian longhorned beetle (ALB, States and other countries. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Anoplophora glabripennis), an insect The regulations in § 301.51–3(a) Service provide that the Administrator of APHIS native to China and Korea is a will list as a quarantined area each destructive pest of hardwood trees. It 7 CFR Part 301 State, or each portion of a State in attacks many healthy hardwood trees, which ALB has been found by an [Docket No. APHIS–2010–0128] including maple, horse chestnut, birch, inspector, where the Administrator has poplar, willow, and elm. In addition, reason to believe that ALB is present, or Asian Longhorned Beetle; Quarantined nursery stock, logs, green lumber, where the Administrator considers Areas and Regulated Articles firewood, stumps, roots, branches, and regulation necessary because of its wood debris of half an inch or more in AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health inseparability for quarantine diameter are subject to infestation. Inspection Service, USDA. enforcement purposes from localities Immature beetles bore into tree trunks ACTION: Interim rule and request for where ALB has been found. Less than and branches of a host tree, causing comments. an entire State will be quarantined only heavy sap flow from wounds and if (1) the Administrator determines that SUMMARY: We are amending the Asian sawdust accumulation at the tree base, the State has adopted and is enforcing longhorned beetle regulations by eventually killing the tree. They feed on, restrictions on the intrastate movement quarantining portions of Suffolk and and over-winter in, the interiors of trees. of regulated articles that are equivalent Norfolk Counties, MA, and expanding Adult beetles emerge in the spring and to those imposed by the regulations on the quarantined area in Worcester summer months from round holes the interstate movement of regulated County, MA. As a result of this action, approximately three-eighths of an inch articles and (2) the designation of less the interstate movement of regulated in diameter (about the size of a dime) than an entire State as a quarantined articles from those areas will be that they bore through branches and area will be adequate to prevent the restricted. We are also updating the list trunks of trees. After emerging, adult artificial spread of ALB. In accordance of regulated articles in order to reflect beetles feed for 10 to 15 days and then with these criteria and the recent ALB new information concerning host plants. mate. Adult females then lay eggs in findings described above, we are These actions are necessary to prevent oviposition sites that they make on the amending the list of quarantined areas the artificial spread of the Asian branches of trees. A new generation of in § 301.51–3(c) to expand the longhorned beetle to noninfested areas ALB is produced each year. If this pest quarantined area in Worcester County of the United States. moves into the hardwood forests of the and to include portions of Suffolk and DATES: This interim rule is effective United States, the nursery, maple syrup, Norfolk Counties. With these changes to August 23, 2011. We will consider all and forest product industries could the quarantined areas, the total square comments that we receive on or before experience severe economic losses. In mileage of the quarantined areas in October 24, 2011. addition, urban and forest ALB Worcester County is 98 square miles, infestations will result in environmental ADDRESSES: You may submit comments with 22 square miles added in this damage, aesthetic deterioration, and a expansion of the quarantined area; in by either of the following methods: reduction of public enjoyment of • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to Suffolk and Norfolk Counties, the total recreational spaces. http://www.regulations.gov/ square mileage of the quarantined area #!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0128- Quarantined Areas is 10 square miles. These updated quarantined areas are described in the 0001. The regulations in 7 CFR 301.51–1 • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: regulatory text at the end of this through 301.51–9 restrict the interstate document. Send your comment to Docket No. movement of regulated articles from APHIS–2010–0128, Regulatory Analysis quarantined areas to prevent the Regulated Articles and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station artificial spread of ALB to noninfested Section 301.51–2 of the regulations 3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, areas of the United States. Surveys designates certain items as regulated Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. conducted in Massachusetts by articles. Regulated articles may not be Supporting documents and any inspectors of the Animal and Plant moved interstate from quarantined areas comments we receive on this docket Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have except in accordance with the may be viewed at http:// revealed that infestations of ALB have conditions specified in §§ 301.51–4 www.regulations.gov/ occurred outside the existing through 301.51–9 of the regulations. #!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0128 or quarantined area in Worcester County, Regulated articles listed in § 301.51–2(a) in our reading room, which is located in and in areas in Suffolk and Norfolk have included green lumber and other room 1141 of the USDA South Building, Counties. Officials of the U.S. material living, dead, cut, or fallen, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, Department of Agriculture and officials inclusive of nursery stock, logs, stumps, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading of State, county, and city agencies in roots, branches, and debris of half an room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Massachusetts are conducting intensive inch or more in diameter of the Monday through Friday, except survey and eradication programs in the following genera: Acer (maple), holidays. To be sure someone is there to infested areas. The State of Aesculus (horse chestnut), Albizia help you, please call (202) 690–2817 Massachusetts has quarantined the (mimosa), Betula (birch), Celtis before coming. infested areas and is restricting the (hackberry), Cercidiphyllum (katsura), FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. intrastate movement of regulated Fraxinus (ash), Platanus (sycamore), Claudia Ferguson, Regulatory Policy articles from the quarantined areas to Populus (poplar), Salix (willow), Sorbus Specialist, Regulations, Permits, and prevent the further spread of ALB (mountain ash), and Ulmus (elm). This Manuals, PPQ, APHIS; 4700 River Road within the State. However, Federal list of genera was based on scientific Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; regulations are necessary to restrict the literature provided by government (301) 734–0754. interstate movement of regulated officials, scientists, and government and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: articles from the quarantined area to individual researchers from China as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52542 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

well as survey information collected in Regulations.gov Web site (see Platanus (sycamore), Populus (poplar), the United States since the time of ADDRESSES above for instructions for Salix (willow), Sorbus (mountain ash), discovery of the pest. accessing Regulations.gov) and may be and Ulmus (elm). Based on additional survey obtained from the person listed under * * * * * experience and research, we are FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. ■ 3. In § 301.51–3, paragraph (c), under amending the list of regulated articles Executive Order 12372 the heading ‘‘Massachusetts,’’ a new by adding Koelreuteria spp. (golden rain entry for Suffolk and Norfolk Counties tree). This action is necessary because This program/activity is listed in the is added and the entry for Worcester studies conducted in China by APHIS Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance County is revised to read as follows: scientists have found ALB completing a under No. 10.025 and is subject to full life cycle in trees of this genus in Executive Order 12372, which requires § 301.51–3 Quarantined areas. the environment. intergovernmental consultation with * * * * * Emergency Action State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part (c) * * * 3015, subpart V.) This rulemaking is necessary on an Massachusetts emergency basis to prevent the artificial Executive Order 12988 Suffolk and Norfolk Counties. The spread of ALB to noninfested areas of This rule has been reviewed under area in Suffolk and Norfolk Counties, the United States. Under these Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice including the City of Boston and the circumstances, the Administrator has Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State Town of Brookline, that is bounded by determined that prior notice and and local laws and regulations that are a line starting at the intersection of opportunity for public comment are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no Metropolitan Avenue and Poplar Street, contrary to the public interest and that retroactive effect; and (3) does not which becomes Canterbury Street; then there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 require administrative proceedings northeast on Canterbury Street to for making this rule effective less than before parties may file suit in court American Legion Highway; then 30 days after publication in the Federal challenging this rule. northeast on American Legion Highway Register. to Route 28; then north and northwest We will consider comments we Paperwork Reduction Act on Route 28 to Centre Street; then west receive during the comment period for This rule contains no new on Centre Street, which becomes this interim rule (see DATES above). information collection or recordkeeping Perkins Street; then west on Perkins After the comment period closes, we requirements under the Paperwork Street to Chestnut Street; then northwest will publish another document in the Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 on Chestnut Street to Cypress Street; Federal Register. The document will et seq.). then northwest on Cypress Street to include a discussion of any comments Walnut Street; then west and south on List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 we receive and any amendments we are Walnut Street, which becomes Warren making to the rule. Agricultural commodities, Plant Street; then west on Warren Street to diseases and pests, Quarantine, Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Lee Street; then northwest on Lee Street Reporting and recordkeeping Flexibility Act to Heath Street; then southwest and requirements, Transportation. west on Heath Street to Hammond This interim rule is subject to Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR Street; then south on Hammond Street Executive Order 12866. However, for part 301 as follows: to Lagrange Street; then south on this action, the Office of Management Lagrange Street to Beverly Road; then and Budget has waived its review under PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE southeast on Beverly Road to Executive Order 12866. NOTICES Independence Drive; then southwest on We have prepared an economic Independence Drive to VFW Parkway; analysis for this action. The action ■ 1. The authority citation for part 301 then southwest on VFW Parkway to identifies nurseries; site developers, continues to read as follows: Corey Street; then southeast on Corey excavators, or construction companies; Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– Street to Centre Street; then east on tree service companies or landscapers; 7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Centre Street to West Roxbury Parkway; firewood dealers; municipal Section 301.75–15 issued under Sec. 204, then southeast on West Roxbury departments; and facilities having Title II, Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat. Parkway to Washington Street; then grounds-keeping staffs, such as schools, 1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75– northeast on Washington Street to golf courses, and apartment complexes 16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law Metropolitan Avenue; then southeast on 106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). as the small entities most likely to be Metropolitan Street to the point of affected by this action and considers the ■ 2. In § 301.51–2, paragraph (a) is beginning. costs associated with complying with revised to read as follows: Worcester County. The portion of the inspection and other requirements Worcester County, including portions or imposed by the regulations on the § 301.51–2 Regulated articles. all of the municipalities of Worcester, interstate movement of regulated * * * * * Holden, West Boylston, Boylston, articles from quarantined areas. Based (a) Firewood (all hardwood species), Auburn, and Shrewsbury that is on the information presented in the and green lumber and other material bounded by a line starting at the analysis, we expect that affected entities living, dead, cut, or fallen, inclusive of intersection of Route 140 (Grafton would not experience any additional nursery stock, logs, stumps, roots, Circle) and Route 9 (Belmont Street) in compliance costs as a result of this rule branches, and debris of half an inch or Shrewsbury; then north and northwest because a State-imposed quarantine is more in diameter of the following on Route 140 to the Boylston Town already in place that applies the same genera: Acer (maple), Aesculus (horse Boundary; then follow the entirety of movement restrictions and inspection chestnut), Albizia (mimosa), Betula the Boylston Town Boundary until it requirements. We invite comment on (birch), Celtis (hackberry), comes to the West Boylston Town our economic analysis, which is posted Cercidiphyllum (katsura), Fraxinus boundary on the Massachusetts with this interim rule on the (ash), Koelreuteria (golden rain tree), Department of Conservation and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52543

Recreation Watershed Property; then larch canker to include additional areas established in May 1984, list parts of along the West Boylston Town in Maine. We are also correcting some several counties in Maine as regulated boundary until it intersects Manning misidentifications of previously listed areas. Articles regulated under the Street; then southwest on Manning regulated areas. This action is necessary subpart include logs, pulpwood, Street in Holden to Wachusett Street to prevent human-assisted transmission branches, twigs, plants, and scion and (Route 31); then south on Wachusett of European larch canker from infested other propagative material of Larix or Street to Highland Street (still Route 31); areas to noninfested areas. Pseudolarix spp., except seeds. Such then southwest on Highland Street to DATES: This interim rule is effective articles may be moved interstate from Main Street; then southeast on Main August 23, 2011. We will consider all regulated areas only under certificates, Street to Bailey Road; then south on comments that we receive on or before limited permits, or compliance Bailey Road to Chapin Road; then south October 24, 2011. agreements. The regulations also on Chapin Road to its end; then ADDRESSES: You may submit comments include provisions for the issuance of continuing in a southeasterly direction by either of the following methods: certificates and limited permits, and to Fisher Road; then southwest on • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to requirements for compliance Fisher Road to Stonehouse Hill Road; http://www.regulations.gov/ agreements, as well as for assembly and then south on Stonehouse Hill Road to #!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0029- inspection of regulated articles. Maine has State-imposed ELC Reservoir Street; then southeast on 0001. Reservoir Street until it intersects the • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: quarantine requirements that mirror Worcester City boundary; then along the Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS’ requirements. Each year, the Worcester City boundary until it APHIS–2011–0029, Regulatory Analysis Maine Forest Service conducts survey intersects Oxford Street; then south on and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station activities in and around the regulated Oxford Street to Auburn Street; then 3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, areas. Since APHIS established the ELC regulations, Maine’s survey data have southeast on Auburn Street crossing Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. under the Massachusetts Turnpike Supporting documents and any revealed additional instances of ELC in (I–90) and continuing southeast on comments we receive on this docket native forested areas in previously Millbury Street; then northeast on may be viewed at http:// uninfested townships within the Washington Street to the Massachusetts www.regulations.gov/ regulated area. The State of Maine has Turnpike (I–90); then east along the #!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0029 or confirmed the establishment of an Massachusetts Turnpike (I–90) to the in our reading room, which is located in intrastate quarantine for the townships of Beddington, Boothbay, South Bristol, Auburn Town boundary; then north room 1141 of the USDA South Building, T24 Middle Division Bingham’s along the Auburn Town boundary to the 14th Street and Independence Avenue, Penobscot Purchase, and T25 Middle Worcester City boundary; then SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading Division Bingham’s Penobscot Purchase. northeast, north, and northwest along room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., These townships have been quarantined the Worcester City boundary until it Monday through Friday, except either because they have been found to intersects Route 20 (Hartford Turnpike); holidays. To be sure someone is there to be infested with ELC or because they then east on Route 20 to Lake Street; help you, please call (202) 690–2817 provide a buffer area between infested then north and northeast on Lake Street before coming. to Route 9 (Belmont Street); then east on and uninfested townships. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. In this interim rule, we are adding the Route 9 to the point of beginning. Paul Chaloux, National Program above-named townships to our list of * * * * * Manager, Emergency and Domestic ELC-regulated areas in § 301.91–3. This Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road action is necessary to prevent the August 2011. Unit 26, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) human-assisted dissemination of ELC, Gregory L. Parham, 734–0917. thus safeguarding the Nation’s forests, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: landscapes, and natural resources from Inspection Service. Background this highly destructive pathogen. [FR Doc. 2011–21520 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Because our list of areas regulated for European larch canker (ELC), BILLING CODE 3410–34–P ELC in § 301.91–3 has not been revised Lachnellula willkommi (Dasycypha), is a in a number of years, certain additional serious plant disease caused by a fungus changes are needed to make it current. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE that can kill mature and immature We are revising the names of some of species of the genus Larix (larch) and the listed jurisdictions to reflect current Animal and Plant Health Inspection Pseudolarix (Golden larch). In parts of naming conventions, including the use Service Europe, ELC has eliminated the of abbreviations, for townships in European larch as a plantation species. Maine. These naming conventions are 7 CFR Part 301 ELC was first discovered in the United also used elsewhere in our regulations, States in Massachusetts in 1927. It was e.g., in the list of areas in Maine [Docket No. APHIS–2011–0029] declared eradicated in 1965, but in regulated for gypsy moth under European Larch Canker; Expansion of 1984, infestations were found in § 301.45–3. We are also correcting some Regulated Areas portions of Maine. misspellings in the regulations of the Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart– names of townships regulated for ELC. AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health European Larch Canker’’ (7 CFR 301.91 These changes and corrections are Inspection Service, USDA. through 301.91–9, referred to below as intended to prevent any ACTION: Interim rule and request for the regulations), the Animal and Plant misidentification of, or confusion about, comments. Health Inspection Service (APHIS) ELC-regulated areas. restricts the interstate movement of SUMMARY: We are amending the certain regulated articles from regulated Emergency Action domestic quarantine regulations to areas to prevent the spread of ELC. This rulemaking is necessary on an expand the regulated area for European These regulations, which were emergency basis to prevent the human-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52544 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

assisted spread of ELC to noninfested State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part Washington County. The entire areas. Under these circumstances, the 3015, subpart V.) townships of Addison, Baring Administrator has determined that prior Plantation, Beals, Beddington, Berry Executive Order 12988 notice and opportunity for public Township, Calais, Cathance Township, comment are contrary to the public This rule has been reviewed under Centerville Township, Charlotte, interest and that there is good cause Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Cherryfield, Columbia, Columbia Falls, under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State Cooper, Cutler, Deblois, Dennysville, effective less than 30 days after and local laws and regulations that are East Machias, Eastport, Edmunds publication in the Federal Register. inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no Township, Harrington, Jonesboro, We will consider comments we retroactive effect; and (3) does not Jonesport, Lubec, Machias, Machiasport, receive during the comment period for require administrative proceedings Marion Township, Marshfield, this interim rule (see DATES above). before parties may file suit in court Meddybemps, Milbridge, Northfield, After the comment period closes, we challenging this rule. Pembroke, Perry, Robbinston, Roque Bluffs, Steuben, T18 MD BPP, T19 MD will publish another document in the Paperwork Reduction Act Federal Register. The document will BPP, T24 MD BPP, T25 MD BPP, include a discussion of any comments This rule contains no new Trescott Township, Whiting, and we receive and any amendments we are information collection or recordkeeping Whitneyville. making to the rule. requirements under the Paperwork Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 August 2011. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory et seq.). Gregory L. Parham, Flexibility Act List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 Administrator, Animal and Plant Health This interim rule is subject to Inspection Service. Executive Order 12866. However, for Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, [FR Doc. 2011–21519 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] this action, the Office of Management BILLING CODE 3410–34–P and Budget has waived its review under Reporting and recordkeeping Executive Order 12866. requirements, Transportation. In accordance with the Regulatory Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the part 301 as follows: potential economic effects of this action Animal and Plant Health Inspection PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE on small entities. Service NOTICES Maine has expanded its intrastate ELC 7 CFR Part 319 quarantine to include the townships of ■ 1. The authority citation for part 301 Beddington, Boothbay, South Bristol, continues to read as follows: [Docket No. APHIS–2010–0002] T24 Middle Division Bingham’s RIN 0579–AD16 Penobscot Purchase, and T25 Middle Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– Division Bingham’s Penobscot Purchase. 7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Importation of Peppers From Panama This interim rule amends our domestic Section 301.75–15 issued under Sec. 204, ELC quarantine regulations to include Title II, Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat. 1501 AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health additional those areas in Maine and to A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–16 Inspection Service, USDA. issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law ACTION: correct some misidentifications of 106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). Final rule. previously listed regulated areas. SUMMARY: We are amending the The only small entities in the newly ■ 2. In § 301.91–3, paragraph (c), the regulations to allow, under certain federally regulated townships that may entry for Maine is revised to read as conditions, the importation of be affected are forestry operations. The follows: commercial shipments of peppers from number of these operations in the 5 § 301.91–3 Regulated areas. Panama into the United States without townships has ranged between 8 and 18 treatment. Conditions of entry to which over the past 5 years. It is estimated that * * * * * the peppers will be subject include the annual value of harvested larch sold (c) * * * Maine trapping, pre-harvest inspection, and from the newly quarantined areas shipping procedures. This action will averages about $375. Any potential Hancock County. The entire allow for the importation of peppers impact of the rule is further minimized townships of Gouldsboro, Sorrento, from Panama into the United States by the opportunity for forestry Sullivan, T7 SD, T9 SD, T10 SD, and while continuing to provide protection operations to enter into compliance T16 MD, and Winter Harbor. against the introduction of quarantine agreements with lumber mills to process Knox County. The entire townships of pests. larch from quarantined areas. Appleton, Camden, Cushing, Under these circumstances, the Friendship, Hope, Owls Head, DATES: Effective Date: September 22, Administrator of the Animal and Plant Rockland, Rockport, Saint George, 2011. Health Inspection Service has South Thomaston, Thomaston, Union, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. determined that this action will not Warren, and Washington. David Lamb, Import Specialist, have a significant economic impact on Lincoln County. The entire townships Regulatory Coordination and a substantial number of small entities. of Alna, Boothbay, Boothbay Harbor, Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Bremen, Bristol, Damariscotta, Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– Executive Order 12372 Edgecomb, Jefferson, Newcastle, 1236; (301) 734–0627. This program/activity is listed in the Nobleboro, Somerville, South Bristol, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Southport, Waldoboro, Westport Island, under No. 10.025 and is subject to and Wiscasset. Background Executive Order 12372, which requires Waldo County. The entire townships The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits intergovernmental consultation with of Lincolnville and Searsmont. and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52545

through 319.56–51, referred to below as Honduras, Panama, and Nicaragua. We port-of-entry inspections will prove the regulations) prohibit or restrict the recognize that not all of the pests listed effective. In addition, pea leafminer importation of fruits and vegetables into in the regulations may be present in infestations principally occur in the the United States from certain parts of each of those countries. The systems leaves and not the fruit of the pepper the world to prevent the introduction approach for the importation of peppers plant, reducing the risk that imported and dissemination of plant pests that are from each country includes the peppers will be infested with pea new to or not widely distributed within submission of a bilateral workplan to leafminer. Finally, the systems approach the United States. the Animal and Plant Health Inspection was established in 2004 to allow for the On June 1, 2010, we published in the Service (APHIS) by the NPPO of each importation of peppers from Costa Rica, Federal Register (75 FR 30303–30305, exporting country. That workplan will El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Docket No. APHIS–2010–0002) a include the specific pests of concern for Nicaragua. Based on our experience proposal 1 to amend the regulations in which inspection will be required as inspecting for pea leafminer in § 319.56–40 by allowing, under certain listed by country in the PRA. In this shipments of peppers from those conditions, the importation of final rule, we are amending paragraphs countries, we are confident that we will commercial shipments of peppers from (a)(2), (b)(3)(v), and (c)(3)(v) of the continue to successfully prevent the Panama into the United States without regulations, which provide for the pre- entry of any infested shipments. harvest inspections, to reflect this treatment. We also proposed to add two Inspection additional pests to the list of pests for process. The regulations require that pepper which inspection is required: Bacterial Mitigation Measures for Pea Leafminer wilt and tomato severe leaf curl virus. production sites and shipments be Finally, we proposed removing two One of the pests of concern listed in inspected prior to harvest by the NPPO pests from the list of pests for which § 319.56–40 is pea leafminer (Liriomyza for pests of concern. One commenter peppers from Central America must be huidobrensis). A commenter suggested wanted to know what sort of training inspected: The banana moth (Opogona that this pest is of particular concern for the inspectors in Panama were required sacchari) and tomato yellow mosaic purposes of potential infestation and to undergo. virus. detection for several reasons: Larvae in APHIS has audited Panama’s export We solicited comments concerning this family are typically not identified program, including its inspector our proposal for 60 days ending August beyond the family level, thus leaving training, and has found it is sufficient to them indistinguishable from other pests 2, 2010. We received five comments by meet the conditions set forth in the in this family during early stages of that date. They were from producers, systems approach in § 319.56–40. In development; the 1.6 mm screening representatives of State and foreign addition, it should be noted that required to be placed across all governments, and private individuals. peppers from Panama will be inspected openings in the pest-exclusionary The issues raised in those comments are at the port of entry into the United greenhouses might not be sufficiently discussed below by topic. States, providing a check on the efficacy small to exclude the insect; and the pea of the inspection in Panama as well as Pest List leafminer’s early larval stages and another layer of phytosanitary Section 319.56–40 requires the associated mines are relatively small, protection. national plant protection organizations therefore making their potential Another commenter opposed the detection via inspection at origin and (NPPOs) of Central American countries proposal, stating that, since sampling for destination problematic. exporting peppers to the United States inspection purposes will not be For those varieties of peppers that are conducted on all of the peppers in each to inspect growing sites or greenhouses listed in the regulations and imported for certain pests prior to harvest. We given shipment, the associated risk of from areas in which Mediterranean fruit pest entry into the United States is too proposed to add Panama to the list of fly (Medfly, Ceratitis capitata) and/or countries eligible to export peppers great. Mexican fruit fly (Mexfly, Anastrepha We disagree. The rate at which under these conditions. Among the ludens) are considered to exist, pests listed in § 319.56–40 are the sampling is conducted has been production sites must consist of pest- determined to detect a 1 to 2 percent weevil Faustinus ovatipennis, bacterial exclusionary greenhouses, which must wilt, Andean potato mottle virus, level of infestation with a 95 percent have double self-closing doors and have rate of confidence. Further, inspection Lantana mealybug, Passionvine all other openings and vents covered mealybug, and the rust fungus Puccinia of samples of peppers is only one with 1.6 mm (or less) screening. The element of the established systems pampeana. screening requirements listed in the One commenter pointed out that there approach. We are confident that the regulations are intended only to provide systems approach in § 319.56–40 will was no record of the presence of any of protection from infestation by Medfly or these pests in Panama; therefore, the effectively mitigate the risk associated Mexfly. However, the other mitigation with peppers imported from Panama. NPPO of Panama should not be required measures established in the systems to inspect for them. approach provide protection against a General Comments Because the pest risk assessment number of pests, including pea One commenter asked what specific (PRA) completed in relation to the leafminer. Those measures include pre- measures would be enacted to ensure importation of peppers from certain harvest inspection, shipping that the phytosanitary requirements for Central American countries was a procedures, and port-of-entry shipments of peppers from Panama regional PRA, the pest list includes inspection, which provide an would be properly monitored and met. those 12 pests of quarantine significance appropriate cumulative level of For those areas where Medfly or present in Central America, including protection. Mexfly are considered to exist, the Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, In reference to the commenter’s systems approach provides that APHIS concern about the difficulty of detecting will maintain oversight of the program 1 To view the proposed rule and the comments by participating in the approval and we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ the presence of pea leafminer based on fdmspublic/component/ visual inspection, we are confident that monitoring of production sites and by main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0002. pre-harvest inspections coupled with reviewing the trapping records that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52546 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

must be maintained for each site. For has not been reviewed by the Office of requirements under the Paperwork shipments of peppers from those areas Management and Budget. Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 that are free of Medfly or Mexfly, port- In accordance with the Regulatory et seq.). of-entry inspections will be conducted. Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 If, through trapping records, site visits, potential economic effects of this action or port-of-entry inspections, we find on small entities. The analysis is Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, that any of the required mitigation summarized below. Copies of the full Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, measures are not being properly analysis are available on the Quarantine, Reporting and administered, we will suspend Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 recordkeeping requirements, Rice, shipments from the offending sites. in this document for a link to Vegetables. Another commenter observed that the Regulations.gov) or by contacting the Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR measures established as elements of the person listed under FOR FURTHER part 319 as follows: systems approach were not individually INFORMATION CONTACT. preventative. An additional commenter Panama exported an average of about PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE stated that APHIS should not allow any 20 metric tons (MT) of peppers to the NOTICES commodities to enter the United States United States annually from 1998 to without treatment. 2001. The United States has not ■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 Under a systems approach, a set of imported peppers from Panama since continues to read as follows: phytosanitary conditions, at least two of 2001. In the economic analysis, we Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and which have an independent effect in model three levels of pepper exports to 7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR mitigating the pest risk associated with the United States from Panama, of 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. the movement of commodities, is increasing magnitude: (i) 20 MT; (ii) the specified. Accordingly, each individual maximum annual quantity exported by ■ 2. Section 319.56–40 is amended by measure assigned under a systems Panama to all countries in the most revising the introductory text and approach is designed to work in concert recent years it had export data (29 MT); paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(3)(v), and (c)(3)(v) with at least one other element of the and (iii) 10 times the maximum quantity to read as follows: systems approach to achieve the exported (290 MT). The largest assumed § 319.56–40 Peppers from certain Central appropriate level of phytosanitary level of U.S. imports is less than 0.02 American countries. security. We are confident that the percent of average annual U.S. Fresh peppers (Capsicum spp.) may systems approach in § 319.56–40 will consumption. Even when assuming the be imported into the United States from effectively mitigate the risk associated largest import quantity and no Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, with peppers imported from Panama, as displacement of imports from other Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama only it has for peppers from Costa Rica, El countries, the welfare loss for U.S. under the following conditions and in Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and small-entity producers would be accordance with all other applicable Nicaragua. equivalent to less than 0.05 percent of provisions of this subpart: One commenter, from the Florida their average revenue. U.S. producers of (a) * * * Department of Agriculture and peppers are predominantly small. Other (2) A pre-harvest inspection of the Consumer Services, Division of Plant small entities that could be affected by growing site must be conducted by the Industry, stated that U.S. stakeholders the rule include fresh pepper importers. national plant protection organization from those areas potentially affected by Under these circumstances, the (NPPO) of the exporting country for any pest or disease outbreak from Administrator of the Animal and Plant those pests listed in the bilateral imported commodities should be Health Inspection Service has workplan provided to APHIS by the invited to participate in site visits prior determined that this action will not NPPO of the exporting country, to the proposal of any rulemakings such have a significant economic impact on including any of the following pests: as the one finalized by this document. a substantial number of small entities. APHIS is committed to a transparent The weevil Faustinus ovatipennis, pea process and an inclusive role for Executive Order 12988 leafminer, tomato fruit borer, lantana stakeholders in our risk analysis This final rule allows peppers to be mealybug, passionvine mealybug, melon process. To that end, we are currently imported into the United States from thrips, bacterial wilt, the rust fungus considering ways to facilitate further Panama. State and local laws and Puccinia pampeana, Andean potato stakeholder involvement, including site regulations regarding peppers imported mottle virus, and tomato severe leaf curl visits, during the initial stages of the under this rule will be preempted while virus. If any of the pests listed in the development of PRAs. However, since the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh workplan are found to be generally this comment relates to the structure of fruits and vegetables are generally infesting the growing site, the NPPO APHIS’s overall risk analysis process, imported for immediate distribution and may not allow export from that and not to the importation of peppers sale to the consuming public, and production site until the NPPO has from Panama, it is outside the scope of remain in foreign commerce until sold determined that risk mitigation has been the current rulemaking. to the ultimate consumer. The question achieved. Therefore, for the reasons given in the of when foreign commerce ceases in * * * * * proposed rule and in this document, we other cases must be addressed on a case- (b) * * * are adopting the proposed rule as a final by-case basis. No retroactive effect will (3) * * * rule, with the changes discussed in this be given to this rule, and this rule will (v) The greenhouse must be inspected document. not require administrative proceedings prior to harvest for those pests listed in before parties may file suit in court the bilateral workplan provided to Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory challenging this rule. APHIS by the NPPO of the exporting Flexibility Act country, including any of the following This final rule has been determined to Paperwork Reduction Act pests: The weevil Faustinus be not significant for the purposes of This final rule contains no new ovatipennis, pea leafminer, tomato fruit Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, information collection or recordkeeping borer, lantana mealybug, passionvine

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52547

mealybug, melon thrips, bacterial wilt, delaying the enforcement of all from regions affected with contagious the rust fungus Puccinia pampeana, provisions of the interim rule until a equine metritis (CEM), which is a highly Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato final rule is published and effective. contagious venereal disease of horses severe leaf curl virus. If any of pests This action will allow interested and other equines caused by an listed in the workplan, or other persons additional time to comment on infection with the bacterium Taylorella quarantine pests, are found to be the interim rule and provide the Animal equigenitalis. generally infesting the greenhouse, and Plant Health Inspection Service On March 25, 2011, we published an export from that production site will be with time to make adjustments to the interim rule in the Federal Register (76 halted until the exporting country’s interim rule that may be necessary in FR 16683–16686, Docket No. APHIS– NPPO determines that the pest risk has order to successfully implement it. 2008–0112) to amend the regulations been mitigated. DATES: Enforcement of the interim rule regarding the importation of horses from * * * * * amending 9 CFR part 93, published at countries affected with CEM by (c) * * * 76 FR 16683–16686 on March 25, 2011, incorporating an additional certification (3) * * * and delayed until July 25, 2011, in a requirement for imported horses 731 (v) The greenhouse must be inspected document published at 76 FR 31220– days of age or less and adding new prior to harvest for those pests listed in 31221 on May 31, 2011, is delayed until testing protocols for test mares and the bilateral workplan provided to further notice. We will consider all imported stallions and mares more than APHIS by the NPPO of the exporting comments that we receive on or before 731 days of age. The provisions of the country, including any of the following September 7, 2011. APHIS will publish interim rule became effective upon pests: The weevil Faustinus a document in the Federal Register publication. ovatipennis, pea leafminer, tomato fruit announcing any future action. On May 31, 2011, we published a borer, lantana mealybug, passionvine ADDRESSES: You may submit comments document in the Federal Register (76 mealybug, melon thrips bacterial wilt, by either of the following methods: FR 31220–31221, Docket No. APHIS– the rust fungus Puccinia pampeana, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 2008–0112) to delay the enforcement of Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato http://www.regulations.gov/ the interim rule until July 25, 2011. This severe leaf curl virus. If any of the pests #!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0112- action was taken after a request was listed in the workplan, or other 0020. made by affected entities to allow them quarantine pests, are found to be • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: additional time to adjust their operation generally infesting the greenhouse, Send your comment to Docket No. procedures. export from that production site will be APHIS–2008–0112, Regulatory Analysis halted until the exporting country’s and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station Delay of Enforcement NPPO determines that the pest risk has 3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Based on comments received been mitigated. Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. following the March 2011 interim rule, * * * * * Supporting documents and any we are considering two changes to the Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of comments we receive on this docket interim rule. The interim rule required August 2011. may be viewed at http:// that three sets of cultures from imported Gregory L. Parham, www.regulations.gov/ stallions be collected for the detection of Administrator, Animal and Plant Health #!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0112 or the CEM organism, with negative results Inspection Service. in our reading room, which is located in obtained from at least two sets prior to [FR Doc. 2011–21522 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] room 1141 of the USDA South Building, test breeding. However, based on the 14th Street and Independence Avenue, comments received, we are considering BILLING CODE 3410–34–P SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading amending the requirement so that only room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., one set of cultures would be collected DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Monday through Friday, except from an imported stallion with negative holidays. To be sure someone is there to results prior to test breeding. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection help you, please call (202) 690–2817 purpose of culturing a stallion prior to Service before coming. test breeding is to reduce the risk of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. infecting a test mare. Therefore, test 9 CFR Part 93 Ellen Buck, Senior Staff Veterinarian, breeding should not take place until negative culture results have been [Docket No. APHIS–2008–0112] Equine Imports, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 reported. Under the regulations, a RIN 0579–AD31 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD stallion may be released from CEM 20737–1231; (301) 734–8364. quarantine only if all cultures and tests Importation of Horses From SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: of specimens from the mares used for Contagious Equine Metritis-Affected test breeding are negative for CEM and Countries Background all cultures performed on specimens AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 taken from the stallion are negative for Inspection Service, USDA. (referred to below as the regulations) CEM. ACTION: Interim rule; delay of prohibit or restrict the importation of The interim rule also required that enforcement and reopening of comment certain animals into the United States to three sets of cultures be collected from period. prevent the introduction of imported mares and test mares with an communicable diseases of livestock and additional culture sample taken from SUMMARY: We are reopening the poultry. ‘‘Subpart C—Horses,’’ §§ 93.300 either the distal cervix or the comment period for an interim rule that through 93.326, pertains to the endometrium. Based on the comments amended the regulations regarding the importation of horses into the United received, we are considering replacing testing requirements for importation of States. Sections 93.301 and 93.304 of that requirement with a provision that horses from countries affected with the regulations contain specific would require a culture to be collected contagious equine metritis. We are also provisions for the importation of horses from the distal cervix or the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52548 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

endometrium on the third set of cultures to maintain their accredited status, after February 1, 2010, and the date of their only. which we will confirm their continued first renewal. In accordance with We are reopening the comment period participation and notify them of their paragraph (d), APHIS provided notice for 15 days to allow additional public first renewal date. A previous document for 3 months to accredited veterinarians comment on the March 2011 interim announced that currently accredited who were accredited as of February 1, rule, and we particularly welcome veterinarians may continue to perform 2010, to notify them that they must elect comments on the modifications we are accredited duties until further notice, to participate in the NVAP as a Category considering to those requirements even if they have not received a date for I or Category II veterinarian. Paragraph described above. their first accreditation renewal. That (d) requires veterinarians to elect to Based on our review of the comments document stated that we would specify continue to participate within 3 months received to date, we consider it a date by which veterinarians would of the end of the notification period, or advisable to delay the enforcement of have to elect to participate in a their accredited status will expire. the interim rule until further notice. subsequent document. Paragraph (d) of § 161.3 goes on to This additional time will allow APHIS DATES: Effective Date: August 23, 2011. state that when APHIS receives notice from an accredited veterinarian that he to consider all comments and make FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. or she elects to participate, APHIS will adjustments to the interim rule that may Todd Behre, National Veterinary notify the accredited veterinarian of his be necessary in order to successfully Accreditation Program, VS, APHIS, or her date for first renewal. The implement it. 4700 River Road Unit 200, Riverdale, accredited veterinarian must then Accordingly, enforcement of the MD 20737; (301) 851–3401. interim rule amending 9 CFR part 93, complete all the training requirements SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The published at 76 FR 16683–16686 on for renewal, as described in § 161.3, by regulations in 9 CFR chapter I, March 25, 2011, and delayed until July his or her first renewal date. The subchapter J (parts 160 through 162, 25, 2011, in a document published at 76 notification of the first renewal date was referred to below as the regulations), FR 31220–31221 on May 31, 2011, is thus intended to be the means by which govern the accreditation of veterinarians delayed until further notice. APHIS notifies an accredited and the suspension and revocation of veterinarian that we have received Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301–8317; such accreditation. These regulations notice that he or she has elected to 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 are the foundation for the National CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. participate and can thus continue Veterinary Accreditation Program performing accredited duties. Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of (NVAP). Accredited veterinarians are In a notice published in the Federal August 2011. approved by the Administrator of the Register and effective on September 28, Gregory L. Parham, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 2010 (75 FR 59605–59606, Docket No. Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of APHIS–2006–0093), we announced that Inspection Service. Agriculture, to perform certain currently accredited veterinarians may [FR Doc. 2011–21524 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] regulatory tasks to control and prevent continue to perform accredited duties BILLING CODE 3410–34–P the spread of animal diseases until further notice, even if they have throughout the United States and not received a date for their first internationally. accreditation renewal from APHIS. We DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE On December 9, 2009 (74 FR 64998– stated that we would also allow 65013, Docket No. APHIS–2006–0093), currently accredited veterinarians to Animal and Plant Health Inspection we published a final rule in the Federal continue to elect to participate in the Service Register that amended the regulations to NVAP. We took this action because establish two accreditation categories in logistical difficulties had prevented us 9 CFR Part 161 place of the former single category, to from processing the elections to [Docket No. APHIS–2006–0093] add requirements for supplemental participate of all the currently training and renewal of accreditation, accredited veterinarians (over 50,000) RIN 0579–AC04 and to offer program certifications. The who elected to participate. We stated National Veterinary Accreditation final rule was effective February 1, that, when we are closer to reaching the Program; Currently Accredited 2010, a date intended to give us time to goal of processing those elections, we Veterinarians Performing Accredited prepare to implement the new would publish another document in the Duties and Electing To Participate regulations, which affect about 71,000 Federal Register that would amend veterinarians who are currently § 161.3(d) to indicate the date by which AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health accredited. veterinarians must elect to continue to Inspection Service, USDA. Section 161.3 of the final rule participate in the NVAP. ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment contained the requirements for We have determined that setting a and announcement of end of period for supplemental training and renewal of deadline of October 1, 2011, will allow election to participate. accreditation. Because accredited adequate time for currently accredited veterinarians have not previously been veterinarians to elect to continue SUMMARY: We are announcing to the required to renew their accreditation or participating, if they wish to do so, and public that veterinarians who are complete supplemental training, we for us to process the elections to currently accredited in the National established in paragraph (d) of § 161.3 a participate that we have received to this Veterinary Accreditation Program process allowing currently accredited point and any further elections to (NVAP) may continue to perform veterinarians to determine whether they participate that may be submitted by accredited duties and may elect to wished to continue to participate in the that date. Accordingly, this document continue to participate in the NVAP NVAP. amends § 161.3(d) to indicate that until October 1, 2011. The regulations Paragraph (d) of § 161.3 states that currently accredited veterinarians must indicate that currently accredited veterinarians who are accredited as of elect to participate by October 1, 2011. veterinarians must elect to continue February 1, 2010, may continue to A Web seminar on the revisions to the their participation in the NVAP in order perform accredited duties between NVAP and how to elect to participate is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52549

available at mms:// securities issuers in light of these record by less than 300 persons. As a ocbmtcwmp.usda.gov/content/aphis/ statutory changes. result, the reporting obligations of ABS aphis21.wmv. DATES: Effective Date: September 22, issuers,8 other than those with master trust structures,9 were generally List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 161 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: suspended after the ABS issuer filed one Reporting and recordkeeping annual report on Form 10–K because the requirements, Veterinarians. Steven Hearne, Special Counsel, in the Office of Rulemaking, at (202) 551–3430 number of record holders was below, Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR or Kathy Hsu, Chief, Office of often significantly below, the 300 record 10 part 161 as follows: Structured Finance, Division of holder threshold. The Act removed any class of ABS PART 161—REQUIREMENTS AND Corporation Finance, at (202) 551–3850, U.S. Securities and Exchange from the automatic suspension provided STANDARDS FOR ACCREDITED in Exchange Act Section 15(d) by VETERINARIANS AND SUSPENSION Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–3628. inserting the phrase, ‘‘other than any OR REVOCATION OF SUCH class of asset-backed securities.’’ ACCREDITATION SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are adopting amendments to Rules 12h–3, Consequently, ABS issuers no longer ■ 1. The authority citation for part 161 12h–6, and 15d–22 1 and Form 15 2 automatically suspend reporting under continues to read as follows: under the Securities Exchange Act of Exchange Act Section 15(d). Instead, the 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’).3 Act granted the Commission authority Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 15 U.S.C. to ‘‘provide for the suspension or 1828; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. I. Background and Overview of the termination of the duty to file under this Amendments § 161.3 [Amended] subsection for any class of asset-backed Section 942(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall security, on such terms and conditions ■ 2. In § 161.3, paragraph (d) is Street Reform and Consumer Protection and for such period or periods as the amended by removing the words Act (the ‘‘Act’’) 4 eliminated the Commission deems necessary or ‘‘within 3 months of the end of the automatic suspension of the duty to file appropriate in the public interest or for notification period’’ and adding the under Section 15(d) 5 of the Exchange the protection of investors.’’ 11 words ‘‘by October 1, 2011’’ in their Act for asset-backed securities (‘‘ABS’’) place. We proposed new Exchange Act Rule issuers and granted the Commission the 15d–22(b) to provide for suspension of Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of authority to issue rules providing for the the reporting obligations for a given August 2011. suspension or termination of such duty. class of ABS pursuant to Exchange Act Gregory L. Parham, We proposed amendments on January 6, Section 15(d) under certain limited Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 2011 to provide for the suspension of circumstances. In addition, we proposed Inspection Service. reporting obligations for ABS issuers to update Exchange Act Rule 15d–22 to [FR Doc. 2011–21526 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] under certain circumstances and to indicate when annual and other reports BILLING CODE 3410–34–P revise our rules in light of the need to be filed and when starting and amendment of Exchange Act Section suspension dates are determined with 15(d).6 In this release, we are adopting respect to a takedown. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE the rule amendments with some We received seven comment letters in COMMISSION changes to reflect comments we response to the proposed received on the proposed amendments. Exchange Act Section 15(d) generally 17 CFR Parts 240 and 249 8 requires an issuer with a registration ABS offerings are typically registered on shelf [Release No. 34–65148; File No. S7–02–11] registration statements and each ABS offering is statement that has become effective typically sold in a separate ‘‘takedown’’ off of the RIN 3235–AK89 pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 7 shelf. In 2004, the Commission adopted Exchange (‘‘Securities Act’’) to file ongoing Act Rule 15d–22 relating to ABS reporting under Suspension of the Duty To File Exchange Act Section 15(d). Exchange Act Rule Exchange Act reports with the 15d–22 codified the staff position regarding the Reports for Classes of Asset-Backed Commission. Prior to enactment of the starting and suspension dates for any reporting Securities Under Section 15(D) of the Act, Exchange Act Section 15(d) obligation with respect to a takedown of ABS and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provided that for issuers without a class clarified that a new takedown for a new ABS of securities registered under the offering off the same shelf registration statement did AGENCY: Securities and Exchange not necessitate continued reporting for a class of Exchange Act the duty to file ongoing Commission. securities from a prior takedown that was otherwise reports is automatically suspended as to eligible to suspend reporting. See Asset-Backed ACTION: Final rule. any fiscal year, other than the fiscal year Securities, Release No. 33–8518 (Dec. 22, 2004) [70 within which the registration statement FR 1506] (the ‘‘ABS Adopting Release’’). SUMMARY: Section 942(a) of the Dodd- 9 In a securitization using a master trust structure, Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer for the securities became effective, if the the ABS transaction contemplates future issuances Protection Act eliminated the automatic securities of each class to which the of ABS backed by the same, but expanded, asset registration statement relates are held of pool that consists of revolving assets. Pre-existing suspension of the duty to file under and newly issued securities would therefore be Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange backed by the same expanded asset pool. Thus, 1 17 CFR 240.12h–3, 17 CFR 240.12h–6, and 17 given their continued issuance, master trust ABS Act of 1934 for asset-backed securities CFR 240.15d–22. issuers typically continue to report, even after the issuers and granted the Commission the 2 17 CFR 249.323. first annual report is filed. authority to issue rules providing for the 3 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. 10 One source noted that in a survey of 100 suspension or termination of such duty. 4 Pub. L. 111–203 (July 21, 2010). randomly selected asset-backed transactions, the We are adopting rules to provide certain 5 15 U.S.C. 78o(d). number of record holders provided in reports on thresholds for suspension of the 6 Suspension of the Duty to File Reports for Form 15 ranged from two to more than 70. The reporting obligations for asset-backed Classes of Asset-Backed Securities Under Section survey did not consider beneficial owner numbers. 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, See Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, The securities issuers. We are also amending Release No. 34–63652 (Jan. 6, 2011) [76 FR 2049] Global Financial Crisis: A Plan for Regulatory our rules relating to the Exchange Act (the ‘‘Proposing Release’’). Reform, May 2009, at fn. 349. reporting obligations of asset-backed 7 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. 11 15 U.S.C. 78o(d)(2).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

amendments.12 These letters came from to update our rules relating to ABS 2. Comments on the Proposed four professional associations, a law takedowns under a shelf registration Amendments firm, an individual and an institutional statement. Commentators generally supported an investor. We have reviewed and amendment that would provide for the considered all of the comments that we A. Suspension of Exchange Act Section 15(d) Reporting Obligation suspension of the reporting obligation received on the proposed amendments. for ABS.17 The commentators expressed Most commentators supported the 1. Proposed Amendments varying levels of support for the Commission’s goal of providing full and Commission’s proposed Exchange Act transparent disclosure to investors in In the Proposing Release, we Rule 15d–22(b): ABS. Comments on the proposal were proposed amended Exchange Act Rule • Two commentators supported the mixed. Two commentators supported 15d–22(b) to provide for suspension of proposal without changes; 18 the proposed standard without the reporting obligations for a given • One commentator recommended a revisions.13 Other commentators class of ABS pursuant to Exchange Act more stringent standard; 19 suggested revisions to the proposed Section 15(d) under certain limited • One commentator expressed general 14 standard, which are described below. circumstances.16 As revised by the Act, support for the proposal subject to Further, two commentators Exchange Act Section 15(d) no longer specific comments on the language of recommended permitting commercial 20 provides for the automatic suspension the proposal; mortgage-backed securities to suspend • One commentator suggested of the duty to file periodic and other reporting after one year.15 The adopted expanding the set of circumstances reports for issuers of a class of ABS. rules reflect changes made in response when ABS issuers may suspend to comments. We explain our revisions Without action by the Commission, ABS reporting; 21 and with respect to each proposed rule issuers that have filed a registration • Two commentators suggested amendment in more detail throughout statement that has become effective allowing suspension for commercial this release. pursuant to the Securities Act or that mortgage-backed securities issuers after have conducted a takedown off of a one year in keeping with the Section II. Discussion of the Amendments shelf registration statement, would be 15(d) standard as it existed prior to the As indicated above, Exchange Act obligated to continue to file such reports adoption of Section 942(a) of the Act Section 15(d), as amended by the Act, for the life of the security. amending Exchange Act Section 15(d).22 establishes an ongoing reporting In the Proposing Release, we noted The proposed rule would have obligation for each class of ABS for required an issuer to assess whether that post-issuance reporting of which an issuer has filed a registration there were any securities held by non- information by an ABS issuer provides statement that has become effective affiliates of the depositor at the pursuant to the Securities Act. Exchange investors and the market with beginning of the fiscal year. One Act Section 15(d) also grants the transparency regarding many aspects of commentator recommended accelerating Commission authority to provide for the the ongoing performance of the the timing of when an issuer may assess suspension or termination of the duty to securities and the servicer in complying whether it may suspend reporting to file. We are adopting amendments with with servicing criteria and that such enable an issuer to suspend reporting changes made in response to comments transparency is valuable in evaluating once there are no non-affiliated holders to provide limited relief from these transaction performance and making or in the alternative, monthly.23 In reporting obligations in a manner that ongoing investment decisions. We also addition, this commentator we believe is appropriate in the public indicated our belief that the benefits of recommended that the Commission interest and consistent with the ongoing reporting to investors and the amend the proposed rule to clarify that, protection of investors. In addition, we market where there are only affiliated at such time as none of an issuer’s are adopting rule and form holders of the ABS are limited and registered ABS remain outstanding, the amendments, substantially as proposed, would not justify the burden of issuer may immediately cease ongoing reporting by those issuers. Exchange Act reporting.24 In contrast, 12 The public comments we received are available some commentators supported the on our Web site at http://www.sec.gov/comments/ Consequently, we proposed amended s7-02-11/s70211.shtml. See letters from the Exchange Act Rule 15d–22(b), which 17 American Securitization Forum (‘‘ASF’’), Chris would provide that the reporting See letters from ASF, Barnard, Cleary, CREFC, Barnard (‘‘Barnard’’), Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, & ICI, MetLife, and MBA. obligation regarding any class of ABS is 18 Hamilton LLP (‘‘Cleary’’), CRE Finance Council See letters from Barnard and ICI. (‘‘CREFC’’), Investment Company Institute (‘‘ICI’’), suspended for any fiscal year, other than 19 See letter from MetLife recommending MetLife, Inc. (‘‘MetLife’’), and Mortgage Bankers the fiscal year within which the permitting suspension ‘‘only if (a) ABS of a Association (‘‘MBA’’). registration statement became effective, particular class are no longer held by non-affiliates 13 See letters from ICI and Barnard. of the depositor and (b) the transaction has matured if, at the beginning of the fiscal year (i.e. the collateral has been liquidated from the trust 14 See letters from ASF, Cleary and MetLife. or otherwise been fully amortized) or been 15 there are no longer any securities of See letters from CREFC and MBA. These redeemed or called by the servicer.’’ commentators recommended that such securities be such class held by non-affiliates of the 20 See letter from ASF recommending various permitted to suspend reporting under the old depositor that were sold in the changes to the proposed language discussed in Section 15(d) standard, which previously allowed registered transaction. We also proposed more detail below. issuers of securities to suspend Exchange Act 21 reporting typically after the first year of reporting. to amend Form 15 to add a checkbox for See letter from Cleary recommending In support of differential treatment, the ABS issuers to indicate that they are permitting suspension or termination of reporting in two additional circumstances: (1) Where an ABS commentators pointed to the ‘‘Annex A’’ initial relying on proposed Exchange Act Rule disclosure package and the ‘‘Investor Reporting is backed by a sufficient concentration of Package’’ used in the commercial mortgage-backed 15d–22(b) to suspend their reporting obligations of an entity (e.g., repackagings) and securities market, suggesting these materials, along obligation alerting the market and the reference information under Item 1100(c)(2) of Regulation AB (17 CFR 229.1100(c)(2)) is with certain ‘‘best practices’’ projects, provide most, Commission of the change in reporting if not all, of the information that would be required unavailable and (2) where investors voted for to be included in the Section 15(d) reports, and status. termination after a period of public reporting. such materials are required to be provided to 22 See letters from CREFC and MBA. investors on a timely basis under the Investor 23 See letter from ASF. Reporting Package standards. 16 See the Proposing Release supra note 6. 24 Id.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52551

timing of the assessment,25 and one fiscal year within which the registration frequent assessments to allow commentator recommended requiring statement became effective or, for shelf suspension are appropriate because if an issuer to re-assess its reporting offerings, the takedown occurred, there conducted more frequently, these obligation, including after suspension, are no ABS of such class that were sold assessments might result in an ABS every six months and further in a registered transaction held by non- issuer frequently changing its reporting recommended including an anti- affiliates of the depositor and a status and thereby result in less avoidance provision.26 certification on Form 15 has been continuity in its annual and other Some commentators recommended filed; 30 or reports and the creation of disclosure specific revisions to the proposed text of • When there are no ABS of such gaps that could be detrimental to the rule. The proposed rule would have class that were sold in a registered investors’ ability to evaluate ABS provided that the issuer may not transaction still outstanding, performance and make ongoing suspend reporting in the ‘‘fiscal year immediately upon the filing with the investment decisions. within which the registration statement Commission of a certification on Form • The final rule provides that an became effective.’’ One commentator 15 if the issuer has filed all required issuer of ABS may not suspend recommended that the Commission reports for the most recent three fiscal reporting ‘‘in the fiscal year within revise the language to instead refer to years.31 which the registration statement became the ‘‘fiscal year within which the In addition, the final rule amends effective, or, for offerings conducted takedown occurred’’ to provide Form 15 to add a checkbox for ABS pursuant to § 230.415(a)(1)(vii) or additional clarity on the application of issuers to indicate that they are relying § 230.415(a)(1)(x), the takedown for the the rule as it relates to shelf offerings.27 on Exchange Act Rule 15d–22(b) to offering occurred.’’ The language was In addition, the proposed rule would suspend their reporting obligation and revised in response to comments to provide for suspension of reporting adds two Notes to paragraph (b). Note 1 provide additional clarity on the obligations in any fiscal year when there indicates that securities held of record application of the rule as it relates to ‘‘are no longer any securities of such by a broker, dealer, bank or nominee shelf offerings.33 class held by non-affiliates of the shall be considered as held by the • The final rule uses the term ‘‘there depositor.’’ Two commentators noted separate accounts for which the are no asset-backed securities’’ rather that ABS are often held of record by a securities are held. Note 2 includes an than the proposed ‘‘there are no longer custodian or broker on behalf of anti-avoidance provision, as described any asset-backed securities’’ to avoid underlying beneficial owners and below. any implication that the ABS must have suggested that the test should look to In response to comments, Exchange been held by one or more non- the underlying beneficial owners of the Act Rule 15d–22(b) has been changed affiliates.34 28 securities. In addition, one from the proposal in the following ways: • The final rule specifically provides commentator recommended using the • The final rule provides for the for the immediate suspension upon term ‘‘are not’’ rather than saying there timing of the suspension of the duty to filing of a Form 15 of the duty to file ‘‘are no longer’’ any securities of such file to be tested at the beginning of the when there are no ABS of a class that class held by non-affiliates of the semi-annual fiscal period rather than were sold in a registered transaction still depositor that were sold in the annually as proposed. The semi-annual outstanding subject to conditions that registered transaction to avoid any assessment provided in the final rule are consistent with similar conditions in implication that the ABS must have requires an issuer to assess whether it is Exchange Act Rule 12h–3.35 As been previously held by one or more required to report more often than the requested, the final rule makes clear that 29 non-affiliates. proposed rule. The increased frequency an issuer may immediately suspend 3. Final Rule of the required assessment seeks to reporting when the securities have been retired or fully paid. In providing for After considering the comments, we alleviate concerns regarding reporting immediate suspension in our rules, we are adopting amendments to our rules to and information gaps that could occur have also added obligations that are provide for suspension of the reporting with annual assessments by making it consistent with similar conditions in obligations for a given class of ABS harder to evade the reporting Exchange Act Rule 12h–3 and may help pursuant to Exchange Act Section 15(d) requirements as well as reduce costs reduce possible confusion or gaps in as proposed with some changes as imposed by requiring reporting for the reporting that could occur with an recommended by commentators. As remainder of the year when the ABS are immediate suspension of reporting. adopted, Exchange Act Rule 15d–22(b) held solely by affiliates of the depositor.32 We do not believe more • The final rule adds a Note to provides that the duty to file annual and paragraph (b) of Exchange Act Rule other reports under Section 15(d) is 30 The final rule clarifies that the issuer must 15d–22 clarifying that securities held of suspended: make its determination as of the beginning of the record by a broker, dealer, bank or • As to any semi-annual fiscal period, semi-annual fiscal period and file a certification on nominee for any of them for the if, at the beginning of the semi-annual Form 15 in the semi-annual fiscal period within accounts of customers are considered fiscal period, other than a period in the which the issuer suspends its reporting obligation. 31 The final rule, consistent with Exchange Act held by the separate accounts for which Rule 12h–3, also states that if the certification on they are held. Thus, if an investment 25 See letters from Barnard and ICI. Form 15 is withdrawn or denied, the issuer is bank is an ABS issuer and holds 26 See letter from MetLife. MetLife expressed obligated, within 60 days, to file all reports that concern that there are possible scenarios where a would have been required if such certification had depositor or its affiliates could potentially acquire not been filed. The final rule provides conditions must comply with Section 15(d), to assess all registered ABS securities of a particular class for the immediate suspension of reporting that are periodically whether they may suspend their duty that were not held by such entities prior to the not required when the issuer suspends reporting to file. Pursuant to Section 15(d) and our rules, Section 15(d) re-assessment determination date and after its semi-annual assessment that may help to issuers may be permitted to suspend their duty to then re-sell such securities to non-affiliates in reduce confusion or gaps in reporting upon file after one assessment, but may be required to secondary transactions during the course of the immediate suspension and are consistent with the recommence reporting after a subsequent fiscal year. conditions established under Exchange Act Rule assessment. 27 See letter from ASF. 12h–3. 33 See letter from ASF. 28 See letters from ASF and MetLife. 32 See letters from ASF and MetLife. The final 34 See letter from ASF. 29 See letter from ASF. rule requires ABS issuers, like other issuers that 35 See letter from ASF.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52552 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

securities in its name for the benefit of B. Revisions to Existing Exchange Act relating to when annual and other other non-affiliated investors, it cannot Rule Provisions reports need to be filed and when suspend reporting. Conversely, if an In light of the statutory changes to starting and suspension dates are unaffiliated bank or broker holds ABS Exchange Act Section 15(d), we determined with respect to a takedown 43 for affiliates of the ABS issuer, the proposed to revise Exchange Act Rule substantially as proposed. We are also unaffiliated status of the broker or bank 15d–22 to indicate when annual and adopting the changes to Exchange Act will not preclude suspension of other reports need to be filed and when Rule 12h–3(b)(1) to conform the rule to reporting.36 starting and suspension dates are the language of amended Exchange Act Section 15(d), and provide a clarifying • The final rule adds a Note to determined with respect to a takedown. We also proposed to amend Exchange note to Exchange Act Rule 12h–3(b)(1) paragraph (b) of Exchange Act Rule as proposed. In addition to the changes 15d–22(b) providing that an issuer may Act Rule 12h–3(b)(1) to conform the rule to the language of amended Exchange to Exchange Act Rule 12h–3 that we not suspend reporting if securities are proposed, we are adding a clarifying acquired and resold by affiliates as part Act Section 15(d) and to add a clarifying note. note to Exchange Act Rule 12h–6 of a plan or scheme to evade the directing foreign private issuers that are reporting obligations of Section 15(d).37 1. Proposed Amendments ABS issuers to Exchange Act Rule 15d– The proposal and the final rules that We proposed to amend Exchange Act 22 for the requirements regarding we are adopting today sought to provide Rule 15d–22 to retain the approach suspension of reporting of ABS. for the suspension of the reporting relating to separate takedowns in III. Paperwork Reduction Act obligation for a given class of ABS current Exchange Act Rules 15d–22(a) under limited circumstances. Two and 15d–22(b) in a revised Exchange A. Background commentators requested that Act Rule 15d–22(a). Under the Certain provisions of the disclosure commercial mortgage-backed securities amendments we proposed, Exchange rules and forms applicable to ABS issuers be permitted to suspend Act Rule 15d–22(a)(1) would provide issuers contain ‘‘collection of reporting based on the use of their that with respect to an offering of ABS information’’ requirements within the industry reporting standards.38 We are sold off the shelf pursuant to Securities meaning of the Paperwork Reduction 41 not adopting those recommendations Act Rule 415(a)(1)(x), the requirement Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’).44 The Commission because we believe that there are to file annual and other reports pursuant published a notice requesting comment benefits to investors and the market of to Exchange Act Section 15(d) regarding on the collection of information uniform disclosure standards provided a class of securities commences upon requirements in the Proposing Release the first bona fide sale in a takedown of by Regulation AB and public access to for the amendments, and submitted securities under the registration such uniform disclosure, and that such these requirements to the Office of statement. Under the amendments we an approach is more consistent with Management and Budget for review in proposed, Exchange Act Rule 15d– 45 Exchange Act Section 15(d), as amended accordance with the PRA. An agency 22(a)(2) would establish that the may not conduct or sponsor, and a by the Act. In addition, we are not requirement to file annual and other adopting another commentator’s person is not required to comply with, reports pursuant to Exchange Act a collection of information unless it recommendations to permit suspension Section 15(d) regarding a class of displays a currently valid control of reporting for repackaging ABS where securities is determined separately for number. The titles for the affected reference issuers stop reporting or to each takedown of securities under the collections of information are: permit suspension where requested by a registration statement. Exchange Act (1) ‘‘Form 10–K’’ (OMB Control No. 39 majority of holders. We are not Rule 15d–22(c) would remain 3235–0063); adopting the recommendation regarding substantially unchanged, except for (2) ‘‘Form 10–D’’ (OMB Control No. repackaging transactions because the minor revisions to reflect the 3235–0604); concentration of the significant obligor amendments discussed above. Finally, (3) ‘‘Form 8–K’’ (OMB Control No. in the asset pool makes the information under the amendments we proposed, 3235–0288); and material. The need for the information Exchange Act Rule 12h–3(b)(1) would (4) ‘‘Form 15’’ (OMB Control No. about the underlying issuer in the exclude ABS from the classes of 3235–0167). reports for the ABS does not change due securities eligible for suspension Compliance with the information to a change in the reporting status of the (tracking the language of the Exchange collections is mandatory. Responses to underlying issuer.40 In addition, we are Act) and a note would be added to the information collections are not kept not adopting the recommendation to Exchange Act Rule 12h–3 to direct ABS confidential and there is no mandatory permit suspension where requested by a issuers to Exchange Act Rule 15d–22 for retention period for the collections of majority of investors because any such the requirements regarding suspension information. suspension would limit the information of reporting for ABS. Our PRA burden estimate for Form available to investors and the 10–K, Form 8–K and Form 15 is based 2. Comments on the Proposed on an average of the time and cost marketplace for ABS with non-affiliated Amendments holders and could result in a reduction incurred by all types of public of the minority holders ability to sell Commentators expressed general companies, not just ABS issuers, to and the price at which they may be able support, and no commentators provided prepare the collection of information. to sell their securities. specific comment on these proposed Form 10–D is a form that is only revisions.42 prepared and filed by ABS issuers. Form 36 See letter from ASF and MetLife. 3. Final Rule 10–D is filed within 15 days of each 37 See letter from MetLife and note 26. This required distribution date on the ABS, change should address the concern described by After further consideration, we are MetLife. adopting the amendments to our rules 43 As adopted we are including a reference to 38 See letters from CREFC and MBA. Securities Act Rule 415(a)(1)(vii). 39 See letter from Cleary. 41 17 CFR 230.415(a)(1)(x). 44 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 40 See the ABS Adopting Release at 1554. 42 See letters from ASF and Barnard. 45 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52553

as specified in the governing documents annual assessment, rather than an reducing the annual decrease in Form for such securities, containing periodic annual assessment, and provide for 15 filings to 751 filings.53 In addition, distribution and pool performance immediate suspension of reporting consistent with our estimate in the information. when there are no outstanding ABS. We Proposing Release that an average of six Our PRA burden estimates for the do not believe that the changes from our Form 10–D filings will be filed annually collections of information are based on proposal will affect our PRA estimates. instead of ten Form 10–D filings, which information that we receive on entities As indicated above, we do not forms the basis of the current PRA assigned to Standard Industrial estimate that the final rules will affect inventory for Form 10–D, we are Classification Code 6189, the code used our PRA estimates over the next three reducing our current inventory of by ABS issuers, as well as information years, however, as explained in further annual responses to Form 10–D to from outside data sources.46 In the detail in the Proposing Release, the reflect the new annual estimate. Proposing Release, we based our Act’s amendment to Section 15(d) is In summation, we estimate, for PRA estimates on an average of the data that expected to effect the number of purposes, increases of 90,120 total we have available for years 2004 periodic and current reports and Forms burden hours for Form 10–K (751 Forms through 2009. In some cases, our 15 filed by ABS issuers each year. 10–K times 120 burden hours per filing), estimates for the number of ABS issuers We are revising our estimates to 135,180 total burden hours for Form 10– that file Form 10–D with the reflect 2010 data regarding ABS filings. D (4,506 Forms 10–D times 30 burden Commission are based on an average of In the Proposing Release we based our hours per filing), and 5,635 total burden the number of ABS offerings in 2006 estimates for the number of ABS issuers hours for Form 8–K (1,127 Forms 8–K through 2009.47 on an average of the data that we have times 5 burden hours per filing), as well In the Proposing Release we requested available for years 2004 through 2009. as a decrease of 1,127 total burden hours comment on the PRA analysis. No The yearly average of ABS registered for Form 15 (751 Forms 15 times 1.5 commentators responded to our request offerings with the Commission over the burden hours per filing) as a result of for comment on the PRA analysis. period from 2004 to 2009 was 958. The the statutory changes to Exchange Act Subsequent to the enactment of the Act, yearly average of ABS registered Section 15(d).54 We allocate 75% of the number of Forms 10–K, 8–K and 10– offerings with the Commission over the those hours (an increase of 67,590 hours D filed by ABS issuers is expected to period from 2005 to 2010, a similar 6- for Form 10–K, 101,385 hours for Form increase each year by the number of year period, was 751.49 As a result, for 10–D, and 4,226 hours for Form 8–K) to ABS registered offerings and the number PRA purposes, we are updating our internal burden and the remaining 25% of Forms 15 filed by ABS issuers is estimates of annual increases in Form to external costs using a rate of $400 per expected to decrease by a similar 10–K filings to 751 filings,50 in Form hour (an increase of $9,012,000 for Form number. 10–D filings to 4,506 filings,51 and in 10–K, $13,518,000 for Form 10–D and The amendments provide for ABS Form 8–K to 1,127 filings 52 and $563,500 for Form 8–K). In addition, we issuers to suspend their reporting estimate, for PRA purposes, a decrease obligation under certain circumstances. 49 We have chosen to continue using a six year in total burden hours due to a change in While we expect that some issuers will average to estimate the number of ABS registered agency estimate of the number of annual be able to suspend their reporting offerings despite the significant drop off in filings after 2007. As discussed in the Proposing Release, Form 10–D filings of 120,000 (4,000 obligations in the future as a result of in order to estimate the number of Forms 10–K, Form 10–D filings times 30 burden the rules we adopt today, for purposes Forms 10–D, Forms 8–K, and Forms 15 filed by hours per filing). We allocate 75% of of the PRA, we estimated that the ABS issuers for PRA purposes, we average the those hours to internal burden (a estimate of the number of those forms over three proposal will not affect our PRA decrease of 90,000) and the remaining 48 years. For the first year of our average, we are using estimates over the next three years. an updated number of 751 as an estimate for the 25% to external costs using a rate of We also estimated that the amendments number of issuers we expect to file Forms 10–K, $400 per hour (a decrease of to Exchange Act Rule 15d–22 relating to Forms 10–D and Forms 8–K. In the second year, we $12,000,000). reporting and shelf registration and increase our estimate by 751 to a total of 1,502 and in the third year, the addition of another 751 brings The table below illustrates the Exchange Act Rule 12h–3 to conform the total to 2,253. The average number of issuers changes in annual compliance burden the rule to Exchange Act Section 15(d) that we expect to file forms over three years would, in the collection of information in hours will not affect our PRA estimates. therefore, be 1,502, however 751 of those issuers would have filed forms prior to the statutory and costs for existing reports for ABS The amendments are generally issuers as a result of the statutory consistent with our proposals, although change. We reduce the estimated increase by 751 to account for those issuers. We are therefore changes mandated by the Act as well as the amendments do provide for semi- increasing our estimate by 751 issuers to account the reduction in the estimated number for the increase in the number of issuers that will of Form 10–D filings described above. 46 We rely on two outside sources of ABS be required to file reports as a result of the statutory issuance data. We use the ABS issuance data from change. See the Proposing Release supra note 6 at Asset-Backed Alert on the initial terms of offerings, note 30. issuers x 1.5 filings) as a result of the statutory and we supplement that data with information from 50 As discussed above, we estimate that an change. Securities Data Corporation (SDC). additional 751 issuers will be required to file 53 As indicated in the Proposing Release, we 47 Form 10–D was not implemented until 2006. reports as a result of the statutory change. We assume that in any given year the issuers of all Before implementation of Form 10–D, ABS issuers continue to estimate that each ABS issuer would registered ABS issued in the prior year would have often filed their distribution reports under cover of have one annual Form 10–K filing. suspended reporting using Form 15. After the Form 8–K. 51 We continue to estimate that each ABS issuer implementation of the Act, issuers are no longer 48 Since historical data on the numbers of classes would have six annual Form 10–D filings resulting able to automatically suspend reporting; therefore, of ABS that reduce their non-affiliated holders to in 4,506 additional Form 10–D filings (751 ABS Form 15 will no longer be used by these ABS zero is not generally available, we are using issuers x 6 filings) as a result of the statutory issuers as it was in the past. As a result, for the statistics relating to average expected deal life to change. purposes of PRA, we estimate a decrease in Form establish our PRA estimate. Statistics compiled 52 We continue to estimate that each ABS issuer 15 filings of 751. from SDC Platinum suggest that the average would have 1.5 annual Form 8–K filings resulting 54 We allocate all of the burden for Form 15 expected deal life of a class of ABS is over 5 years. in 1,127 additional Form 8–K filings (751 ABS filings to internal burden hours.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52554 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Decrease or Current Proposed Current Decrease or Proposed Current increase in Proposed Form annual annual burden increase in burden professional professional professional responses responses hours burden hours hours costs costs costs

10–K ...... 13,545 14,296 21,363,548 67,590 21,431,138 $2,848,473,000 $9,012,000 $2,857,485,000 10–D ...... 10,000 10,506 225,000 11,385 236,385 30,000,000 1,518,000 31,518,000 8–K ...... 115,795 116,922 493,436 4,226 497,662 54,212,000 563,500 54,775,500 15 ...... 3,000 2,249 4,500 (1,127) 3,373 0 0 0

IV. Benefit-Cost Analysis of preparing and filing annual and assessment of whether only affiliates Exchange Act Section 15(d) generally periodic reports with the Commission hold the registered ABS issued, might establishes an ongoing reporting when only affiliates of the depositor result in unnecessary continued obligation for issuers with a registration hold any outstanding securities of the reporting until the assessment is made, statement that has become effective classes sold in registered transactions. up to 12 months for an annual pursuant to the Securities Act. Prior to We believe that reporting of the assessment. The new Exchange Act Rule enactment of the Act, Exchange Act ongoing performance of an ABS is 15d–22(b) allows for semi-annual Section 15(d) provided that for issuers useful to investors and the market by assessment, which we believe without a class of securities registered providing readily accessible information appropriately balances these competing under the Exchange Act the duty to file upon which investors may evaluate interests. performance and make ongoing ongoing reports is automatically B. Costs suspended as to any fiscal year, other investment decisions. We also than the fiscal year within which the recognize, however, that there are In revising Exchange Act Section registration statement for the securities circumstances where the costs do not 15(d), Congress exhibited an intent to became effective, if the securities of justify the benefits of reporting to increase the continued reporting by ABS each class to which the registration investors and the market. In adopting issuers, but gave the Commission statement relates are held of record by rules to provide for the suspension or authority to place limitations on that less than 300 persons. The Act amended termination of the duty to file for certain reporting in the public interest. The Exchange Act Section 15(d) to eliminate ABS issuers, we have sought to balance Commission exercised this authority the automatic suspension of the duty to the value of the information to investors and is adopting amendments allowing file ongoing Exchange Act reports for and the market with the burden on the ABS issuers to suspend their reporting ABS issuers and granted the issuers of preparing the reports. More obligation under certain limited Commission authority to issue rules specifically, we believe that when there conditions. Providing for the suspension providing for the suspension or are only affiliated holders of the ABS, of reporting limits the ability of market termination of such duty. The those affiliates will generally be able to participants to access and review Commission is exercising its authority receive relevant information because of information for those ABS that suspend under the Exchange Act, as amended by their relationship with the depositor. reporting. We believe that this cost is the Act, by amending Exchange Act Therefore, we are adopting new mitigated under these conditions, since Rules 12h–3, 12h–6 and 15d–22 to Exchange Act Rule 15d–22(b) to provide affiliates will generally be able to provide for the suspension of the duty for issuers to suspend their reporting receive relevant information because of to file for certain ABS issuers and obligation under Section 15(d), as to any their relationship with the depositor. reduce their compliance costs as semi-annual fiscal period, if, at the Thus, only non-holders of a particular discussed in this release.55 beginning of the semi-annual fiscal ABS are affected. Furthermore, the The Commission is sensitive to the period, there are no longer ABS of the utility of the information to market benefits and costs imposed by the rules class that were sold in a registration participants is limited since ABS owned it is amending. The discussion below statement held by non-affiliates of the solely by affiliates generally have no focuses on the benefits and costs of the depositor and a certification on Form 15 public market. decisions made by the Commission in has been filed. We recognize that there are additional the exercise of its new exemptive We originally proposed that ABS costs to assessing holders semi-annually authority provided by the Act, rather issuers assess annually whether non- and preparing ongoing disclosure for than the costs and benefits of the Act affiliates hold the ABS sold in registered registered transactions relative to the itself. transactions. We recognize that there is costs of issuing in the private markets. a trade-off between allowing the An issuer’s decision about whether to A. Benefits assessment to take place too frequently issue registered ABS may be affected by The amendments the Commission is or not frequently enough. If the the threshold at which issuers may adopting allow an issuer to suspend assessment is conducted frequently, it suspend their reporting obligations reporting under certain circumstances might result in an ABS issuer changing under Section 15(d). We solicited and update certain provisions relating to its reporting status often with the effect comments on whether an alternative reporting obligations under a shelf of less continuity in its annual and other suspension threshold might mitigate registration statement. Providing for reports. Reporting gaps could be this effect or be more appropriate for issuers to suspend reporting would detrimental to investors’ ability to other reasons. Although three provide the benefit of allowing those evaluate ABS performance and make commentators responded to our request issuers that are now required by the Act ongoing investment decisions. However, with suggested alternatives, we are not to continue reporting to avoid the costs more frequent assessments will allow an adopting those alternatives, as discussed ABS issuer to report less and cease in Section II.A.3. above. No 55 The proposed amendments to Exchange Act reporting as soon as non-affiliates no commentator provided us with data or Rules 12h–3, 12h–6 and 15d–22(a) and (c) do not analysis that would support an substantively alter the current requirements and longer hold its securities, thus reducing should help issuers comply with their obligations the issuer’s reporting burden and alternative threshold. Thus, we continue and avoid confusion. associated costs. Less frequent to believe that a threshold of zero non-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52555

affiliates is consistent with the Act and incurring the ongoing reporting costs. If U.S.C. 1350 and 12 U.S.C. 5221(e)(3), unless presents an appropriate balance issuers register fewer ABS, this would otherwise noted. between the value of the reported reduce liquidity, decrease transparency * * * * * information to investors and the market, in the ABS market and decrease capital ■ 2. Amend § 240.12h–3 by: and the costs of preparing the reports. formation. The amendments provide for ■ a. In paragraph (b)(1) introductory text V. Consideration of Burden on ABS issuers to suspend their duty to file adding ‘‘, other than any class of asset- Competition and Promotion of when they have only affiliated investors backed securities,’’ in the first sentence Efficiency, Competition and Capital remaining and provide issuers certainty after ‘‘Any class of securities’’; and ■ Formation regarding when they may suspend b. Adding a Note to paragraph (b). reporting, which may encourage some The addition reads as follows: Section 23(a) of the Exchange Act 56 ABS issuers to register ABS and offer requires the Commission, when making ABS in the public markets. These § 240.12h–3 Suspension of duty to file reports under section 15(d). rules and regulations under the changes are intended to mitigate the Exchange Act, to consider the impact a aforementioned incentives to offer ABS * * * * * new rule would have on competition. privately or not to issue ABS at all. (b) * * * Section 23(a)(2) prohibits the (2) * * * The clarifications provided in Commission from adopting any rule that Exchange Act Rule 15d–22, 12h–3, and Note to Paragraph (B): The suspension of would impose a burden on competition 12h–6 may have a beneficial effect on classes of asset-backed securities is addressed not necessary or appropriate in the efficiency of managing ABS in § 240.15d–22. furtherance of the purposes of the offerings, especially takedowns from Exchange Act. Section 3(f) of the * * * * * ABS shelf registration, by providing Exchange Act 57 requires the ■ 3. Amend § 240.12h–6 by adding a issuers with a better understanding of Commission, when engaging in Note after paragraph (i) to read as their Exchange Act reporting obligations rulemaking that requires it to consider follows: whether an action is necessary or and facilitating compliance. We do not believe the amendments § 240.12h–6 Certification by a foreign appropriate in the public interest, to private issuer regarding the termination of consider, in addition to the protection of will have an impact or burden on competition. registration of a class of securities under investors, whether the action would section 12(g) or the duty to file reports promote efficiency, competition, and VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act under section 13(a) or section 15(d). capital formation. The discussion below Certification * * * * * focuses on the effects of the decisions (i) * * * made by the Commission in the exercise Under Section 605(b) of the of its new exemptive authority provided Regulatory Flexibility Act, we certified Note to § 240.12h–6: The suspension of that, when adopted, the proposals classes of asset-backed securities is addressed by the Act, rather than the effects of the in § 240.15d–22. Act itself. would not have a significant economic The Act amended Exchange Act impact on a substantial number of small * * * * * Section 15(d) to eliminate the automatic entities. We included the certification in ■ 4. Revise § 240.15d–22 to read as suspension of the duty to file ongoing Part IX of the Proposing Release, but follows: Exchange Act reports for ABS issuers received no comment. and granted the Commission authority § 240.15d–22 Reporting regarding asset- VII. Statutory Authority and Text of backed securities under section 15(d) of the to issue rules providing for the Rule and Form Amendments suspension or termination of such duty. Act. The Commission is exercising its We are adopting the amendments (a) With respect to an offering of asset- authority under the Act by amending contained in this document under the backed securities registered pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 12h–3, 12h–6 and authority set forth in Sections 3(b), 12, § 230.415(a)(1)(vii) or § 230.415(a)(1)(x) 15d–22 to provide for the suspension of 13, 15, 23(a), and 36 of the Exchange of this chapter: the duty to file for certain ABS issuers Act. (1) Annual and other reports need not and reduce their compliance costs as be filed pursuant to section 15(d) of the List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 240 and Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) regarding any discussed in this release. 249 The amendments update the reporting class of securities to which such requirements for takedowns from shelf Reporting and recordkeeping registration statement relates until the registration in Exchange Act Rule 15d– requirements, Securities. first bona fide sale in a takedown of securities under the registration 22 and provide for the suspension of the For the reasons set out above, Title 17, statement; and duty to file for certain ABS issuers as Chapter II of the Code of Federal (2) The starting and suspension dates discussed in this release. Providing for Regulations is amended as follows: ABS issuers with only affiliated holders for any reporting obligation under to suspend their duty to file decreases PART 240—GENERAL RULES AND section 15(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. transparency regarding those issuers. REGULATIONS, SECURITIES 78o(d)) with respect to a takedown of The suspension of the duty to file EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 any class of asset-backed securities are reduces compliance costs for issuers, determined separately for each which could increase efficiency and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 240 takedown of securities under the facilitate capital formation. continues to read in part as follows: registration statement. An inability to suspend the duty to (b) The duty to file annual and other Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, reports pursuant to section 15(d) of the file may encourage some issuers to offer 77s, 77z–2, 77z–3, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, ABS privately or not to issue ABS at all, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78e, 78f, 78g, 78i, 78j, Act (15 U.S.C. 78o(d)) regarding any rather than registering those ABS and 78j–1, 78k, 78k–1, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n–1, 78o, class of asset-backed securities is 78o–4, 78p, 78q, 78s, 78u–5, 78w, 78x, 78ll, suspended: 56 15 U.S.C. 78w(a). 78mm, 80a–20, 80a–23, 80a–29, 80a–37, 80b– (1) As to any semi-annual fiscal 57 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 3, 80b–4, 80b–11, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 period, if, at the beginning of the semi-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52556 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

annual fiscal period, other than a period Regulations under the Securities Background in the fiscal year within which the Exchange Act of 1934.’’ Section 179C was added to the Code registration statement became effective, Note: The text of Form 15 does not and this by section 1323(a) of the Energy Policy or, for offerings conducted pursuant to amendment will not appear in the Code of Act of 2005, Public Law 109–58 (119 § 230.415(a)(1)(vii) or § 230.415(a)(1)(x), Federal Regulations. Stat. 594), to encourage the construction the takedown for the offering occurred, of new refineries and the expansion of By the Commission. there are no asset-backed securities of existing refineries to enhance the such class that were sold in a registered Dated: August 17, 2011. nation’s refinery capacity. Section transaction held by non-affiliates of the Elizabeth M. Murphy, 179C(a) allows a taxpayer to elect to depositor and a certification on Form 15 Secretary. deduct as an expense 50 percent of the (17 CFR 249.323) has been filed; or [FR Doc. 2011–21500 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] cost of any qualified refinery property. (2) When there are no asset-backed BILLING CODE 8011–01–P The remaining 50 percent of the securities of such class that were sold in taxpayer’s qualifying expenditures a registered transaction still generally are recovered under section outstanding, immediately upon filing DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 168 and section 179B, if applicable. All with the Commission a certification on costs properly capitalized into qualified Form 15 (17 CFR 249.323) if the issuer Internal Revenue Service refinery property are includable in the of such class has filed all reports cost of the qualified refinery property. required by Section 13(a), without 26 CFR Part 1 and 602 As originally enacted, section regard to Rule 12b–25 (17 CFR 249.322), [TD 9547] 179C(c)(1)(B) required that qualified for the shorter of its most recent three refinery property be placed in service by fiscal years and the portion of the RIN 1545–BF05 a taxpayer after August 8, 2005, and current year preceding the date of filing before January 1, 2012. Under section Form 15, or the period since the issuer Election To Expense Certain Refineries 179C(c)(1)(F) as originally enacted, (i) became subject to such reporting AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the construction of the property must obligation. If the certification on Form Treasury. have been subject to a written binding 15 is subsequently withdrawn or construction contract entered into denied, the issuer shall, within 60 days, ACTION: Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations. before January 1, 2008, (ii) the property file with the Commission all reports must have been placed in service before which would have been required if such SUMMARY: This document provides final January 1, 2008, or (iii) in the case of certification had not been filed. regulations relating to the election to self-constructed property, the Note 1 to Paragraph (b): Securities held of expense qualified refinery property construction of the property must have record by a broker, dealer, bank or nominee under section 179C of the Internal begun after June 14, 2005, and before for any of them for the accounts of customers Revenue Code (Code). These final January 1, 2008. Section 179C(d)(1) shall be considered as held by the separate regulations adopt the temporary originally required that a qualified accounts for which the securities are held. regulations with certain modifications refinery be designed to serve the Note 2 to Paragraph (b): An issuer may not to reflect changes to the law made by primary purpose of processing liquid suspend reporting if the issuer and its the Energy Improvement and Extension fuel from crude oil or qualified fuels (as affiliates acquire and resell securities as part Act of 2008. defined in section 45K(c)). Under of a plan or scheme to evade the reporting DATES: Effective Date: These regulations section 179C(e) as originally enacted, obligations of Section 15(d). are effective August 22, 2011. qualified refinery property must have (c) This section does not affect any FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: enabled the existing qualified refinery to other reporting obligation applicable Philip Tiegerman (202) 622–3110 (not a increase total volume output with respect to any classes of securities toll-free number). (determined without regard to asphalt or from additional takedowns under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: lube oil) by 5 percent or more on an same or different registration statements average daily basis or to process or any reporting obligation that may be Paperwork Reduction Act qualified fuels (as defined in section applicable pursuant to section 12 of the The collection of information 45K(c)) at a rate that is equal to or Act (15 U.S.C. 78l). contained in these regulations has been greater than 25 percent of the total reviewed and approved by the Office of throughput of the qualified refinery on PART 249—FORMS, SECURITIES Management and Budget in accordance an average daily basis. EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 with the Paperwork Reduction Act of Section 209 of the Energy 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 ■ 5. The authority citation for part 249 number (1545–2103). Responses to this (the ‘‘2008 Act’’), Division B, Public continues to read in part as follows: collection of information are mandatory. Law 110–343 (122 Stat. 3765), amended Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. and 7201 An agency may not conduct or section 179C in several respects. The et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise sponsor, and a person is not required to 2008 Act extended the placed in service noted. respond to, a collection of information date of section 179C(c)(1)(B) to January * * * * * unless the collection of information 1, 2014. In addition, the 2008 Act ■ 6. Amend Form 15 (referenced in displays a valid OMB control number. amended section 179C(c)(1)(F) to § 249.323) by: Books or records relating to a provide that (i) the construction of the ■ a. Adding a checkbox referring to collection of information must be property must be subject to a written ‘‘Rule 15d–22(b)’’ after the checkbox retained as long as their contents may binding construction contract entered referring to ‘‘Rule 15d–6’’; and become material in the administration into before January 1, 2010, (ii) the ■ b. By revising the first sentence of the of any internal revenue law. Generally, property must be placed in service Instruction to read: ‘‘This form is tax returns and tax return information before January 1, 2010, or (iii) in the required by Rules 12g–4, 12h–3, 15d–6 are confidential, as required by 26 case of self-constructed property, the and 15d–22 of the General Rules and U.S.C. 6103. construction of the property must begin

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52557

after June 14, 2005, and before January Qualified Refinery Property at least 25 percent of total throughput 1, 2010. on an average daily basis. Effective for property placed in Section 1.179C–1T(b)(2)(i) of the Effective/Applicability Date service after October 3, 2008, the 2008 temporary regulations provided that a Act amended the definition of qualified refinery is any refinery located This section is applicable for taxable ‘‘qualified refinery’’ under section in the United States that is designed to years ending on or after August 22, 179C(d)(1) to include a refinery that is serve the primary purpose of processing 2011. For taxable years ending before designed to serve the primary purpose crude oil or qualified fuels. The final August 22, 2011, taxpayers may apply of processing liquid fuel directly from regulations add new § 1.179C– the proposed regulations published on shale or tar sands, and expanded the 1(b)(2)(i)(A) and new § 1.179C– July 9, 2008, or, in the alternative, may production capacity requirement of 1(b)(2)(i)(B). Section 1.179C– apply these final regulations. section 179C(e)(2) to include property 1(b)(2)(i)(A) of the final regulations that enables the existing qualified provides that in the case of property Special Analyses refinery to process shale or tar sands. placed in service after August 8, 2005, It has been determined that this On July 9, 2008, the Treasury and on or before October 3, 2008, a Treasury decision is not a significant Department and the IRS published in qualified refinery is any refinery located regulatory action as defined in the Federal Register temporary in the United States that is designed to Executive Order 12866 as supplemented regulations (TD 9412), 73 FR 39230, and serve the primary purpose of processing by Executive Order 13563. The a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG– liquid fuel from crude oil or qualified collections of information in § 1.179– 146895–05), 73 FR 39270, by cross- fuels. Section 1.179C–1(b)(2)(i)(B) of the 1(d)(2), (e)(2), and (f) are required by reference to temporary regulations. A final regulations provides that, in the section 179C(b), (g), and (h), public hearing was scheduled for case of property placed in service after respectively, and, therefore, are not November 20, 2008. The public hearing October 3, 2008, and before January 1, imposed by these regulations. was cancelled on November 6, 2008 (73 2014, a qualified refinery is any refinery Accordingly, they are not subject to the FR 66001) because no written comments located in the United States that is Regulatory Flexibility Act. Only the or requests to speak were received. designed to serve the primary purpose collection of information in § 1.179– The temporary regulations and of processing liquid fuel from crude oil, 1(d)(3), regarding the revocation of an proposed regulations are hereby qualified fuels, or directly from shale or election under section 179C(a), is removed and the final regulations adopt tar sands. imposed by these regulations. It is the rules of the temporary and proposed Production Capacity hereby certified that the collection of regulations with certain revisions, information contained in § 1.179–1(d)(3) described below, to reflect amendments Section 1.179C–1T(b)(5)(i) of the of the regulations will not have a to the statute made by the 2008 Act. temporary regulations generally significant economic impact on a Explanation of Provisions provided that refinery property is substantial number of small entities. considered to be qualified refinery This certification is based upon the fact Placed in Service and Construction and property if (A) it enables the existing that although most of the 12 taxpayers Written Binding Contract Requirements qualified refinery to increase the total who potentially could or would make Section 1.179C–1T(b)(4) and volume output by at least 5 percent on an election under section 179C(a) will § 1.179C–1T(b)(7)(i)(A) of the temporary an average daily basis; or (B) it enables be small entities, it is expected that few, regulations required that qualified the existing qualified refinery to if any, of those 12 taxpayers once having refinery property be placed in service by increase the percentage of total made the election will choose to revoke the taxpayer after August 8, 2005, and throughput attributable to processing it. Therefore, the collection of before January 1, 2012. Section 1.179C– qualified fuels to a rate that is at least information will not affect a substantial 1(b)(4) and § 1.179C–1(b)(7)(i)(A) of the 25 percent of the total throughput on an number of small entities. The final regulations provide that the average daily basis. The final information required to revoke an property must be placed in service after regulations, in § 1.179C–1(b)(5)(i), election under section 179C(a) consists August 8, 2005, and before January 1, modify this definition to provide entirely of a portion of the information 2014. generally that refinery property is required to make the election. Section 1.179C–1T(b)(7)(iii) of the considered to be qualified refinery Consequently, the economic burden for temporary regulations provided that the property if (A) it enables the existing those taxpayers who choose to revoke manufacture, construction, or qualified refinery to increase the total the election is minimal in nature and production of self-constructed property volume output by at least 5 percent on the regulations do not impose any must begin before January 1, 2008. an average daily basis; (B) in the case of burden in addition to the burden Under § 1.179C–1(b)(7)(iii) of the final property placed in service after August associated with making the election. regulations, the manufacture, 8, 2005, and on or before October 3, Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not construction, or production of self- 2008, it enables the existing qualified required. It also has been determined constructed property must begin before refinery to increase the percentage of that section 553(b) of the Administrative January 1, 2010. total throughput attributable to Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does Under § 1.179C–1T(b)(7)(iii)(C) of the processing qualified fuels to a rate that not apply to these regulations. temporary regulations, a component of is at least 25 percent of the total Drafting Information self-constructed property had to be throughput on an average daily basis; or acquired or self-constructed before (C) in the case of property placed in The principal author of these January 1, 2008, in order to qualify as service after October 3, 2008, and before regulations is Philip Tiegerman, Office qualified refinery property. Section January 1, 2014, it enables the existing of Associate Chief Counsel 1.179C–1(b)(7)(iii)(C) of the final qualified refinery to increase the (Passthroughs and Special Industries). regulations provides that the component percentage of total throughput However, other personnel from the IRS must be acquired or self-constructed attributable to processing shale, tar and Treasury Department participated before January 1, 2010. sands, or qualified fuels to a rate that is in their development.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52558 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects (b) Qualified refinery property—(1) In (ii) Sale-leaseback. If any new portion general. Qualified refinery property is of a qualified refinery is originally 26 CFR Part 1 any property that meets the placed in service by a person after Income taxes, Reporting and requirements set forth in paragraphs August 8, 2005, and is sold to a taxpayer recordkeeping requirements. (b)(2) through (b)(7) of this section. and leased back to the person by the (2) Description of qualified refinery 26 CFR Part 602 taxpayer within three months after the property—(i) In general. Property that date the property was originally placed Reporting and recordkeeping comprises any portion of a qualified in service by the person, the taxpayer- requirements. refinery may be qualified refinery lessor is considered the original user of Adoption of Amendments to the property. For purposes of section 179C the property. Regulations and this section, a qualified refinery is (4) Placed-in-service date—(i) In any refinery located in the United States general. Refinery property will meet the Accordingly 26, CFR parts 1 and 602 that— requirements of this paragraph (b)(4) if are amended as follows: (A) In the case of property placed in the property is placed in service by the service after August 8, 2005, and on or taxpayer after August 8, 2005, and PART 1—INCOME TAXES before October 3, 2008, is designed to before January 1, 2014. ■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation serve the primary purpose of processing (ii) Sale-leaseback. If a new portion of for part 1 continues to read in part as liquid fuel from crude oil or qualified refinery property is originally placed in follows: fuels; or service by a person after August 8, 2005, (B) In the case of property placed in and is sold to a taxpayer and leased Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * service after October 3, 2008, and before back to the person by the taxpayer ■ Par. 2. Section 1.179C–1 is added to January 1, 2014, is designed to serve the within three months after the date the read as follows: primary purpose of processing liquid property was originally placed in fuel from crude oil, qualified fuels, or service by the person, the property is § 1.179C–1 Election to expense certain directly from shale or tar sands. treated as originally placed in service by refineries. (ii) Nonqualified refinery property. the taxpayer-lessor not earlier than the (a) Scope and definitions—(1) Scope. Refinery property is not qualified date on which the property is used by This section provides the rules for refinery property for purposes of this the lessee under the leaseback. determining the deduction allowable paragraph (b)(2) if— (5) Production capacity—(i) In under section 179C(a) for the cost of any (A) The primary purpose of the general. Refinery property is considered qualified refinery property. The refinery property is for use as a topping qualified refinery property if— provisions of this section apply only to plant, asphalt plant, lube oil facility, (A) It enables the existing qualified a taxpayer that elects to apply section crude or product terminal, or blending refinery to increase the total volume 179C in the manner prescribed under facility; or output, determined without regard to paragraph (d) of this section. (B) The refinery property is built asphalt or lube oil, by at least 5 percent (2) Definitions. For purposes of solely to comply with consent decrees on an average daily basis; section 179C and this section, the or projects mandated by Federal, State, (B) In the case of property placed in following definitions apply: or local governments. service after August 8, 2005, and on or (i) Applicable environmental laws are (3) Original use—(i) In general. For before October 3, 2008, it enables the any applicable federal, state, or local purposes of the deduction allowable existing qualified refinery to increase environmental laws. under section 179C(a), refinery property the percentage of total throughput (ii) Qualified fuels has the meaning will meet the requirements of this attributable to processing qualified fuels set forth in section 45K(c). paragraph (b)(3) if the original use of the to a rate that is at least 25 percent of (iii) Cost is the unadjusted property commences with the taxpayer. total throughput on an average daily depreciable basis (as defined in Except as provided in paragraph basis; or § 1.168(b)–1(a)(3), but without regard to (b)(3)(ii) of this section, original use (C) In the case of property placed in the reduction in basis for any portion of means the first use to which the service after October 3, 2008, and before the basis the taxpayer properly elects to property is put, whether or not that use January 1, 2014, it enables the existing treat as an expense under section 179C corresponds to the use of the property qualified refinery to increase the and this section) of the property. by the taxpayer. Thus, if a taxpayer percentage of total throughput (iv) Throughput is a volumetric rate incurs capital expenditures to attributable to processing qualified measuring the flow of crude oil, recondition or rebuild property acquired fuels, shale, or tar sands to a rate that qualified fuels, or, in the case of or owned by the taxpayer, only the is at least 25 percent of total throughput property placed in service after October capital expenditures incurred by the on an average daily basis. 3, 2008, and before January 1, 2014, taxpayer to recondition or rebuild the (ii) When production capacity is shale or tar sands, processed over a property acquired or owned by the tested. The production capacity given period of time, typically taxpayer satisfy the original use requirement of this paragraph (b)(5) is referenced on the basis of barrels per requirement. However, the cost of determined as of the date the property calendar day. reconditioned or rebuilt property is placed in service by the taxpayer. Any (v) Barrels per calendar day is the acquired by a taxpayer does not satisfy reasonable method may be used to amount of fuels that a facility can the original use requirement. Whether determine the appropriate baseline for process under usual operating property is reconditioned or rebuilt measuring capacity increases and to conditions, expressed in terms of property is a question of fact. For demonstrate and substantiate that the capacity during a 24-hour period and purposes of this paragraph (b)(3)(i), capacity of the existing qualified reduced to account for down time and acquired or self-constructed property refinery has been sufficiently increased. other limitations. that contains used parts will be treated (iii) Multi-stage projects. In the case of (vi) United States has the same as reconditioned or rebuilt only if the multi-stage projects, a taxpayer must meaning as that term is defined in cost of the used parts is more than 20 satisfy the reporting requirements of section 7701(a)(9). percent of the total cost of the property. paragraph (f)(2) of this section,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52559

sufficient to establish that the insubstantial terms remain to be qualified refinery property if it meets all production capacity requirements of negotiated by the parties to the contract. other requirements of section 179C and this paragraph (b)(5) will be met as a (C) Options. An option to either this section (including paragraph result of the taxpayer’s overall plan. acquire or sell property is not a binding (b)(7)(i) of this section), even though the (6) Applicable environmental laws— contract. component is not qualified refinery (i) In general. The environmental (D) Supply agreements. A binding property. If the construction of self- compliance requirement applies only contract does not include a supply or constructed property begins before June with respect to refinery property, or any similar agreement if the payment 14, 2005, neither the self-constructed portion of refinery property, that is amount and design specification of the property nor any component related to placed in service after August 8, 2005. property to be purchased have not been the self-constructed property is A refinery’s failure to meet applicable specified. qualified refinery property. If the environmental laws with respect to a (E) Components. A binding contract to component is acquired before January 1, portion of the refinery that was in acquire one or more components of a 2010, but the construction of the self- service prior to August 8, 2005 will not larger property will not be treated as a constructed property begins after disqualify a taxpayer from making the binding contract to acquire the larger December 31, 2009, the component may election under section 179C(a) with property. If a binding contract to acquire qualify as qualified refinery property respect to otherwise qualifying refinery a component does not satisfy the even if the self-constructed property is property. requirements of this paragraph (b)(7), not qualified refinery property. the component is not qualified refinery (ii) Waiver under the Clean Air Act. (2) Self-constructed components. If property. Refinery property must comply with the the manufacture, construction, or (iii) Self-constructed property—(A) In production of a component fails to meet Clean Air Act, notwithstanding any general. Except as provided in waiver received by the taxpayer under any of the requirements of paragraph paragraph (b)(7)(iii)(B) of this section, if (b)(7)(iii) of this section, the component that Act. a taxpayer manufactures, constructs, or (7) Construction of property—(i) In is not qualified refinery property. produces property for use by the However, if the manufacture, general. Qualified property will meet taxpayer in its trade or business (or for the requirements of this paragraph (b)(7) construction, or production of a the production of income by the component fails to meet any of the if no written binding contract for the taxpayer), the construction of property construction of the property was in requirements provided in paragraph rules in this paragraph (b)(7) are treated (b)(7)(iii) of this section, but the effect before June 14, 2005, and if— as met for qualified refinery property if construction of the self-constructed (A) The construction of the property the taxpayer begins manufacturing, property begins after June 14, 2005, the is subject to a written binding contract constructing, or producing the property self constructed property may qualify as entered into before January 1, 2010; after June 14, 2005, and before January qualified refinery property if it meets all (B) The property is placed in service 1, 2010. Property that is manufactured, other requirements of section 179C and before January 1, 2010; or constructed, or produced for the this section (including paragraph (C) In the case of self-constructed taxpayer by another person under a (b)(7)(i) of this section). If the property, the construction of the written binding contract (as defined in construction of the self-constructed property began after June 14, 2005, and paragraph (b)(7)(ii) of this section) that property begins before June 14, 2005, before January 1, 2010. is entered into prior to the manufacture, neither the self-constructed property nor (ii) Definition of binding contract—(A) construction, or production of the any components related to the self- In general. A contract is binding only if property for use by the taxpayer in its constructed property are qualified it is enforceable under state law against trade or business (or for the production refinery property. If the component was the taxpayer or a predecessor, and does of income) is considered to be self-constructed before January 1, 2010, not limit damages to a specified amount manufactured, constructed, or produced but the construction of the self- (for example, by use of a liquidated by the taxpayer. constructed property begins after damages provision). For this purpose, a (B) When construction begins. For December 31, 2009, the component may contractual provision that limits purposes of this paragraph (b)(7)(iii), qualify as qualified refinery property, damages to an amount equal to at least construction of property generally although the self-constructed property is 5 percent of the total contract price will begins when physical work of a not qualified refinery property. not be treated as limiting damages to a significant nature begins. Physical work (c) Computation of expense deduction specified amount. In determining does not include preliminary activities for qualified refinery property. In whether a contract limits damages, the such as planning or designing, securing general, the allowable deduction under fact that there may be little or no financing, exploring, or researching. The paragraph (d) of this section for damages because the contract price does determination of when physical work of qualified refinery property is not significantly differ from fair market a significant nature begins depends on determined by multiplying by 50 value will not be taken into account. the facts and circumstances. percent the cost of the qualified refinery (B) Conditions. A contract is binding (C) Components of self-constructed property paid or incurred by the even if subject to a condition, as long as property—(1) Acquired components. If a taxpayer. the condition is not within the control binding contract (as defined in (d) Election—(1) In general. A of either party or the predecessor of paragraph (b)(7)(ii) of this section) to taxpayer may make an election to either party. A contract will continue to acquire a component of self-constructed deduct as an expense 50 percent of the be binding if the parties make property is in effect on or before June cost of any qualified refinery property. insubstantial changes in its terms and 14, 2005, the component does not A taxpayer making this election takes conditions, or if any term is to be satisfy the requirements of paragraph the 50 percent deduction for the taxable determined by a standard beyond the (b)(7)(i) of this section, and is not year in which the qualified refinery control of either party. A contract that qualified refinery property. However, if property is placed in service. imposes significant obligations on the construction of the self-constructed (2) Time and manner for making taxpayer or a predecessor will be treated property begins after June 14, 2005, the election—(i) Time for making election. as binding, notwithstanding the fact that self-constructed property may be An election specified in this paragraph

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52560 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(d) generally must be made not later taxpayer may elect to allocate all, some, cooperative taxpayer’s original federal than the due date (including extensions) or none of the deduction allowable income tax return for the taxable year for filing the original Federal income tax under section 179C(a) for that taxable for which the cooperative taxpayer’s return for the taxable year in which the year to the cooperative owner(s). This election under section 179C(a) and qualified refinery property is placed in allocation is equal to the cooperative paragraph (d) of this section applies. service by the taxpayer. owner(s)’ ratable share of the total (4) Irrevocable election. A section (ii) Manner of making election. The amount allocated, determined on the 179C(g) election, once made, is taxpayer makes an election under basis of each cooperative owner’s irrevocable. section 179C(a) and this paragraph (d) ownership interest in the cooperative by entering the amount of the deduction taxpayer. For purposes of this section, a (f) Reporting requirement—(1) In at the appropriate place on the cooperative taxpayer is an organization general. A taxpayer may not claim a taxpayer’s timely filed original Federal to which part I of subchapter T applies, deduction under section 179C(a) for any income tax return for the taxable year in and in which another organization to taxable year unless the taxpayer files a which the qualified refinery property is which part I of subchapter T applies report with the Secretary containing placed in service, and attaching a report (cooperative owner) directly holds an information with respect to the as specified in paragraph (f) of this ownership interest. No deduction shall operation of the taxpayer’s refineries. section to the taxpayer’s timely filed be allowed under section 1382 for any (2) Information to be included in the original federal income tax return for amount allocated under this paragraph report. The taxpayer must specify— the taxable year in which the qualified (e). refinery property is placed in service. (2) Time and manner for making (i) The name and address of the (3) Revocation of election—(i) In election—(i) Time for making election. refinery; general. An election made under section A cooperative taxpayer must make the (ii) Under which production capacity 179C(a) and this paragraph (d), and any election under section 179C(g) and this requirement under section 179C(e) and specification contained in such election, paragraph (e) by the due date (including paragraph (b)(5)(i)(A), (B), and (C) of may not be revoked except with the extensions) for filing the cooperative this section the taxpayer’s qualified consent of the Commissioner of Internal taxpayer’s original Federal income tax refinery qualifies; Revenue. return for the taxable year to which the (ii) Revocation prior to the revocation (iii) Whether the refinery is qualified cooperative taxpayer’s election under refinery property under section 179C(d) deadline. A taxpayer is deemed to have section 179C(a) and paragraph (d) of this requested, and to have been granted, the and paragraph (b)(2) of this section, section applies. sufficient to establish that the primary consent of the Commissioner to revoke (ii) Manner of making election. An purpose of the refinery is to process an election under section 179C(a) and election under this paragraph (e) is liquid fuel from crude oil, qualified this paragraph (d) if the taxpayer made by attaching to the cooperative revokes the election before the taxpayer’s timely filed Federal income fuels, or directly from shale or tar sands. revocation deadline. The revocation tax return for the taxable year (including (iv) The total cost basis of the deadline is 24 months after the due date extensions) to which the cooperative qualified refinery property at issue for (including extensions) for filing the taxpayer’s election under section the taxpayer’s current taxable year; and taxpayer’s Federal income return for the 179C(a) and paragraph (d) of this section (v) The depreciation treatment of the taxable year for which the election applies a statement providing the capitalized portion of the qualified applies. An election under section following information: refinery property. 179C(a) and this paragraph (d) is (A) The name and taxpayer revoked by attaching a statement to an identification number of the cooperative (3) Time and manner for submitting amended return for the taxable year for taxpayer. report—(i) Time for submitting report. which the election applies. The (B) The amount of the deduction The taxpayer is required to submit the statement must specify the name and allowable to the cooperative taxpayer report specified in this paragraph (f) not address of the refinery for which the for the taxable year to which the later than the due date (including election applies and the amount election under section 179C(a) and extensions) of the taxpayer’s Federal deducted on the taxpayer’s original paragraph (d) of this section applies. income tax return for the taxable year in Federal income tax return for the (C) The name and taxpayer which the qualified refinery property is taxable year for which the election identification number of each placed in service. applies. cooperative owner to which the (ii) Manner of submitting report. The (iii) Revocation after the revocation cooperative taxpayer is allocating all or taxpayer must attach the report deadline. An election under section some of the deduction allowable. specified in this paragraph (f) to the 179C(a) and this paragraph (d) may not (D) The amount of the allowable taxpayer’s timely filed original Federal be revoked after the revocation deduction that is allocated to each income tax return for the taxable year in deadline. The revocation deadline may cooperative owner listed in paragraph which the qualified refinery property is not be extended under § 301.9100–1. (e)(2)(ii)(C) of this section. placed in service. (iv) Revocation by cooperative (3) Written notice to owners. If any (g) Effective/applicability date. This taxpayer. A taxpayer that has made an portion of the deduction allowable section is applicable for taxable years election to allocate the section 179C under section 179C(a) is allocated to a ending on or after August 22, 2011. For deduction to cooperative owners under cooperative owner, the cooperative taxable years ending before August 22, section 179C(g) and paragraph (e) of this taxpayer must notify the cooperative 2011, taxpayers may apply the proposed section may not revoke its election owner of the amount of the deduction regulations published on July 9, 2008, under section 179C(a). allocated to the cooperative owner in a (e) Election to allocate section 179C written notice, and on Form 1099– or, in the alternative, may apply these deduction to cooperative owners—(1) In PATR, ‘‘Taxable Distributions Received final regulations. general. If a cooperative taxpayer makes from Cooperatives.’’ This notice must be § 1.179C–1T [Removed] an election under section 179C(g) and provided on or before the due date this paragraph (e), the cooperative (including extensions) of the ■ Par. 3. Section 1.179C–1T is removed.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52561

PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS Revenue Service or the United States only in situations in which the taxpayer UNDER THE PAPERWORK Tax Court. uses registered or certified mail. REDUCTION ACT DATES: Effective Date: These regulations A notice of proposed rulemaking are effective on August 23, 2011. (REG–138176–02) was published in the ■ Par. 4. The authority citation for part Applicability Date: These regulations Federal Register (69 FR 56377) on 602 continues to read as follows: apply to any payment or document September 21, 2004. The proposed Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. mailed and delivered in accordance regulations clarified that, other than ■ with the requirements of this section in direct proof of actual delivery, the Par. 5. In § 602.101, paragraph (b) is exclusive means to establish prima facie amended by adding the following entry an envelope bearing a postmark dated after September 21, 2004. evidence of delivery of Federal tax in numerical order to the table to read documents to the IRS and the United FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: as follows: States Tax Court is to prove the use of Steven Karon, (202) 622- 4570 (not a registered or certified mail. Under § 602.101 OMB control numbers. toll-free number). section 7502(f)(3), the IRS may extend to * * * * * SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (b) * * * a service provided by a PDS a rule Paperwork Reduction Act similar to the prima facie evidence of delivery rule applicable to certified and CFR part or section where Current OMB The collection of information identified and described Control No. registered mail. Prior to the publication contained in these final regulations has of the notice of proposed rulemaking, been reviewed and approved by the the IRS had not received any comments ***** Office of Management and Budget in or suggestions for extending this rule, 1.179C–1 ...... 1545–2103 accordance with the Paperwork even though the IRS and the Treasury Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Department previously requested ***** 3507(d)) under control number 1545– comments in a prior notice of proposed 1899. The collection of information in rulemaking under section 7502. See Approved: August 9, 2011. these final regulations is in § 301.7502– Federal Register, 64 FR 2606 (January Steven T. Miller, 1. This information is required in order 15, 1999). Because the IRS was Deputy Commissioner for Services and for taxpayers to be able to establish the clarifying what documentation it will Enforcement. postmark date and prima facie evidence accept as proof of delivery, additional Emily S. McMahon, of delivery when using certified or comments were sought on this issue. (Acting) Assistant Secretary of the Treasury registered mail. Accordingly, in the notice of proposed (Tax Policy). An agency may not conduct or rulemaking, the IRS and the Treasury sponsor, and a person is not required to [FR Doc. 2011–21408 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Department encouraged the public to respond to, a collection of information BILLING CODE 4830–01–P make comments regarding whether the unless it displays a valid control prima facie evidence of delivery rule number. should be extended to a service DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Books or records relating to a provided by a PDS. collection of information must be Eighteen written comments were Internal Revenue Service retained as long as their contents might received in response to the notice of become material in the administration proposed rulemaking. Three 26 CFR Part 301 of any internal revenue law. Generally, commenters requested a public hearing. tax returns and return information are A notice of public hearing on proposed [TD 9543] confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. rulemaking was published in the 6103. RIN 1545–BA99 Federal Register (69 FR 68282) on Background November 24, 2004. A public hearing Timely Mailing Treated as Timely Filing was held on January 11, 2005. Three This document contains regulations commenters appeared at the public AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), amending 26 CFR part 301 under hearing and commented on the notice of Treasury. section 7502 of the Internal Revenue proposed rulemaking. ACTION: Final regulations. Code (Code). Section 7502(a) first All comments were considered and appeared as part of the recodification of are available for public inspection upon SUMMARY: This document contains the Code in 1954. Section 7502(a) is request. After consideration of the regulations amending a Treasury commonly known as the timely mailing/ written comments and the comments Regulation to provide guidance as to the timely filing rule. Section 301.7502–1 of provided at the public hearing, the only ways to establish prima facie the Procedure and Administration proposed regulations under section evidence of delivery of documents that Regulations provides rules for taxpayers 7502 are adopted as revised by this have a filing deadline prescribed by the to follow to qualify for favorable Treasury Decision. The public internal revenue laws, absent direct treatment under section 7502. There is comments, public hearing, and the proof of actual delivery. The regulations a conflict among the Federal circuit revisions are discussed in this preamble. provide that the proper use of registered courts of appeal as to whether the or certified mail, or a service of a private provisions in section 7502 provide the Summary of Comments and delivery service (PDS) designated under exclusive means to establish prima facie Explanation of Provisions criteria established by the IRS, will evidence of delivery of a document to Four commenters expressed concern constitute prima facie evidence of the IRS or the United States Tax Court. that the proposed regulations limited delivery. The regulations are necessary Specifically, courts have reached the proof to satisfy the timely mailing/ to provide greater certainty on this issue differing conclusions regarding whether timely filing rule of section 7502(a) and to provide specific guidance. The a taxpayer may raise a presumption of rather than the prima facie evidence of regulations affect taxpayers who mail delivery of Federal tax documents to the delivery rule of section 7502(c). These Federal tax documents to the Internal IRS and the United States Tax Court final regulations do not limit the use of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52562 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

U.S. Mail, other delivery options offered requirement for actual delivery or the Special Analyses by the United States Postal Service use of one of the means discussed above It has been determined that this (USPS), or a PDS for purposes of to establish a presumption of delivery. Treasury decision is not a significant satisfying the timely mailing/timely Former paragraph (e)(2) and the regulatory action as defined in filing rule of section 7502(a). Instead, example in paragraph (e)(3) are moved Executive Order 12866, as these final regulations clarify the prima to paragraph (b)(2) to consolidate the supplemented by Executive Order facie evidence of delivery rule of section discussion of the effect of section 7502 13563. Therefore, a regulatory 7502(c). on certain claims for refund. assessment is not required. It has also Seven commenters suggested that the Seven commenters suggested that the been determined that section 553(b) of proposed regulations provide that proposed regulations should permit the Administrative Procedure Act (5 evidence of proper use of a service additional services offered by the USPS U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these offered by a PDS should establish prima to establish prima facie evidence of regulations. facie evidence of delivery of Federal tax delivery of Federal tax documents to the It is hereby certified that the documents to the IRS and the United IRS and the United States Tax Court. collection of information contained in States Tax Court. Seven commenters Commenters recommended that the this regulation will not have a observed that PDSs offered services following USPS services should be significant economic impact on a similar to certified and registered mail, permitted to establish prima facie substantial number of small entities. and that the services offered by the evidence of delivery: Priority Mail, Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility PDSs were as reliable as registered mail Certificate of Mailing, Express Mail analysis is not required. Although the and certified mail. Two commenters Receipt, Delivery Confirmation Receipt, collection of information in this noted that PDSs generally provide a and Signature Confirmation. Treasury decision affects a substantial greater level of detail with respect to Section 7502 does not authorize the number of small entities, the economic tracking and delivery information than Treasury Department or the IRS to adopt impact on these small entities is not certified and registered mail for a rule that would permit USPS services substantial. If a small entity uses purposes of establishing proof of in addition to certified and registered delivery. Three commenters expressed registered or certified mail to file a mail to establish prima facie evidence of concern that it is inconsistent to permit document with the IRS, the additional delivery. Congress has been clear when individuals to rely upon PDSs to satisfy burden (filling out the appropriate it intended to change section 7502 to the timely mailing/timely filing rule of United States Postal Service forms) over allow proof of delivery by other means. section 7502(a), but not for section and above using regular mail is not In 1958, Congress amended section 7502 7502(c). One commentator observed that substantial. Furthermore, the extra cost to provide the IRS with the authority to section 7502(f)(3) requires that the to use registered or certified mail is not treat certified mail the same as Treasury Secretary and the IRS consider substantial as certified mail costs only registered mail. See Technical PDS alternatives as substitutes for $2.80 and registered mail can be used Amendments Act of 1958, Public Law certified and registered mail. for as little as $10.60. Finally, the added After considering comments received No. 85–866 (72 Stat. 1606 (1958)). burden of retaining the certified or on the proposed regulations, these final Congress also amended section 7502 to registered mail sender’s receipt will be regulations provide that the Treasury authorize the IRS to publish rules minimal as the receipt can be associated Department and IRS will issue guidance providing the extent to which a PDS is with the small entity’s copy of the that will establish the criteria to be used the equivalent of certified mail. See document that it filed with the IRS. to designate PDSs for purposes of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Public Law Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the prima facie evidence of delivery rule. 104–168 (110 Stat. 1452 (1996)); Internal Code, the proposed rule that preceded Cf. Notice 2004–83 (2004–2 CB 1030) Revenue Service Restructuring and this Treasury decision was submitted to (listing PDSs that the Secretary has Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105– the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the designated pursuant to section 206 (112 Stat. 685 (1998)). Similar Small Business Administration for 7502(f)(2)) (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of legislation would be necessary to comment on its impact on small this chapter); Rev. Proc. 97–19 (1997–1 authorize the IRS to treat additional businesses. USPS services as prima facie evidence CB 644) (providing the criteria to Drafting Information determine whether a PDS qualifies as a of delivery. designated private delivery service Two commenters expressed concern The principal author of these under section 7502(f) and the that certified and registered mail regulations is Steven L. Karon of the procedures under which a PDS can services are expensive and inconvenient Office of the Associate Chief Counsel, apply to become a designated PDS) (see in comparison to first class mail. These Procedure and Administration. § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter). commenters suggested that regular first List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301 Thus, these final regulations provide class mail should suffice to establish Employment taxes, Estate taxes, that, other than direct proof of actual prima facie evidence of delivery. As Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, delivery, proof of proper use of described above, the prima facie Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping registered or certified mail (registered or evidence of delivery rule provides an requirements. certified mail sender’s receipt), and exception to the actual delivery rule. proof of proper use of a PDS duly Absent actual delivery, however, first Adoption of Amendments to the designated under criteria established by class mail without additional services Regulations provides nothing, such as certified or the IRS, are the sole means to establish Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is registered mail receipt, to establish prima facie evidence of delivery of amended as follows: documents that have a filing deadline proof of delivery. Moreover, without prescribed by the internal revenue laws. legislative action, the Treasury PART 301—PROCEDURE AND The existing regulations under section Department and the IRS cannot adopt ADMINISTRATION 7502 are being reorganized. Section regulations extending the prima facie 301.7502–1(e) will still be entitled evidence of delivery rule to first class ■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation ‘‘Delivery,’’ but will now focus on the mail. for part 301 is amended by removing the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52563

entry for § 301.7502–1T to read in part (3) Private delivery services. Under (g) * * * as follows: section 7502(f)(1), a service of a private (4) Registered or certified mail as the Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * delivery service (PDS) may be treated as means to prove delivery of a document. an equivalent to United States mail for Section 301.7502–1(e)(2) will apply to ■ Par. 2. Section 301.7502–1 is purposes of the postmark rule if the all documents mailed after September amended by: Commissioner determines that the 21, 2004. ■ 1. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (e). service satisfies the conditions of ■ Steven T. Miller, 2. Adding paragraphs (c)(3) and (g)(4). section 7502(f)(2). Thus, the The additions and revisions read as Deputy Commissioner for Services and Commissioner may, in guidance Enforcement. follows: published in the Internal Revenue Approved: August 10, 2011. § 301.7502–1 Timely mailing of documents Bulletin (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this Emily S. McMahon, and payments treated as timely filing and chapter), prescribe procedures and paying. additional rules to designate a service of Acting Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy). * * * * * a PDS for purposes of the postmark rule [FR Doc. 2011–21416 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] (b) * * * of section 7502(a). BILLING CODE 4830–01–P (2) Claims for refund—(i) In general. * * * * * In the case of certain taxes, a return may (e) Delivery—(1) General rule. Except constitute a claim for credit or refund. as provided in section 7502(f) and DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Section 7502 is applicable to the paragraphs (c)(3) and (d) of this section, SECURITY determination of whether a claim for section 7502 is not applicable unless the Coast Guard credit or refund is timely filed for document or payment is delivered by purposes of section 6511(a) if the U.S. mail to the agency, officer, or office 33 CFR Part 100 conditions of section 7502 are met, with which the document is required to irrespective of whether the claim is also be filed or to which payment is required [Docket No. USCG–2011–0194] a return. For rules regarding claims for to be made. RIN 1625–AA08 refund on late filed tax returns, see (2) Exceptions to actual delivery—(i) paragraph (f) of this section. Section Registered and certified mail. In the case Special Local Regulations; Sabine 7502 is also applicable when a claim for of a document (but not a payment) sent River, Orange, TX credit or refund is delivered after the by registered or certified mail, proof that last day of the period specified in the document was properly registered or AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. section 6511(b)(2)(A) or in any other that a postmarked certified mail ACTION: Temporary Final rule. corresponding provision of law relating sender’s receipt was properly issued SUMMARY: to the limit on the amount of credit or and that the envelope was properly The Coast Guard is refund that is allowable. addressed to the agency, officer, or establishing a temporary Special Local (ii) Example. The rules of paragraph office constitutes prima facie evidence Regulation on the Sabine River within (b)(2)(i) of this section are illustrated by that the document was delivered to the the Port Arthur, TX Captain of the Port the following example: agency, officer, or office. Other than Zone. This Special Local Regulation is direct proof of actual delivery, proof of intended to restrict vessels from Example. (A) Taxpayer A, an individual, portions of the Sabine River during the mailed his 2004 Form 1040, ‘‘U.S. Individual proper use of registered or certified Income Tax Return,’’ on May 10, 2005, but mail, and proof of proper use of a duly annual S.P.O.R.T boat races. This no tax was paid at that time because the tax designated PDS as provided for by Special Local Regulations is necessary liability disclosed by the return had been paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section, are to protect spectators and vessels from completely satisfied by the income tax that the exclusive means to establish prima the hazards associated with powerboat had been withheld on A’s wages. On April races. 15, 2008, A mails, in accordance with the facie evidence of delivery of a document DATES: requirements of this section, a Form 1040X, to the agency, officer, or office with This rule is effective from 8 a.m. ‘‘Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax which the document is required to be on September 24, 2011 to 6 p.m. on Return,’’ claiming a refund of a portion of the filed. No other evidence of a postmark September 25, 2011. This rule will be tax that had been paid through withholding or of mailing will be prima facie enforced from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on during 2004. The date of the postmark on the evidence of delivery or raise a September 24 and 25, 2011. envelope containing the claim for refund is presumption that the document was ADDRESSES: Comments and material April 15, 2008. The claim is received by the delivered. received from the public, as well as IRS on April 18, 2008. (ii) Equivalents of registered and documents mentioned in this preamble (B) Under section 6511(a), A’s claim for certified mail. Under section 7502(f)(3), refund is timely if filed within three years as being available in the docket, are part from May 10, 2005, the date on which A’s the Secretary may extend the prima of docket USCG–2011–0194 and are 2004 return was filed. As a result of the facie evidence of delivery rule of section available online by going to http:// limitations of section 6511(b)(2)(A), if A’s 7502(c)(1)(A) to a service of a designated www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– claim is not filed within three years after PDS, which is substantially equivalent 2011–0194 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and April 15, 2005, the date on which A is to United States registered or certified then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ This material is deemed under section 6513 to have paid his mail. Thus, the Commissioner may, in also available for inspection or copying 2004 tax, A is not entitled to any refund. guidance published in the Internal at the Docket Management Facility (M– Because A’s claim for refund is postmarked Revenue Bulletin (see 30), U.S. Department of Transportation, and mailed in accordance with the § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter), requirements of this section and is delivered West Building Ground Floor, Room after the last day of the period specified in prescribe procedures and additional W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., section 6511(b)(2)(A), section 7502 is rules to designate a service of a PDS for Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. applicable and the claim is deemed to have purposes of demonstrating prima facie and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, been filed on April 15, 2008. evidence of delivery of a document except Federal holidays. * * * * * pursuant to section 7502(c). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If (c) * * * * * * * * you have questions on this temporary

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52564 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

rule, call or e-mail Mr. Scott Whalen, day for two days; (2) scheduled breaks responsiveness to small business. If you Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, TX, will be provided to allow waiting wish to comment on actions by Coast Guard; telephone 409–719–5086, vessels to transit safely through the employees of the Coast Guard, call e-mail [email protected]. If you affected area; and (3) persons and 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). have questions on viewing or submitting vessels may enter, transit through, The Coast Guard will not retaliate material to the docket, call Renee V. anchor in, or remain within the against small entities that question or Wright, Program Manager, Docket regulated area if they obtain permission complain about this rule or any policy Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. from the COTP or the designated or action of the Coast Guard. representative; and (4) advance SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Collection of Information notification will be made to the Regulatory Information maritime community via broadcast This rule calls for no new collection On May 27, 2011, we published a notice to mariners and Local Notice to of information under the Paperwork notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) Mariners (LNM). Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 3520). entitled Special Local Regulations; Small Entities Sabine River, Orange, TX in the Federal Federalism Register (76 FR 103). We received no Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act A rule has implications for federalism comments on the proposed rule. No (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered under Executive Order 13132, public meeting was requested, and none whether this rule would have a Federalism, if it has a substantial direct was held. significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. effect on State or local governments and Background and Purpose The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises would either preempt State law or This temporary special local small businesses, not-for-profit impose a substantial direct cost of regulation is necessary to ensure the organizations that are independently compliance on them. We have analyzed safety of vessels and spectators from owned and operated and are not this rule under that Order and have hazards associated with a powerboat dominant in their fields, and determined that it does not have race. Under the authority of 33 U.S.C. governmental jurisdictions with implications for federalism. 1233, the Captain of the Port has populations of less than 50,000. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Coast Guard certifies under 5 determined that powerboat races in The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act close proximity to watercraft and U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires infrastructure pose significant risk to Federal agencies to assess the effects of public safety and property. Establishing a substantial number of small entities. This rule would not have a significant their discretionary regulatory actions. In a special local regulation around the particular, the Act addresses actions location of the race course will help economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the that may result in the expenditure by a ensure the safety of persons and State, local, or tribal government, in the property at these events and help following reasons: (1) This rule will only be enforced from 8 a.m. until aggregate, or by the private sector of minimize the risks associated with high $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or speed powerboat races. 6 p.m. each day that it is effective; (2) during non-enforcement hours all more in any one year. Though this rule Discussion of Comments and Changes vessels will be allowed to transit would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of We received no comments and no through the safety zone without having this rule elsewhere in this preamble. changes have been made to the to obtain permission from the Captain of proposed rule. the Port, Port Arthur or a designated Taking of Private Property representative; and (3) vessels will be Regulatory Analyses This rule would not cause a taking of allowed to pass through the zone with private property or otherwise have We developed this rule after permission of the Coast Guard Patrol taking implications under Executive considering numerous statutes and Commander during scheduled break Order 12630, Governmental Actions and executive orders related to rulemaking. periods between races and at other Interference with Constitutionally Below we summarize our analyses times when permitted by the Coast Protected Property Rights. based on 13 of these statutes or Guard Patrol Commander. executive orders. Civil Justice Reform Assistance for Small Entities Regulatory Planning and Review This rule meets applicable standards Under section 213(a) of the Small in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive This rule is not a significant Business Regulatory Enforcement Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to regulatory action under section 3(f) of Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), minimize litigation, eliminate Executive Order 12866, Regulatory in the NPRM we offered to assist small ambiguity, and reduce burden. Planning and Review, as supplemented entities in understanding the rule so by Executive Order 13563, Improving that they could better evaluate its effects Protection of Children Regulation and Regulatory Review, and on them and participate in the We have analyzed this rule under does not require an assessment of rulemaking process. Executive Order 13045, Protection of potential costs and benefits under Small businesses may send comments Children from Environmental Health section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order on the actions of Federal employees Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 12866 or under section 1 of Executive who enforce, or otherwise determine an economically significant rule and Order 13563. The Office of Management compliance with, Federal regulations to would not create an environmental risk and Budget has not reviewed it under the Small Business and Agriculture to health or risk to safety that might that those Orders. Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman disproportionately affect children. The Coast Guard has determined that and the Regional Small Business this rule is not a significant regulatory Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Indian Tribal Governments action for the following reasons: (1) The Ombudsman evaluates these actions This rule does not have tribal rule will be enforced for ten hours each annually and rates each agency’s implications under Executive Order

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52565

13175, Consultation and Coordination involves the establishment of a Special designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard with Indian Tribal Governments, Local Regulation. An environmental patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast because it would not have a substantial analysis checklist and a categorical Guard patrol personnel include direct effect on one or more Indian exclusion determination are available in commissioned, warrant, and petty tribes, on the relationship between the the docket where indicated under officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Federal Government and Indian tribes, ADDRESSES. Dated: June 29, 2011. or on the distribution of power and Z.H. Pickett, responsibilities between the Federal List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 Government and Indian tribes. Marine safety, Navigation (water), Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur Acting. Reporting and recordkeeping Energy Effects requirements, Waterways. [FR Doc. 2011–21461 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P We have analyzed this rule under For the reasons discussed in the Executive Order 13211, Actions preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 Concerning Regulations That CFR part 100 as follows: Significantly Affect Energy Supply, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Distribution, or Use. We have PART 100 —REGULATED—SAFETY determined that it is not a ‘‘significant OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS Coast Guard energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ ■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 33 CFR Part 117 under Executive Order 12866 and is not continues to read as follows: likely to have a significant adverse effect Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. [Docket Number USCG–2011–0761] on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office ■ 2. Add a temporary § 100.35T08–0194 RIN 1625–AA09 of Information and Regulatory Affairs to read as follows: Drawbridge Operation Regulation; has not designated it as a significant § 100.35T08–0194 Special Local Illinois Waterway, Joliet, IL energy action. Therefore, it does not Regulations for Marine Events; Sabine require a Statement of Energy Effects River, Orange, TX. AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. under Executive Order 13211. (a) Definitions. As used in this section ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation Technical Standards ‘‘Participant Vessel’’ means all vessels from regulations. The National Technology Transfer officially registered with event officials SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 to race or work in the event. These Coast Guard District, has issued a U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use vessels include race boats, rescue boats, temporary deviation from the regulation voluntary consensus standards in their tow boats, and picket boats associated governing the operation of the Elgin regulatory activities unless the agency with the race. Joliet and Eastern Railroad Drawbridge, provides Congress, through the Office of (b) Location. The following area is a across the Illinois Waterway, mile 290.1, Management and Budget, with an safety zone: All waters of the Sabine at Joliet, Illinois. The deviation is explanation of why using these River, shoreline to shoreline, adjacent to necessary to allow the replacement of standards would be inconsistent with the Naval Reserve Unit and the Orange the existing bridge miter rail joints and applicable law or otherwise impractical. public boat ramps located in Orange, installation of lift span alignment guides Voluntary consensus standards are TX. The northern boundary is from the ° ′ ″ to ensure precise seating. This deviation technical standards (e.g., specifications end of Navy Pier One at 30 05 45 N ° ′ ″ allows the bridge to be maintained in of materials, performance, design, or 93 43 24 W then easterly to the rivers the closed-to-navigation position for ten operation; test methods; sampling eastern shore. The southern boundary is hours. procedures; and related management a line shoreline to shoreline at latitude 30°05′33″ N. DATES: This deviation is effective from systems practices) that are developed or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 30, 2011. adopted by voluntary consensus (c) Enforcement Period. This ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in standards bodies. regulation will be enforced daily from This rule does not use technical 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on September 24 and this preamble as being available in the standards. Therefore, we did not 25, 2011. docket are part of docket USCG–2011– consider the use of voluntary consensus (d) Regulations. 0761 and are available online by going standards. (1) In accordance with the general to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting regulations in § 100 of this part, entry USCG–2011–0761 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ Environment into this zone is prohibited to all vessels box and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. They We have analyzed this rule under except participant vessels and those are also available for inspection or Department of Homeland Security vessels specifically authorized by the copying at the Docket Management Management Directive 023–01 and Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or a Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, designated representative. Transportation, West Building Ground which guide the Coast Guard in (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey complying with the National into or passage through must request Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Environmental Policy Act of 1969 permission from the Captain of the Port, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and Port Arthur, or a designated through Friday, except Federal holidays. have concluded this action is one of a representative. They may be contacted FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you category of actions which do not on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or by have questions on this rule, call or email individually or cumulatively have a telephone at (409) 723–6500. Eric A. Washburn, Bridge significant effect on the human (3) All persons and vessels shall Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast environment. This rule is categorically comply with the instructions of the Guard; telephone (314) 269–2378, excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, e-mail [email protected]. If you (34)(h), of the Instruction. This rule designated representatives and have questions on viewing the docket,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52566 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, determine whether a permanent change may submit your comments and Docket Operations, telephone (202) to the schedule is necessary. This material online (http:// 366–9826. deviation will change the current eight www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The hour advance notice requirement for a hand delivery, but please use only one Canadian National Railway requested a bridge opening to a 48 hour advance of these means. If you submit a temporary deviation for the Elgin Joliet notice requirement for a bridge opening. comment online via http:// and Eastern Railroad Drawbridge, across DATES: This deviation is effective from www.regulations.gov, it will be the Illinois Waterway, mile 290.1, at August 23, 2011 through February 21, considered received by the Coast Guard Joliet, Illinois to remain in the closed- 2012. when you successfully transmit the to-navigation position for ten hours Comments and related material must comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or while repair work is done on the be received by the Coast Guard on mail your comment, it will be drawbridge. The Elgin Joliet and Eastern December 21, 2011. considered as having been received by Railroad Drawbridge currently operates ADDRESSES: You may submit comments the Coast Guard when it is received at in accordance with 33 CFR 117.393(d), identified by docket number USCG– the Docket Management Facility. We which states that the drawspan is 2011–0591 using any one of the recommend that you include your name normally maintained in the fully open following methods: and a mailing address, an e-mail to navigation position and the (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: address, or a phone number in the body drawbridge is operated by remote http://www.regulations.gov. of your document so that we can contact operator located at the Elgin, Joliet & (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. you if we have questions regarding your Eastern offices in East Joliet, Illinois. (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility submission. There are no alternate routes for (M–30), U.S. Department of To submit your comment online, go to vessels transiting this section of the Transportation, West Building Ground http://www.regulations.gov, click on the Illinois Waterway. Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey ‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will The Elgin Joliet and Eastern Railroad Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– then become highlighted in blue. In the Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation 0001. ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011– 0591,’’ click ‘‘Search,’’ and then click on position, provides a vertical clearance of (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail the balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ 24.6 feet above normal pool. Navigation address above, between 9 a.m. and column. If you submit your comments on the waterway consists primarily of 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except by mail or hand delivery, submit them commercial tows and recreational Federal holidays. The telephone number in an unbound format, no larger than watercraft. This temporary deviation has is 202–366–9329. 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying been coordinated with waterway users. To avoid duplication, please use only and electronic filing. If you submit them No objections were received. one of these four methods. See the by mail and would like to know that In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), ‘‘Public Participation and Request for they reached the Facility, please enclose the drawbridge must return to its regular Comments’’ portion of the a stamped, self-addressed postcard or operating schedule immediately at the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section envelope. We will consider all end of the designated time period. This below for instructions on submitting comments and material received during deviation from the operating regulations comments. the comment period and may change is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If the rule based on your comments. Dated: August 2, 2011. you have questions on this proposed Viewing Comments and Documents Eric A. Washburn, rule, call or e-mail Lindsey Middleton, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers. Coast Guard; telephone 757–398–6629, To view comments, as well as [FR Doc. 2011–21456 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] e-mail [email protected]. If documents mentioned in this preamble you have questions on viewing or as being available in the docket, go to BILLING CODE 9110–04–P submitting material to the docket, call http://www.regulations.gov, click on the Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– become highlighted in blue. In the SECURITY 9826. ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 0591’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the Coast Guard ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ Public Participation and Request for column. You may also visit the Docket 33 CFR Part 117 Comments Management Facility in Room W12–140 We encourage you to participate in on the ground floor of the Department [Docket No. USCG–2011–0591] this rulemaking by submitting of Transportation West Building, 1200 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; comments and related materials. All New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, Anacostia River, Washington, DC comments received will be posted, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., without change, to http:// Monday through Friday, except Federal AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. www.regulations.gov and will include holidays. We have an agreement with ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation any personal information you have the Department of Transportation to use from regulations; request for comments. provided. the Docket Management Facility.

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Submitting Comments Privacy Act Guard District, has issued a temporary If you submit a comment, please Anyone can search the electronic deviation from the regulation governing include the docket number for this form of comments received into any of the operation of the CSX Railroad rulemaking (USCG–2011–0591), our dockets by the name of the Vertical Lift Bridge across the Anacostia indicate the specific section of this individual submitting the comment (or River, mile 3.4, at Washington, DC. This document to which each comment signing the comment, if submitted on deviation will test a change to the applies, and provide a reason for each behalf of an association, business, labor drawbridge operation schedule to suggestion or recommendation. You union, etc.). You may review a Privacy

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52567

Act notice regarding our public dockets five feet. The test period will go into 0863 and are available by going to in the January 17, 2008, issue of the effect immediately and will end 180 http://www.regulations.gov, inserting Federal Register (73 FR 3316). days from the effective date. The test USCG–2009–0863 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ deviation will be in effect box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ This Public Meeting simultaneously with a notice of material is also available for inspection We do not now plan to hold a public proposed rulemaking which is also part or copying at the Docket Management meeting. But you may submit a request of docket no. USCG–2011–0591, for the Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of for one using one of the four methods same operating regulation change. Transportation, West Building Ground specified under ADDRESSES. Please Vessels that are able to pass under the Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey explain why one would be beneficial. If bridge in the closed position may do so Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, we determine that one would aid this at any time. There are no alternate between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday rulemaking, we will hold one at a time routes for vessels that cannot pass under through Friday, except Federal holidays. and place announced by a later notice the bridge in the closed position. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If in the Federal Register. Coast Guard will inform waterway users you have questions on this rule, call or Basis and Purpose through the Local and Broadcast Notices e-mail David Frank, Bridge to Mariners. The bridge will be able to Administrator, Coast Guard; telephone The CSX Railroad Company has open for emergencies. 504–671–2128, e-mail requested a change in the operation In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), [email protected]. If you have regulations for the CSX Railroad the drawbridge must return to its regular questions on viewing the docket, call Vertical Lift Bridge, across the operating schedule immediately at the Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Anacostia River, mile 3.4, at end of the designated time period. This Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– Washington, DC. The change will 9826. replace the current eight hour advance deviation from the operating regulations notice requirement for a bridge opening is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to a 48 hour advance notice requirement Dated: July 22, 2011. Regulatory Information for a bridge opening. The bridge is part William D. Lee, On December 22, 2009, we published of a rail line that is used for regular Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, an interim rule with request for passenger service therefore, it is Fifth Coast Guard District. comments in the Federal Register (74 necessary that ample time is given to [FR Doc. 2011–21458 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] FR 67974). No comments were received. maintain an accurate schedule for trains BILLING CODE 9110–04–P No public hearing was requested and and vessels for safe and efficient travel none was held. across and through the bridge. The current operating schedule for the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Basis and Purpose bridge is set out in 33 CFR 117.253(b). SECURITY The LDOTD requested that the The regulation was established in operating regulation of the SR 433 August 2004 and allows the bridge to be Coast Guard Swing Span Bridge across Bonfouca operated from a remote location, the Bayou, mile 7.0 at Slidell, Louisiana be Benning Yard office. The draw of the 33 CFR Part 117 changed in order to allow for signaled bridge shall open on signal at all times [Docket No. USCG–2009–0863] openings to begin later in the mornings for public vessels of the United States, and later in the evenings during the state and local government vessels, RIN 1625–AA09 months of daylight savings time from commercial vessels and any vessels in March 1 through October 30 each year. Drawbridge Operation Regulation; an emergency involving danger to life or LDOTD indicated that extending the Bonfouca Bayou, Slidell, LA property. The draw shall open on signal morning requirement for a two-hour between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m., and AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. notice by one hour will not affect between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. from May 15 ACTION: Final rule. mariners passing through the bridge through September 30; and between because few mariners do so in the 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. from May 15 through SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing morning. September 30 if notice is given to the the regulation governing the operation Bridge tender logs indicate that most controller no later than 6 p.m. on the of the State Route (SR) 433 Swing Span recreational vessels transit the bridge day for which the opening is requested. Bridge across Bonfouca Bayou, mile 7.0, during spring, summer and fall months At all other times the bridge will open at Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, than during the winter months of if at least 8 hours notice is given. Louisiana. The Louisiana Department of November through February. The logs The vertical clearance of the bridge is Transportation and Development also show that most of the recreational 5 feet at Mean High Water in the closed (LDOTD) requested that the operating boaters do not signal for an opening position and 29 feet at Mean High Water regulation of the SR 433 swing span prior to 7 a.m. in the open position. We are testing the bridge be changed in order to allow for In the interim rule we extended the potential operating regulation signaled openings to begin later in the time for the bridge to open on signal to adjustment to discover any impacts to mornings and later in the evenings 9 p.m., during the months of daylight train traffic and water navigation as a during the months of daylight savings savings time, thereby affording mariners result of the bridge opening request time time. the opportunity to extend their activities adjustment. During the test deviation for the full period of daylight each day. period a bridge opening count has been DATES: This rule is effective September We also delayed the beginning of the on requested from the CSX Railroad 22, 2011. signal openings to 7 a.m. so that the Company. There are 21 train transits ADDRESSES: Comments and related evening extension did not unduly across this bridge every day. A review materials received from the public, as burden the bridge owner by of the bridge operating logs shows two well as documents mentioned in this significantly increasing the length of bridge openings have been requested in preamble as being available in the time it is necessary to continuously man the past two years for vessels taller than docket, are part of docket USCG–2009– the bridge.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52568 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Prior to publishing the interim rule, ‘‘Small entities’’ include (1) Small we do discuss the effects of this rule 33 CFR 117.433 stated: The draw of the businesses, not-for-profit organizations elsewhere in this preamble. S433 Bridge, mile 7.0, at Slidell, shall that are independently owned and Taking of Private Property open on signal, except that from 6 p.m. operated and are not dominant in their to 6 a.m. the draw shall open on signal fields, and (2) governmental This rule will not cause a taking of if at least two hours notice is given. On jurisdictions with populations of less private property or otherwise have Monday through Friday, except Federal than 50,000. taking implications under Executive holidays, the draw need not open for the The Coast Guard certifies under 5 Order 12630, Governmental Actions and passage of vessels from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not Interference with Constitutionally and from 1:45 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. have a significant economic impact on Protected Property Rights. This final rule replaces the interim a substantial number of small entities. Civil Justice Reform rule and allows the bridge to open on This rule will affect the following signal, except that from March 1 entities, some of which might be small This rule meets applicable standards through October 30, the regular boating entities: The owners or operators of in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive season, the draw shall open on signal if vessels patronizing the marina just Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to at least two hours notice is given from upstream of the bridge and owners or minimize litigation, eliminate 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. During the winter operators of small commercial fishing ambiguity, and reduce burden. months of November 1 through vessels. This rule extends by one hour Protection of Children February 28 or 29, the bridge will revert the total duration of the on-demand to the two-hour notice requirement from bridge openings and changes the time of We have analyzed this rule under 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. To continue to day for on-demand bridge openings Executive Order 13045, Protection of accommodate rush hour vehicular from 6 a.m.–6 p.m. to 7 a.m.–9 p.m. Children from Environmental Health traffic the bridge will continue to Bridge logs indicate the morning delay Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not remain closed to navigation, Monday will have minimal impact on bridge an economically significant rule and through Friday, except Federal holidays, openings therefore this rule will not would not create an environmental risk from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 1:45 p.m. affect a substantial number of small to health or risk to safety that might to 2:45 p.m. entities and therefore will not have a disproportionately affect children. substantial economic impact. Discussion of Comments and Changes Indian Tribal Governments The Coast Guard received no Assistance for Small Entities This rule does not have tribal comments or requests for changes to the Under section 213(a) of the Small implications under Executive Order interim rule and the Coast Guard made Business Regulatory Enforcement 13175, Consultation and Coordination no changes to the interim rule. Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), with Indian Tribal Governments, in the interim rule we offered to assist because it does not have a substantial Regulatory Analyses small entities in understanding the rule direct effect on one or more Indian We developed this rule after so that they could better evaluate its tribes, on the relationship between the considering numerous statutes and effects on them and participate in the Federal Government and Indian tribes, executive orders related to rulemaking. rulemaking process. or on the distribution of power and Below we summarize our analyses responsibilities between the Federal based on 13 of these statutes or Collection of Information Government and Indian tribes. executive orders. This rule calls for no new collection Energy Effects of information under the Paperwork Regulatory Planning and Review Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– We have analyzed this rule under This rule is not a significant 3520). Executive Order 13211, Actions regulatory action under section 3(f) of Concerning Regulations That Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Federalism Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Planning and Review, as supplemented A rule has implications for federalism Distribution, or Use. We have by Executive Order 13563, Improving under Executive Order 13132, determined that it is not a ‘‘significant Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Federalism, if it has a substantial direct energy action’’ under that order because does not require an assessment of effect on State or local governments and it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ potential costs and benefits under would either preempt State law or under Executive Order 12866 and is not section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order impose a substantial direct cost of likely to have a significant adverse effect 13563. The Office of Management and compliance on them. We have analyzed on the supply, distribution, or use of Budget has not reviewed it under those this rule under that Order and have energy. The Administrator of the Office Orders. determined that it does not have of Information and Regulatory Affairs We expect the economic impact of implications for federalism. has not designated it as a significant this rule to be so minimal that a full energy action. Therefore, it does not Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. require a Statement of Energy Effects The interim rule has been in effect since The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act under Executive Order 13211. December 22, 2009 and no complaints of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Technical Standards or comments have been received by the Federal agencies to assess the effects of Coast Guard from any waterway users. their discretionary regulatory actions. In The National Technology Transfer particular, the Act addresses actions and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 Small Entities that may result in the expenditure by a U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act State, local, or tribal government, in the voluntary consensus standards in their (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard aggregate, or by the private sector of regulatory activities unless the agency considers whether this final rule will $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or provides Congress, through the Office of have a significant economic impact on more in any one year. Though this rule Management and Budget, with an a substantial number of small entities. will not result in such an expenditure, explanation of why using these

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52569

standards would be inconsistent with Dated: July 27, 2011. To avoid duplication, please use only applicable law or otherwise impractical. Roy A. Nash, one of these four methods. See the Voluntary consensus standards are Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, ‘‘Public Participation and Request for technical standards (e.g., specifications Eighth Coast Guard District. Comments’’ portion of the of materials, performance, design, or [FR Doc. 2011–21459 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section operation; test methods; sampling BILLING CODE 9110–04–P below for instructions on submitting procedures; and related management comments. systems practices) that are developed or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND adopted by voluntary consensus you have questions on this interim rule, SECURITY standards bodies. call or e-mail Mr. Jeff Yunker, U.S. Coast This rule does not use technical Guard Sector New York Waterways standards. Therefore, we did not Coast Guard Management Division, Coast Guard; consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. 33 CFR Part 165 telephone 718–354–4195, e-mail [email protected], or Lieutenant Environment [Docket No. USCG–2011–0727] Junior Grade Isaac Slavitt, Coast Guard We have analyzed this rule under RIN 1625–AA11 First District Waterways Management Department of Homeland Security Branch, telephone 617–223–8385, Management Directive 023–01 and Regulated Navigation Area; Arthur Kill, e-mail [email protected]. If you Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, NY and NJ have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. which guides the Coast Guard in AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. complying with the National Wright, Program Manager, Docket ACTION: Temporary interim rule with Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. Environmental Policy Act of 1969 request for comments. (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: have concluded that this action is one The Coast Guard is Public Participation and Request for of a category of actions which do not establishing a Regulated Navigation Comments individually or cumulatively have a Area (RNA) on the navigable waters of significant effect on the human the Arthur Kill in New York and New We encourage you to participate in environment. This rule is categorically Jersey. This temporary interim rule is this rulemaking by submitting excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph necessary to enhance navigation, vessel comments and related materials. All (32)(e), of the Instruction. safety, marine environmental comments received will be posted, Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of protection, and provide for the safety of without change, to http:// the Instruction, an environmental life on the navigable waters during www.regulations.gov and will include analysis checklist and a categorical drilling, blasting and dredging any personal information you have exclusion determination are not operations in support of the U.S. Army provided. required for this rule. Corps of Engineers channel deepening As this interim rule will be in effect project. We seek comments regarding before the end of the comment period, List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 this rule and will consider those the Coast Guard will evaluate and revise Bridges. comments before issuing a final rule. this rule as necessary to address For the reasons discussed in the DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR significant public comments. preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 on August 23, 2011 until 5 p.m. on Alternatively, if the dredging project CFR part 117 as follows: April 1, 2014. This rule is effective with necessitating the interim rule is actual notice for purposes of completed before April 1, 2014, and we PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE enforcement from 8 a.m. on August 12, receive no public comments that OPERATION REGULATIONS 2011 until 5 p.m. on April 1, 2014. indicate a substantive need to revise the rule, we may allow it to expire on that ■ Comments and related material must 1. The authority citation for part 117 date without further regulatory action. continues to read as follows: reach the Coast Guard on or before September 22, 2011 but will be accepted Submitting Comments Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; and reviewed by the Coast Guard Department of Homeland Security Delegation through April 1, 2014, that is, for as long If you submit a comment, please No. 0170.1. as the RNA is in place. include the docket number for this ■ 2. Revise § 117.433 to read as follows: ADDRESSES: You may submit comments rulemaking (USCG–2011–0727), identified by docket number USCG– indicate the specific section of this § 117.433 Bonfouca Bayou. 2011–0727 using any one of the document to which each comment The draw of the S433 Bridge, mile 7.0, following methods: applies, and provide a reason for each at Slidell, shall open on signal, except (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: suggestion or recommendation. You that from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. from http://www.regulations.gov. may submit your comments and November 1 through February 28 or (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. material online (via http:// February 29, the draw shall open on (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail or signal if at least two hours, notice is (M–30), U.S. Department of hand delivery, but please use only one given. From March 1 through October Transportation, West Building Ground of these means. If you submit a 30, from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. the draw shall Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey comment online via http:// open on signal if at least two hours, Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– www.regulations.gov, it will be notice is given. On Monday through 0001. considered received by the Coast Guard Friday, except Federal holidays, (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail when you successfully transmit the throughout the year, the draw need not address above, between 9 a.m. and comment. If you fax, hand delivery or open for the passage of vessels from 7 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except mail your comment, it will be a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 1:45 p.m. to Federal holidays. The telephone number considered as having been received by 2:45 p.m. is 202–366–9329. the Coast Guard when it is received at

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:15 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52570 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

the Docket Management Facility. We methods specified under ADDRESSES. areas. These simulations studied the recommend that you include your name Please explain why you believe such a possibility of reducing the size of the and a mailing address, an e-mail public meeting would be beneficial. If drilling and blasting areas in order to address, or a telephone number in the we determine that one would aid this maintain one-half of the channel open at body of your document so that we can rulemaking, we will hold one at a time all times for vessel transits. The results contact you if we have questions and place announced by a later notice of the simulation allowed the USACE to regarding your submission. in the Federal Register. The Coast determine that, although it was possible To submit your comment online, go to Guard has held or participated in to conduct the channel deepening http://www.regulations.gov, click on the fourteen locally announced informal without completely closing the Arthur ‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will waterway user meetings where Kill, additional coordination meetings then become highlighted in blue. In the waterway closures and restrictions were were necessary. ‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu discussed. We anticipate holding Five additional meetings were held select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert additional informal meetings, with between April and June 2011 to discuss ‘‘USCG–2011–0727’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ opportunity for public questions or the results of the navigation box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the comments, during this project. We will simulations. In June the USACE and the balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. provide written summaries of any such contractor presented a revised drilling, If you submit comments by mail or hand meetings in the docket. blasting and dredging plan, which delivery, submit them in an unbound called for reduction in the channel 1 Regulatory Information format, no larger than 8 ⁄2 by 11 inches, width during the deepening project. The The Coast Guard is issuing this suitable for copying and electronic drilling, blasting and dredging interim rule without prior notice and filing. If you submit comments by mail operations will render a portion of the opportunity to comment pursuant to and would like to know that they Arthur Kill unavailable to vessel authority under section 4(a) of the APA, reached the Facility, please enclose a navigation and decrease the overall 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision stamped, self-addressed postcard or width of the navigable channel that is authorizes an agency to issue a rule envelope. We will consider all available to deep draft commercial without prior notice and opportunity to comments and material received during vessels. The Coast Guard initially comment when the agency for good the comment period and will consider planned to control traffic under the cause finds that those procedures are those comments before issuing a final auspices of the Vessel Traffic Service rule. ‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. (VTS) New York, but as a result of the Viewing Comments and Documents 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that June 2011 meeting with the USACE, it was determined that a Regulated To view comments, as well as good cause exists for not publishing a Navigation Area (RNA) would be documents mentioned in this preamble notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) necessary. The dynamic nature of the as being available in the docket, go to with respect to this rule because dredging process and multitude of http://www.regulations.gov, click on the immediate action is necessary to ensure drilling and blasting equipment ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then the safety of the public in the vicinity associated with the project necessitates become highlighted in blue. In the of the drilling, dredging and blasting that all mariners comply with this RNA, ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2011– operations being conducted in the as the drilling and blasting equipment 0727’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the Arthur Kill. In November 2010, configuration may change on a daily ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ Northeast Dredging Company, the basis. Immediate action is needed to column. You may also visit the Docket contractor, advised that the Arthur Kill control vessels operating in the reduced Management Facility in Room W12–140 Channel Deepening Project would waterway and protect the maritime on the ground floor of the Department require rolling two-week closures of the public from the hazards associated with of Transportation West Building, 1200 middle third of the Arthur Kill to drilling, blasting and dredging New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, conduct the drilling and blasting operations on a constricted waterway. DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., operations. The requested closure of the Publishing a NPRM and waiting 30 days Monday through Friday, except Federal Arthur Kill would have shut down the for comment would be contrary to the holidays. We have an agreement with Arthur Kill to all deep draft vessels in public interest since immediate action is the Department of Transportation to use the area resulting in a long term needed to restrict vessel traffic and the Docket Management Facility. disruption to cargo and oil terminal facilities operations. We advised the protect the maritime public from the Privacy Act U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) hazards associated with drilling, Anyone can search the electronic and the contractor that the complete blasting and dredging operations. form of comments received into any of closure of the Arthur Kill for two-week For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. our dockets by the name of the periods during the course of the 553(d)(3) the Coast Guard finds that individual submitting the comment (or deepening project would negatively good cause exists for making this rule signing the comment, if submitted on impact navigational safety on the effective less than 30 days after behalf of an association, business, labor waterway and that an alternative publication in the Federal Register. union, etc.). You may review a Privacy proposal that would keep the channel Basis and Purpose Act notice regarding our public dockets open to vessel traffic was necessary. in the January 17, 2008, issue of the We participated in nine initial Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Federal Register (73 FR 3316). planning meetings with the USACE, Act, the Coast Guard has the authority harbor and docking pilots, tugboat to establish RNAs in defined water areas Public Meeting operators, facility operators, and the that are determined to have hazardous We do not now plan to hold a public contractors between January and April conditions and in which vessel traffic meeting within the meaning of the 2011. In early April 2011 the USACE, can be regulated in the interest of safety. Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 with the assistance of harbor and See 33 U.S.C. 1231 and Department of U.S.C. 553. But you may submit a docking pilots, conducted simulator Homeland Security Delegation No. request for one using one of the four assessments of the drilling and blasting 0170.1.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52571

The purpose of this interim rule is to Order. The Office of Management and Assistance for Small Entities ensure the safe transit of vessels in the Budget has not reviewed it under that area and to protect all persons, vessels, Order. Under section 213(a) of the Small and the marine environment during the The economic impact of this rule will Business Regulatory Enforcement ongoing channel deepening project. be severely limited for the following Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), reasons: (1) The RNA does not prohibit we offer to assist small entities in Discussion of Rule vessels from transiting the area; (2) understanding the rule so that they can The RNA encompasses all waters of vessels will be allowed to safely transit better evaluate its effects on them and the North of Shooters Island Reach, without restrictions in areas where there participate in the rulemaking process. Elizabethport Reach, and Gulfport are no dredges or drill barges operating; Small businesses may send comments Reach in the Arthur Kill. (3) vessels may be allowed to transit on the actions of federal employees who Drilling and blasting operations began work areas where dredges and/or drill enforce, or otherwise determine in the Arthur Kill on Tuesday, August barges are operating unless blasting compliance with, federal regulations to 2, 2011. The project consists of operations are underway; (4) delays the Small Business and Agriculture dredging, drilling and underwater resulting from blast operations are Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman blasting of bedrock in the Arthur Kill expected to last no longer than 15 and the Regional Small Business navigable channel. Dredging operations minutes and occur twice daily; and (5) Regulatory Fairness Boards. The will encroach on portions of the advance notification will be made to the Ombudsman evaluates these actions navigable channel, require the maritime community via Local Notice to annually and rates each agency’s relocation of lateral aids to navigation, Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, responsiveness to small business. If you and create a reduction in the width of and on the Internet at http:// wish to comment on actions by the navigable channel. homeport.uscg.mil/newyork. employees of the Coast Guard, call This interim rule seeks to enhance Small Entities 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). navigational safety and marine The Coast Guard will not retaliate environmental protection, and promote Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act against small entities that question or vessel movement by reducing the (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered complain about this rule or any policy potential for collisions, groundings, and whether this rule would have a or action of the Coast Guard. the loss of lives and property. This significant economic impact on a interim rule became effective with substantial number of small entities. Collection of Information actual notice upon being signed by the The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises This rule calls for no new collection District Commander; however the Coast small businesses, not-for-profit of information under the Paperwork organizations that are independently Guard would like to receive comments Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– owned and operated and are not before issuing a final rule. 3520). Any violation of the RNA described dominant in their fields, and herein is punishable by, among others, governmental jurisdictions with Federalism civil and criminal penalties, in rem populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 A rule has implications for federalism liability against the offending vessel, under Executive Order 13132, and the initiation of suspension or U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a Federalism, if it has a substantial direct revocation proceedings against Coast effect on State or local governments and Guard-issued merchant-mariner substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following would either preempt State law or credentials. impose a substantial direct cost of The Captain of the Port (COTP) New entities, some of which may be small compliance on them. We have analyzed York will cause notice of enforcement, entities: the owners or operators of this rule under that Order and have suspension of enforcement, or closure of vessels intending to transit in a portion determined that it does not have the waterway to be made by all of the Arthur Kill from August 12, 2011 implications for federalism. appropriate means to effect the widest until the Arthur Kill Channel Deepening distribution among the affected Project is completed. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act segments of the public. Such means of This rule will not have a significant notification may include, but are not economic impact on a substantial The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners number of small entities for the of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires and Local Notice to Mariners. following reasons: although the federal agencies to assess the effects of regulated navigation area will apply to their discretionary regulatory actions. In Regulatory Analyses the entire width of the Arthur Kill, particular, the Act addresses actions We developed this interim rule after vessel traffic will be allowed to pass that may result in the expenditure by a considering numerous statutes and through the regulated area by State, local, or tribal government, in the executive orders related to rulemaking. coordinating with Vessel Traffic Service aggregate, or by the private sector of Below we summarize our analyses New York (VTSNY). Before the effective $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or based on 13 of these statutes or period, we will issue maritime more in any one year. Though this rule executive orders. advisories widely available to users of will not result in such an expenditure, the waterway. we do discuss the effects of this rule Executive Order 12866 and Executive If you think that your business, elsewhere in this preamble. Order 13563 organization, or governmental Taking of Private Property This rule is not a significant jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity regulatory action under section 3(f) of and that this rule would have a This rule will not cause a taking of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory significant economic impact on it, private property or otherwise have Planning and Review, as supplemented please submit a comment (see taking implications under Executive by Executive Order 13563, and does not ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it Order 12630, Governmental Actions and require an assessment of potential costs qualifies and how and to what degree Interference with Constitutionally and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that this rule would economically affect it. Protected Property Rights.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52572 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Civil Justice Reform This rule does not use technical (2) All vessels must remain at least This rule meets applicable standards standards. Therefore, we did not 150 feet from all drilling and blasting in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive consider the use of voluntary consensus equipment; if a vessel must pass within Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to standards. 150 feet of drilling and blasting equipment for reasons of safety, they minimize litigation, eliminate Environment ambiguity, and reduce burden. shall contact the dredge and/or blasting We have analyzed this rule under barge on Channel 13. Protection of Children Department of Homeland Security (3) No vessel shall enter or transit any Management Directive 023–01 and We have analyzed this rule under work area where drill barges and/or Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, dredges are located without the Executive Order 13045, Protection of which guide the Coast Guard in Children from Environmental Health permission of Vessel Traffic Service complying with the National New York (VTSNY) Director. Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not Environmental Policy Act of 1969 an economically significant rule and (4) No vessel may be underway within (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 1,500 feet of the blasting area during does not create an environmental risk to have concluded this action is one of a health or risk to safety that may blasting operations. category of actions that do not (5) No vessel shall enter an area of disproportionately affect children. individually or cumulatively have a drilling or blasting when they are Indian Tribal Governments significant effect on the human advised by the drilling barge or VTSNY environment. This rule is categorically This rule does not have tribal that a misfire or hang fire has occurred. excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph implications under Executive Order (6) Vessel Movement Reporting (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 13175, Consultation and Coordination System (VMRS) users are prohibited involves the establishment of a RNA. An with Indian Tribal Governments, from meeting or overtaking other vessels environmental analysis checklist and a because it does not have a substantial when transiting alongside an active categorical exclusion determination are direct effect on one or more Indian work area where dredging and drilling available in the docket where indicated tribes, on the relationship between the equipment are being operated. under ADDRESSES. (7) Each vessel transiting in the Federal Government and Indian tribes, vicinity of a work area where dredges or on the distribution of power and List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 are located is required to do so at responsibilities between the Federal Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation reduced speed to maintain Government and Indian tribes. (water), Reporting and recordkeeping maneuverability while minimizing the Energy Effects requirements, Security measures, effects of wake and surge. Waterways. We have analyzed this rule under (8) The VTSNY Director may impose For the reasons discussed in the Executive Order 13211, Actions additional requirements through VTS preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 Concerning Regulations That measures, as per 33 CFR 161.11. CFR part 165 as follows: Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (c) Effective Period. This rule is Distribution, or Use. We have effective from 8 a.m. on August 12, 2011 PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION until 5 p.m. on April 1, 2014. determined that it is not a ‘‘significant AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS energy action’’ under that order because Dated: 12 Aug 2011. it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 J.B. McPherson, under Executive Order 12866 and is not continues to read as follows: Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First likely to have a significant adverse effect Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Coast Guard District, Acting. on the supply, distribution, or use of Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; [FR Doc. 2011–21460 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] energy. The Administrator of the Office 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P of Information and Regulatory Affairs 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of has not designated it as a significant Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. energy action. Therefore, it does not ■ 2. Add § 165.T01–0727 to read as DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS require a Statement of Energy Effects follows: AFFAIRS under Executive Order 13211. § 165.T01–0727 Regulated Navigation 38 CFR Parts 3 and 20 Technical Standards Area; Arthur Kill, NY and NJ. RIN 2900–AO06 The National Technology Transfer (a) Regulated Area. The following area and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 is a regulated navigation area: all waters Rules Governing Hearings Before the U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use of the North of Shooters Island Reach, Agency of Original Jurisdiction and the voluntary consensus standards in their Elizabethport Reach, and Gulfport Board of Veterans’ Appeals; regulatory activities unless the agency Reach in the Arthur Kill; bounded in the Clarification provides Congress, through the Office of northeast by a line drawn from position Management and Budget, with an 40° 38′48.637″ N, 074° 09′18.204″ W; to AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. explanation of why using these a point in position 40°38′37.815″ N, ACTION: Final rule. standards would be inconsistent with 074° 09′20.245″ W; and bounded in the applicable law or otherwise impractical. southwest by a line drawn from position SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Voluntary consensus standards are 40° 37′15.643″ N, 074° 12′15.927″ W; to Affairs (VA) is amending its hearing technical standards (e.g., specifications a point in position 40° 37′15.779″ N, regulations to clarify that the provisions of materials, performance, design, or 074° 12′08.0622″ W. All geographic regarding hearings before the Agency of operation; test methods; sampling coordinates are North American Datum Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) do not apply procedures; and related management of 1983 (NAD 83). to hearings before the Board of Veterans’ systems practices) that are developed or (b) Regulations. Appeals (Board). adopted by voluntary consensus (1) The general regulations contained DATES: Effective Date: This rule is standards bodies. in 33 CFR 165.13 apply. effective August 23, 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52573

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Board’s Rules of Practice provided that procedure that hearings before AOJs are Laura H. Eskenazi, Principal Deputy hearings on appeal could be held: ‘‘(a) governed by § 3.103 and hearings before Vice Chairman, Board of Veterans’ [b]efore a section of the Board of the Board are governed by relevant Appeals (012), Department of Veterans Veterans’ Appeals in Washington, DC[;] provisions in part 20. The Court’s Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., (b) * * * before a traveling section of holding in Bryant brought to light that Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–8078. the Board of Veterans’ Appeals during the pertinent regulations do not clearly (This is not a toll-free number.) regularly scheduled visits to [VA] reflect VA’s intent. Therefore, VA has SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This facilities[;] [or] (c) [b]efore appropriate decided to make clarifying changes to document amends 38 CFR parts 3 and personnel in the [VA] regional or other §§ 3.103 and 20.706 to ensure that the 20 to clarify existing hearing practices office nearest the appellant’s residence, distinction between the duties of AOJ and procedures before the AOJ and the acting as a hearing agency for the Board hearing officers and Board Members Board. Specifically, VA is amending of Veterans’ Appeals.’’ 38 CFR 19.160 (also known as Veterans Law Judges § 3.103(a) and (c) to clarify that the (1991). Under the former rules, if an (VLJs), see § 19.2(b)) is clear on the face hearing procedures outlined in § 3.103 appellant chose to have a hearing before of the pertinent regulations and will not apply to hearings held before the AOJ employees of the AOJ acting as a result in further confusion. and not to hearings held before the hearing agency for the Board, then he or In part 3, VA is revising § 3.103(a) to Board. VA is also amending § 20.706 to she was not entitled to a subsequent clarify that the provisions governing further clarify that Board Members hearing before a Board Member. See id.; hearings in § 3.103 only apply to presiding over a hearing on appeal are see also Veterans Benefits hearings conducted before the AOJ and not bound by the hearing procedures in Administration, M21–1 Adjudication that the provisions in part 20 govern § 3.103(c) and must conduct hearings in Procedures Manual, § 18.17g (1991) (‘‘A hearings before the Board. VA is also accordance with part 20, subpart H, formal hearing on appeal at a regional removing the following language from which contains provisions governing office will be in lieu of such a hearing § 3.103(c)(1): ‘‘subject to the limitations Board hearing practice and procedure. before the [Board], except in the described in § 20.1304 of this chapter In Appendix A to part 20, VA is unusual case in which a special with respect to hearings in claims which appearance by the claimant before the removing the cross references to § 3.103. have been certified to the Board of [Board], or the special attention of an VA has determined these clarifying Veterans Appeals for appellate review.’’ accredited organization’s headquarters changes are necessary because of a This language is not necessary since the in Washington, DC, is requested by the recent decision by the United States revision to paragraph (a) clarifies that appellant.’’). § 3.103 does not apply to Board Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Not long after the Court decided hearings. VA is also revising paragraph (Court) in Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. Douglas, the Board amended its hearing (c)(1) to change references to ‘‘original App. 488 (2010), that applied the regulations to terminate the practice of determinative authority’’ to ‘‘VA office provisions of § 3.103(c)(2) to a Board AOJ personnel holding appellate having original jurisdiction’’. This hearing. The Bryant Court held that the hearings on the Board’s behalf. The final language is consistent with other provisions of § 3.103(c)(2) require a rulemaking noted that the Board was portions of § 3.103(c)(1). ‘‘Board hearing officer’’ to ‘‘fully explain implementing these changes because it the issues still outstanding that are had decided ‘‘a clear demarcation In part 20, VA is amending § 20.706 relevant and material to substantiating should exist between the conduct of to state that the conduct of hearings by the claim’’ and to ‘‘suggest that a hearings by the Board and hearings presiding Board Members or VLJs is claimant submit evidence on an issue conducted by [Veterans Benefits governed by subpart H of part 20 and material to substantiating the claim Administration] employees at regional that Board Members are not bound by when the record is missing any offices.’’ 58 FR 27934, 27934 (May 12, the hearing provisions of § 3.103(c). In evidence on that issue or when the 1993). As a result of this procedural Appendix A, VA is removing two cross testimony at the hearing raises an issue modification, an appellant now has the references to § 3.103 listed for §§ 20.1 for which there is no evidence in the opportunity to appear for a hearing with and 20.1304 to ensure they do not cause record.’’ Id. at 496–97. The Court the AOJ at any time prior to when his any confusion regarding the correct concluded with respect to one of the or her appeal is certified to the Board. applicability of § 3.103. service connection claims on appeal 38 CFR 3.103(a); Your Rights to Appeal Administrative Procedure Act that the Veteran had been prejudiced Our Decision, VA Form 4107 (Sept. because the presiding ‘‘Board hearing 2009). The appellant also has a right to This document merely clarifies officer’’ had not explained matters appear at a separate hearing on appeal current procedures for obtaining and material to the outcome of the claim and before a Board Member. 38 CFR conducting a hearing on a claim for VA had not suggested that the Veteran 20.700(a); see VA Form 4107 (stating benefits before the VA agency of original could secure evidence regarding a nexus that a hearing before the AOJ is separate jurisdiction or the Board. It does not between his current disability and from any hearing an appellant may later create new procedure, and no service. Id. at 499. The Court found request before the Board); see also substantive change is intended. prejudice existed because evidence of a Gambill v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1307, Accordingly, this document is being nexus was not of record at the time of 1315, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Bryson, J., published as a final rule pursuant to 5 the hearing and remained lacking at the concurring) (explaining that an U.S.C. 553(b)(A), which excepts time of the decision. Id. appellant has a right to appear at procedural rules from the APA’s notice- In reaching its conclusions, the Court hearings before the AOJ and the Board). and-comment and delayed effective date relied in part on its previous holding in The 1993 regulatory changes reflected requirements. Douglas v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 435 VA’s intent to clearly distinguish Paperwork Reduction Act (1992), which held that the provisions hearings before AOJs from hearings of § 3.103(c) applied to hearings before before the Board, including the duties of This document contains no provisions the Board. Bryant, 23 Vet. App. at 494 the respective VA personnel conducting constituting a collection of information (citing Douglas, 2 Vet. App. at 442). At the hearing. As a result of these changes, under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 the time the Court decided Douglas, the it has become standard VA practice and U.S.C. 3501–3521).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52574 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

Regulatory Flexibility Act anticipated costs and benefits before List of Subjects issuing any rule that may result in an The initial and final regulatory 38 CFR Part 3 flexibility analysis requirements of expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the Administrative practice and sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, are private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any Health care, Pensions, Radioactive not applicable to this rule because a materials, Veterans, Vietnam. notice of proposed rulemaking is not given year. This rule would have no required for this rule. Even so, the such effect on State, local, and tribal 38 CFR Part 20 governments, or on the private sector. Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby Administrative practice and certifies that this final rule will not have Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance procedure, Claims, Veterans. a significant economic impact on a Numbers and Titles substantial number of small entities as Dated: August 18, 2011. they are defined in the Regulatory The Catalog of Federal Domestic Robert C. McFetridge, Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This Assistance program numbers and titles Director of Regulation Policy and rule will affect only individual VA for this rule are 64.100, Automobiles Management, Office of the General Counsel, beneficiaries and will not directly affect and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Department of Veterans Affairs. small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 Disabled Veterans and Members of the For the reasons set forth in the U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt Armed Forces; 64.101, Burial Expenses preamble, VA amends 38 CFR parts 3 from the initial and final regulatory Allowance for Veterans; 64.102, and 20 as follows: flexibility analysis requirements of Compensation for Service-Connected sections 603 and 604. Deaths for Veterans’ Dependents; PART 3—ADJUDICATION 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans; Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 64.104, Pension for Non-Service- Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, Planning and Review Connected Disability for Veterans; and Dependency and Indemnity Executive Order 12866 directs 64.105, Pension to Veterans Surviving Compensation agencies to assess all costs and benefits Spouses, and Children; 64.106, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 3, of available regulatory alternatives and, Specially Adapted Housing for Disabled subpart A continues to read as follows: when regulation is necessary, to select Veterans; 64.109, Veterans regulatory approaches that maximize Compensation for Service-Connected Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless net benefits (including potential Disability; 64.110, Veterans Dependency otherwise noted. and Indemnity Compensation for economic, environmental, public health ■ 2. Amend § 3.103 by: and safety, and other advantages; Service-Connected Death; 64.114, ■ a. Revising the last sentence of distributive impacts; and equity). The Veterans Housing—Guaranteed and paragraph (a) and adding a new Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant Insured Loans; 64.115, Veterans sentence after the last sentence. regulatory action,’’ requiring review by Information and Assistance; 64.116, ■ b. Revising paragraph (c)(1). the Office of Management and Budget Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled The revisions read as follows: (OMB) unless OMB waives such review, Veterans; 64.117, Survivors and as any regulatory action that is likely to Dependents Educational Assistance; § 3.103 Procedural due process and result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 64.118, Veterans Housing—Direct Loans appellate rights. annual effect on the economy of $100 for Certain Disabled Veterans; 64.119, (a) * * * The provisions of this million or more, or adversely affect in Veterans Housing—Manufactured Home section apply to all claims for benefits a material way the economy, a sector of Loans; 64.120, Post-Vietnam Era and relief, and decisions thereon, within the economy, productivity, competition, Veterans’ Educational Assistance; the purview of this part 3, except that jobs, the environment, public health or 64.124, All-Volunteer Force Educational the provisions of this section governing safety, or State, local, or tribal Assistance; 64.125, Vocational and hearings apply only to hearings governments or communities; (2) create Educational Counseling for conducted before the VA office having a serious inconsistency or otherwise Servicemembers and Veterans; 64.126, original jurisdiction over the claim. interfere with an action planned or Native American Veteran Direct Loan Hearings before the Board of Veterans’ taken by another agency; (3) materially Program; 64.127, Monthly Allowance Appeals are governed by part 20 of this alter the budgetary impact of for Children of Vietnam Veterans Born chapter. entitlements, grants, user fees or loan with Spina Bifida; and 64.128, * * * * * programs or the rights and obligations of Vocational Training and Rehabilitation (c) * * * (1) Upon request, a claimant recipients thereof, or (4) raise novel for Vietnam Veterans’ Children with is entitled to a hearing at any time on legal or policy issues arising out of legal Spina Bifida or Other Covered Birth any issue involved in a claim within the mandates, the President’s priorities, or Defects. purview of part 3 of this chapter. VA the principles set forth in the Executive Signing Authority will provide the place of hearing in the Order. VA office having original jurisdiction VA has examined the economic, The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or over the claim or at the VA office interagency, legal, and policy designee, approved this document and nearest the claimant’s home having implications of this rulemaking and has authorized the undersigned to sign and adjudicative functions, or, subject to concluded that it is not a significant submit the document to the Office of the available resources and solely at the regulatory action under the Executive Federal Register for publication option of VA, at any other VA facility Order. electronically as an official document of or federal building at which suitable the Department of Veterans Affairs. John hearing facilities are available. VA will Unfunded Mandates R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department provide one or more employees of the The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Veterans Affairs, approved this VA office having original jurisdiction of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that document on August 16, 2011, for over the claim to conduct the hearing agencies prepare an assessment of publication. and to be responsible for establishment

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52575

and preservation of the hearing record. Subpart H—Hearings on Appeal the offending party leave the hearing if Hearings in connection with proposed an appellant, representative, or witness adverse actions and appeals shall be ■ 4. Revise § 20.706 to read as follows: persists in disruptive behavior. The held before one or more employees of presiding Member is not bound by the the VA office having original § 20.706 Rule 706. Functions of the presiding Member. procedures described in § 3.103(c) of jurisdiction over the claim who did not this chapter, as those procedures only The presiding Member is responsible participate in the proposed action or the apply to hearings before the agency of for the conduct of the hearing, in decision being appealed. All expenses original jurisdiction. incurred by the claimant in connection accordance with the provisions of with the hearing are the responsibility subpart H of this part, administering the ■ 5. Amend APPENDIX A TO PART of the claimant. oath or affirmation, and ruling on 20—CROSS-REFERENCES table by: * * * * * questions of procedure. The presiding ■ a. Removing entries ‘‘20.1’’; ‘‘38 CFR Member will assure that the course of 3.103(a)’’; and ‘‘Statement of policy.’’. PART 20—BOARD OF VETERANS’ the hearing remains relevant to the APPEALS: RULES OF PRACTICE issue, or issues, on appeal and that there ■ b. Revising entry 20.1304 to read as is no cross-examination of the parties or follows: ■ 3. The authority citation for part 20 witnesses. The presiding Member will APPENDIX A TO PART 20—CROSS- continues to read as follows: take such steps as may be necessary to REFERENCES Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a) and as noted maintain good order at hearings and in specific sections. may terminate a hearing or direct that

Title of cross- Sec. Cross-reference referenced material or comment

******* 20.1304 ...... 38 CFR 20.700–20.717 ...... See also rehearings.

*******

[FR Doc. 2011–21513 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 12, Bedford, MA 01730; (781) 687–3187 with substance use disorders through BILLING CODE 8320–01–P (this is not a toll free number). this program because, based on our SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The practical understanding and experience, HCHV program is authorized by 38 the vast majority of homeless veterans DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS U.S.C. 2031, under which VA may have substance use disorders. Treating AFFAIRS provide outreach as well as ‘‘care, substance use as a mental disorder is consistent with the generally accepted 38 CFR Part 63 treatment, and rehabilitative services (directly or by contract in community- ‘‘disease model’’ of alcoholism and drug based treatment facilities, including addiction treatment, as well as the RIN 2900–AN73 halfway houses)’’ to ‘‘veterans suffering modern use of medical intervention to from serious mental illness, including treat the condition. We believe that if a Health Care for Homeless Veterans veterans who are homeless.’’ One of substance use disorder is a contributing Program VA’s National priorities is a renewed cause of homelessness, then that disorder is serious; therefore, it is AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. effort to end homelessness for veterans. For this reason, we are establishing consistent to include such veterans in a ACTION: Final rule. regulations that are consistent with the program designed for ‘‘veterans suffering from serious mental illness, SUMMARY: This final rule establishes current administration of this program. The primary mission of the HCHV including veterans who are homeless.’’ regulations for contracting with 38 U.S.C. 2031(a). community-based treatment facilities in program is to use outreach efforts to the Health Care for Homeless Veterans contact and engage veterans who are Veterans who are identified and who (HCHV) program of the Department of homeless and suffering from serious choose to participate in this form of care Veterans Affairs (VA). The HCHV mental illness or a substance use as part of their treatment plan are then program assists certain homeless disorder. Many of the veterans for referred by VA to an appropriate non- veterans in obtaining treatment from whom the HCHV program is designed VA community-based provider. In some non-VA community-based providers. have not previously used VA medical cases, VA will continue to actively The final rule formalizes VA’s policies services or been enrolled in the VA medically manage the veteran’s and procedures in connection with this health care system. condition, while in other cases a VA program and clarifies that veterans with Through the HCHV program, VA clinician may determine that a veteran substance use disorders may qualify for identifies homeless veterans with can be sufficiently managed through the program. serious mental illness and/or substance utilization of non-medical resources, use disorder, usually through medical such as 12-step programs. DATES: Effective Date: September 22, intervention, and offers community- To provide the community-based 2011. based care to those whose conditions care, the HCHV program contracts with FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: are determined, clinically, to be non-VA community-based providers, Robert Hallett, Healthcare for Homeless managed sufficiently that the such as halfway houses, to provide to Veterans Manager, c/o Bedford VA individuals can participate in such care. these veterans housing and mental Medical Center, 200 Springs Road, Bldg. We have assisted homeless veterans health and/or substance use disorder

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52576 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

treatment. VA provides per diem providing shelters, social and health U.S.C. 2031, which we interpret as payments to these non-VA community- services * * *, and medical services’’ in authorizing VA authority to provide based providers for the services a single facility, so that ‘‘the homeless care to veterans who are both homeless provided to veterans. The services veteran will only have to go to one and seriously mentally ill. Section 2031 provided under these contracts are facility to receive treatment and or live.’’ does not authorize the broader program typically short-term, because during The commenter suggests that such a proposed by the commenter. We discuss their stay veteran-participants are facility would eliminate the burden of this interpretation in greater detail in connected with other resources travelling to different locations and response to a later comment, and make designed to provide longer-term repeating paperwork at each one. no change based on this comment. housing. These contracts, and the per Section 63.10(a) authorizes VA to However, we note that to the extent diem payment, are governed by the ‘‘award per diem contracts to non-VA some homeless veterans will not be Federal Acquisition Regulations, and community-based providers who covered by this program because they the VA supplements thereto contained provide temporary residential are not seriously mentally ill, they will in the Department of Veterans Affairs assistance’’ and ‘‘who can provide the be eligible for a wide variety of VA Acquisition Regulation, 48 CFR chapter specific services’’ covered by the HCHV programs designed to reduce or 8. These are the rules that specifically program regulations. In turn, § 63.15 eradicate homelessness in our Nation’s govern requirements exclusive to VA identifies covered services as including veteran population, many of which are contracting actions. therapeutic and rehabilitative services; not specifically targeted to veterans that On December 20, 2010, we proposed structured group activities, such as have serious mental illness. These to establish a new 38 CFR part 63 for the group therapy and professional include housing support programs such HCHV program because the program is counseling; and residential room and as the Grant and Per Diem Program, the unique and may be distinguished from board. Thus, the HCHV program offers Department of Housing and Urban therapeutic housing or other VA veterans the opportunity to have many Development and VA Supported programs designed to end homelessness. of their needs met at one particular Housing program, and the Supportive 75 FR 79323. We included a 60-day facility; however, medical needs must Services for Veteran Families program. comment period and invited interested be addressed at an appropriate medical A commenter requested that VA persons to submit written comments on facility. Moreover, rather than restrict prescribe rules regarding assistance for or before February 18, 2011. We the location of services to ‘‘one facility,’’ covered veterans after they receive the received five comments from members we encourage non-VA community-based prescribed 6 months of treatment and of the public. providers to utilize community services regarding veterans who are not A commenter stated that she because, based on our experience, we rehabilitated by the 6-month course of supported this rulemaking and that the believe that the use of community treatment. HCHV ‘‘program has a solid resources is vital to the success of The proposed rule addressed VA’s foundation.’’ The commenter further homelessness programs and in helping authority to contract with non-VA stated that the program ‘‘should be veterans return to the community as community-based providers in the successful in finding and helping these healthy, productive citizens. We also administration of the HCHV program, veterans in need.’’ We agree that this note that VA social workers and which is designed to address the short- rulemaking will help VA better serve caseworkers work closely to place term, immediate needs of this veteran homeless veterans that have serious veterans in the HCHV program, population, while, simultaneously, mental illness or substance use providing assistance with any efforts are made to connect the disorders. paperwork and/or logistical burdens. population with resources that can Another commenter stated that we Additionally, the rule clearly requires provide assistance with permanent should minimize the paperwork burden the contract facility to assist veterans in housing and other long-term needs that on veterans by designing and obtaining community resources and the HCHV program is not equipped to implementing a single information assistance, and applicants are scored address. technology program that agencies can based in part on proximity to public VA anticipates that the vast majority use to share information about the transportation and community of veterans who are the subject of a veteran. Although we generally agree interaction. Thus, we believe that this contract with a non-VA community that technology increases the population of veterans is better served based provider under this program will possibilities for reduced paperwork by organizations that encourage have transitioned to a longer term from veterans and increased involvement in the community, rather support structure at the end of the 6- information-sharing within the than those that treat the population in month period prescribed by this rule. At government, this comment is outside a more institutionalized fashion by that point, the veteran will likely still be the scope of this rulemaking. The providing all services under one roof. receiving other VA benefits and proposed rule addressed contracting We make no change based on the services. It is possible that in some with non-VA community-based comment. situations, VA will need additional providers to furnish services to certain A commenter asked what happens to time, beyond 6 months, to connect a homeless veterans while the comment homeless veterans who do not meet the veteran with a particularly challenging addresses information sharing. We note eligibility requirements for the HCHV case to other services, whether provided that the only collection of information program and recommended that the by VA or not. In such a situation, the required by this rulemaking places program be open to all homeless rule envisions the possibility of obligations on the non-VA community veterans. extending the contract period for based providers with whom VA would The proposed rule addressed ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ in contract, not homeless veterans. homeless veterans, who are seriously § 63.10(c)(2). Therefore, we make no Veterans will only have to meet the mentally ill and/or have substance use change based on this comment. eligibility criteria in § 63.13(a). disorders, while the comment addresses A commenter expressed concern that The same commenter suggested that other veterans who do not meet the the proposed regulation ‘‘would enact a VA form ‘‘contract[s with] facilities that eligibility criteria of the HCHV program. more restrictive interpretation regarding have multiple uses under one roof, These criteria are prescribed by 38 eligibility than Congress intended’’

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52577

under 38 U.S.C. 2031(a) because it was amended and renumbered without proper understanding of the term requires a veteran to be both homeless substantive change into current section ‘‘homeless,’’ implying that term does and have a serious mental disorder. The 2031. Homeless Veterans not necessarily include serious mental commenter argues, using statutory Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001, illness. However, under our interpretation and arguments based on Public Law 107–95, § 5(b)(2). A separate interpretation of section 2031, serious the legislative history of section 2031, House bill which preceded Public Law mental illness is a freestanding that (1) ‘‘a veteran’s homeless condition 105–114 contained language that is for criterion. Since serious mental illness is is sufficient for assistance’’ without all relevant purposes identical to a separate requirement in the statute, we regard to the veteran having a serious current section 2031. H.R. 2206 § 2(a), do not believe the commenter’s mental illness; and (2) that the proposed 105th Cong. (1997). argument affects our construction of the rule would make the statutory The deliberations surrounding this proper scope of this program. Our homelessness requirement prior bill clearly illuminate interpretation is reasonable because ‘‘surplusage.’’ The commenter cautions Congressional understanding of the Congress could not have intended that that if VA does not adopt their language now found in section 2031. H. homelessness alone indicates a severe construction, a ‘‘costly adverse judicial Rep. No. 105–293 (1997). Congress mental illness requiring the kind of care determination’’ could result. found there to be substantial ‘‘overlap authorized by sections 2031 and 1710. As the commenter points out, judicial and redundancy’’ among many prior VA As the commenter points out, up to 20 review of an agency’s construction of a statutory authorities ‘‘targeted primarily percent of homeless veterans are statute it administers is governed by to providing psychiatric residential homeless for reasons other than mental Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural treatment to homeless, mentally ill illness. This fact is irreconcilable with Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 veterans.’’ Id. at 10 (emphasis added). the idea that ‘‘homeless’’ is a subset, or U.S. 837 (1984). To state the law very Congress therefore undertook to type of, serious mental illness, which is briefly, Chevron envisions a two-step consolidate the authorities for three the construction urged by the analysis. If the statute is plain, and the programs, including the contract commenter. As for the comment that our intent of Congress is clear, that is the halfway-house care program for veterans rule would make homelessness end of the matter. If, however, the suffering from alcohol and drug surplusage, we must, again disagree. statute is ambiguous on the point at dependence, the community-based Pursuant to § 63.3(a)(1), eligibility is issue, a reviewing court asks whether residential care program for homeless predicated on the veteran being the agency’s construction is reasonable. chronically mentally ill veterans, and a homeless, and under § 63.10(a), We believe the statute is plain on this program providing transitional contracts are authorized only to non-VA point. Section 2031(a) provides in therapeutic housing, into one statute. Id. community-based providers who pertinent part: at 12. Congress plainly intended current provide temporary residential assistance section 2031 to authorize psychiatric for homeless persons. In providing care and services under [38 U.S.C. 1710] to veterans suffering from residential treatment to homeless Finally, we note that the program as serious mental illness, including veterans veterans who are also mentally ill; all implemented by VA and described in who are homeless, [VA] may provide three authorities combined into current this rule will reach most homeless (directly or in conjunction with a[nother] section 2031 dealt with treatment for veterans, up to 80 percent. As stated in governmental or other entity)—(1) outreach veterans suffering from some kind of the proposed rule, chronic services; (2) care, treatment, and mental illness or otherwise requiring homelessness is generally caused by rehabilitative services (directly or by contract therapeutic residential treatment. substance abuse or serious mental in community-based treatment facilities, Furthermore, the legislative history illness. Congress determined for including halfway houses); and (3) presented in support of the comment is purposes of this program that VA therapeutic transitional housing assistance not persuasive. The commenter argues should allocate some of its mental *** that Congress intended to reach veterans health care resources to target The statute clearly identifies homeless who are homeless without regard to homelessness caused by serious mental veterans as a subset of veterans who their having a serious mental illness illness. As described above, we do not may be suffering from serious mental based on an interpretation of a prior interpret current law as authorizing VA illness and therefore in need of medical version of the statute using definitions to focus mental health care resources on care pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1710. Under from 24 CFR 91.5, which are regulations those who are not mentally ill. the plain language of the statute, promulgated by the Department of Additionally, Congress has determined Congress excluded homeless veterans Housing and Urban Development that veterans who are homeless for other who do not need medical care for a (HUD), which is not charged with reasons will qualify for other VA serious mental illness. Congress has interpreting VA statutes. Thus, HUD’s programs and services. See, e.g., 38 authorized other programs to assist that definitions are simply inapplicable. U.S.C. 2021–23, 2041–44. This segment of the homeless veteran Additionally, the commenter’s reinforces our view that section 2031 is population. The reference to section argument, even taken at face value, intended to reach seriously mentally ill 1710 makes clear that programs would at most affect the proper homeless veterans because this authorized by section 2031 are for understanding of the term ‘‘homeless’’ population is not specifically identified veterans suffering from serious mental and would not on its own dictate the elsewhere in 38 U.S.C. chapter 20. illness only. proper interpretation of section 2031. The commenter also hypothesizes that Even if the statute is ambiguous, our The commenter notes that former 38 the additional expenditure of resources interpretation that it applies to veterans U.S.C. 2001 indicates that 38 U.S.C. that would be required by the who are homeless and have a serious chapter 20 used to address ‘‘chronic commenter’s interpretation of the law, mental illness is consistent with homelessness,’’ which required as a expanding the program to cover Congress’ intent. Congress initially criterion serious mental illness or some homelessness regardless of mental enacted what is now section 2031 at 38 other kind of disability. The commenter illness, would be offset by savings in U.S.C. 1711. Veterans Health Programs argues this has been replaced with the clinician time. The commenter argues Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law more general term, ‘‘homeless.’’ Even if that clinicians would not need to make 105–114, Title II, § 202(a). This section true, this analysis would only affect the any determination regarding mental

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52578 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

illness if the program covered every approved the information collection governments, in the aggregate, or by the homeless veteran. As we explain above, requirement for § 63.15(e)(3) as a private sector, of $100 million or more we do not interpret section 2031 to revision to OMB Control Number 2900– (adjusted annually for inflation) in any authorize VA to allocate its limited 0091. given year. This final rule would have mental health care resources to veterans no such effect on State, local, and Tribal Regulatory Flexibility Act who are not mentally ill. Therefore, the governments, or on the private sector. question of whether or not the reduction The Secretary hereby certifies that Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance in ‘‘billable time’’ realized by not this final rule will not have a significant Program determining whether a veteran is economic impact on a substantial seriously mentally ill adds up to more number of small entities as they are The Catalog of Federal Domestic or less than the cost of paying per diem defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Assistance numbers and titles for the on behalf of that veteran for up to 6 Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. The reason for programs affected by this document are: months is not relevant. this certification is that only a small 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; The commenters also cited the portion of the business of health care 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; numbers of homeless veterans who are providers, suppliers, or similar entities 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol not eligible for the HCHV program. We concerns VA beneficiaries. Therefore, and Drug Dependence. make no change based on the pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final Signing Authority commenter’s request that we amend the rule is exempt from the initial and final rules ‘‘to include a specific reference to regulatory flexibility analysis The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or programs’’ that address homeless requirements of sections 603 and 604. designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and veterans who are not seriously mentally Executive Order 12866 ill. We have identified several such submit the document to the Office of the programs in this notice, but it would be Executive Order 12866 directs Federal Register for publication unwise to include a definitive statement agencies to assess all costs and benefits electronically as an official document of in the rule since VA’s list of programs of available regulatory alternatives and, the Department of Veterans Affairs. John targeted at this difficult problem is when regulation is necessary, to select R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department constantly evolving, and it would be a regulatory approaches that maximize of Veterans Affairs, approved this needless waste of resources to have to net benefits (including potential document on July 27, 2011, for amend and update 38 CFR part 63 every economic, environmental, public health publication. and safety, and other advantages; time VA altered or added an unrelated List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 63 program. Further, the purpose of this distributive impacts; and equity). The rulemaking is to prescribe rules that Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant Administrative practice and govern a specific program. It is not regulatory action,’’ requiring review by procedure, Day care, Disability benefits, intended as a general notice regarding OMB unless OMB waives such a review, Government contracts, Health care, the various benefits and services that as any regulatory action that is likely to Homeless, Housing, Individuals with may be available to homeless veterans. result in a rule that may: (1) Have an disabilities, Low and moderate income VA uses outreach and other methods to annual effect on the economy of $100 housing, Public assistance programs, advise veterans regarding the benefits million or more, or adversely affect in Public housing, Relocation assistance, that may be available to them. a material way the economy, a sector of Reporting and recordkeeping Although we are not making any the economy, productivity, competition, requirements, Veterans. changes to the rule based on the jobs, the environment, public health or Dated: August 17, 2011. comments, we do make one minor safety, or State, local, or tribal Robert C. McFetridge, administrative change. We are inserting governments or communities; (2) create Director of Regulation Policy and a comma after the word ‘‘training’’ in a serious inconsistency or otherwise Management, Office of the General Counsel, the first sentence of § 63.15(b)(1). This interfere with an action planned or Department of Veterans Affairs. fixes a typographical error of omission taken by another agency; (3) materially For the reasons stated in the in the proposed rule. We are not altering alter the budgetary impact of preamble, VA amends 38 CFR chapter I the substantive content of the paragraph entitlements, grants, user fees or loan by adding part 63 to read as follows: by making this change. programs or the rights and obligations of VA appreciates the comments recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel PART 63—HEALTH CARE FOR submitted in response to the proposed legal or policy issues arising out of legal HOMELESS VETERANS (HCHV) rule. Based on the rationale stated in the mandates, the President’s priorities, or PROGRAM proposed rule and in this document, the the principles set forth in the Executive proposed rule is adopted with the Order. Sec. technical change noted above. The economic, interagency, 63.1 Purpose and scope. budgetary, legal, and policy 63.2 Definitions. Paperwork Reduction Act 63.3 Eligible veterans. implications of this regulatory action 63.10 Selection of non-VA community- This final rule at § 63.15(e)(3) have been examined and it has been based providers. contains a new collection of information determined not to be a significant 63.15 Duties of, and standards applicable under the Paperwork Reduction Act of regulatory action under Executive Order to, non-VA community-based providers. 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521) that 12866. Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2031, and as requires approval by the Office of noted in specific sections. Management and Budget (OMB). On Unfunded Mandates December 20, 2010, in the proposed rule The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act § 63.1 Purpose and scope. published in the Federal Register, we of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that This part implements the Health Care requested public comment on the new agencies prepare an assessment of for Homeless Veterans (HCHV) program. collection of information. We received anticipated costs and benefits before This program provides per diem no comments concerning the new issuing any rule that may result in the payments to non-VA community-based collection of information. OMB has expenditure by State, local, and Tribal facilities that provide housing, as well

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52579

as care, treatment and/or rehabilitative efforts, and to those referred to VA by (b) Treatment plans and therapeutic/ services, to homeless veterans who are community agencies that primarily rehabilitative services. Individualized seriously mentally ill or have a serve the homeless population, such as treatment plans are to be developed substance use disorder. shelters, homeless day centers, and soup through a joint effort of the veteran, (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2031(a)(2)) kitchens. non-VA community-based provider staff (2) Have service-connected and VA clinical staff. Therapeutic and § 63.2 Definitions. disabilities. rehabilitative services must be provided For the purposes of this part: (3) All other veterans. by the non-VA community-based Clinician means a physician, (c) VA will refer a veteran to a non- provider as described in the treatment physician assistant, nurse practitioner, VA community-based provider after VA plan. In some cases, VA may psychiatrist, psychologist, or other determines the veteran’s eligibility and complement the non-VA community- independent licensed practitioner. priority. based provider’s program with added Homeless has the meaning given that (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2031) treatment services such as participation term in section 103 of the McKinney- in VA outpatient programs. Services Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 § 63.10 Selection of non-VA community- provided by the non-VA community- U.S.C. 11302(a)). based providers. based provider generally should Non-VA community-based provider (a) Who can apply. VA may award per include, as appropriate: means a facility in a community that diem contracts to non-VA community- (1) Structured group activities such as provides temporary, short-term housing based providers who provide temporary group therapy, social skills training, (generally up to 6 months) for the residential assistance for homeless self-help group meetings or peer homeless, as well as services such as persons with serious mental illness, counseling. rehabilitation services, community and/or substance use disorders, and (2) Professional counseling, including outreach, and basic mental-health who can provide the specific services counseling on self care skills, adaptive services. and meet the standards identified in coping skills and, as appropriate, Participant means an eligible veteran § 63.15 and elsewhere in this part. vocational rehabilitation counseling, in under § 63.3 for whom VA is paying per (b) Awarding contracts. Contracts for collaboration with VA programs and diem to a non-VA community-based services authorized under this section community resources. provider. will be awarded in accordance with (c) Quality of life, room and board. Serious mental illness means applicable VA and Federal procurement (1) The non-VA community-based diagnosed mental illness that actually or procedures in 48 CFR chapters 1 and 8. provider must provide residential room potentially contributes to a veteran’s Such contracts will be awarded only and board in an environment that homelessness. after the quality, effectiveness and safety promotes a lifestyle free of substance Substance use disorder means of the applicant’s program and facilities abuse. alcoholism or addiction to a drug that have been ascertained to VA’s (2) The environment must be actually or potentially contributes to a satisfaction, and then only to applicants conducive to social interaction, veteran’s homelessness. determined by VA to meet the supportive of recovery models and the (Authority: 501, 2002, 2031) requirements of this part. fullest development of the resident’s (c) Per diem rates and duration of rehabilitative potential. § 63.3 Eligible veterans. contract periods. (3) Residents must be assisted in (a) Eligibility. In order to serve as the (1) Per diem rates are to be negotiated maintaining an acceptable level of basis for a per diem payment through as a contract term between VA and the personal hygiene and grooming. the HCHV program, a veteran served by non-VA community-based provider; (4) Residential programs must provide the non-VA community-based provider however, the negotiated rate must be laundry facilities. must be: based on local community needs, (5) VA will give preference to (1) Homeless; standards, and practices. facilities located close to public (2) Enrolled in the VA health care (2) Contracts with non-VA transportation and/or areas that provide system, or eligible for VA health care community-based providers will employment. under 38 CFR 17.36 or 17.37; and establish the length of time for which (6) The program must promote (3) Have a serious mental illness and/ VA may pay per diem based on an community interaction, as demonstrated or substance use disorder, individual veteran; however, VA will by the nature of scheduled activities or (i) That has been diagnosed by a VA not authorize the payment of per diem by information about resident clinician, for an individual veteran for a period of involvement with community activities, (ii) Is ‘‘clinically managed’’ as more than 6 months absent volunteers, and local consumer services. determined by a VA clinician (clinical extraordinary circumstances. (7) Adequate meals must be provided in a setting that encourages social management of a condition may be (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2031) achieved through non-medical interaction; nutritious snacks between intervention such as participation in a § 63.15 Duties of, and standards meals and before bedtime must be 12-step program), and applicable to, non-VA community-based available. (iii) Impacts the veteran’s ability for providers. (d) Staffing. The non-VA community- self-care and/or management of A non-VA community-based provider based provider must employ sufficient financial affairs as determined by a VA must meet all of the standards and professional staff and other personnel to caseworker (i.e., a clinician, social provide the appropriate services carry out the policies and procedures of worker, or addiction specialist). identified in this section, as well as any the program. There will be at a (b) Priority veterans. In allocating additional requirements set forth in a minimum, an employee on duty on the HCHV program resources, VA will give specific contract. premises, or residing at the program and priority to veterans, in the following (a) Facility safety requirements. The available for emergencies, 24 hours a order, who: facility must meet all applicable safety day, 7 days a week. Staff interaction (1) Are new to the VA health care requirements set forth in 38 CFR with residents should convey an system as a result of VA outreach 17.81(a). attitude of genuine concern and caring.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52580 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations

(e) Inspections. (1) VA must be requirement in this section under control For the reasons set forth above, the permitted to conduct an initial number 2900–0091.) Postal Service amends 39 CFR Part 912 inspection prior to the award of the [FR Doc. 2011–21407 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] as follows: contract and follow-up inspections of BILLING CODE 8320–01–P the non-VA community-based PART 912—[AMENDED] provider’s facility and records. At inspections, the non-VA community- POSTAL SERVICE ■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR based provider must make available the part 912 continues to read as follows: documentation described in paragraph 39 CFR Part 912 Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2671–2680; 28 CFR (e)(3) of this section. (2) If problems are identified as a Procedures To Adjudicate Claims for 14.1 through 14.11; 39 U.S.C. 409. result of an inspection, VA will Personal Injury or Property Damage ■ 2. In § 912.4, remove the address establish a plan of correction and Arising Out of the Operation of the U.S. ‘‘Chief Counsel, National Tort Center, schedule a follow-up inspection to Postal Service U.S. Postal Service, P.O. Box 66640, St. ensure that the problems are corrected. AGENCY: Postal Service. Louis, MO 63141–0640’’ and add ‘‘Chief Contracts will not be awarded or ACTION: Final rule. renewed until noted deficiencies have Counsel, Torts, General Law Service been eliminated to the satisfaction of the SUMMARY: This rule amends the Postal Center, USPS National Tort Center, 1720 inspector. Service’s regulations concerning tort Market Street, Room 2400, St. Louis, (3) Non-VA community-based claims to update the mailing address of MO 63155–9948’’ in its place. providers must keep sufficient the National Tort Center. ■ documentation to support a finding that DATES: Effective Date: August 23, 2011. 3. Amend § 912.9 as follows: they comply with this section, including ADDRESSES: Written communications ■ a. In paragraph (b), remove the accurate records of participants’ lengths should be directed to: General Law address ‘‘Chief Counsel, National Tort of stay, and these records must be made Service Center, USPS National Tort Center, U.S. Postal Service, P.O. Box available at all VA inspections. Center, 1720 Market Street, Room 2400, 66640, St. Louis, MO 63141–0640’’ and (4) Inspections under this section may St. Louis, MO 63155–9948. add ‘‘Chief Counsel, Torts, General Law be conducted without prior notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Service Center, USPS National Tort (f) Rights of veteran participants. The Ruth A. Przybeck, Chief Counsel, Torts, Center, 1720 Market Street, Room 2400, non-VA community-based provider (314) 345–5820. St. Louis, MO 63155–9948’’ in its place. must comply with all applicable SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: patients’ rights provisions set forth in 38 ■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the Amendment of 39 CFR part 912 is CFR 17.33. address ‘‘Chief Counsel, National Tort (g) Services and supplies. VA per necessary to update the mailing address Center, U.S. Postal Service, P.O. Box of the National Tort Center. This rule is diem payments under this part will 66640, St. Louis, MO 63141–0640’’ and a change in agency rules of procedure include the services specified in the add ‘‘Chief Counsel, Torts, General Law contract and any other services or that does not substantially affect any rights or obligations of private parties. Service Center, USPS National Tort supplies normally provided without Therefore, it is appropriate for its Center, 1720 Market Street, Room 2400, extra charge to other participants in the adoption by the Postal Service to St. Louis, MO 63155–9948’’ in its place. non-VA community-based provider’s become effective immediately. program. Stanley F. Mires, (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2031) List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 912 Chief Counsel, Legislative. (The Office of Management and Budget has Administrative practice and [FR Doc. 2011–21444 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] approved the information collection procedure; Claims. BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:22 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM 23AUR1 rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES 52581

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 163

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER information retrieval system and to recommend. Where possible, you contains notices to the public of the proposed provide clarifications and updates should reference the specific section or issuance of rules and regulations. The which have occurred since this section paragraph of the proposed rule you are purpose of these notices is to give interested was last updated in 1996. addressing. We may not consider or persons an opportunity to participate in the include in the Administrative Record rule making prior to the adoption of the final DATES: Comments must be received on rules. or before October 24, 2011. those comments received after the close ADDRESSES: The Food and Nutrition of the comment period or comments Service, USDA, invites interested delivered to an address other than that DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE persons to submit comments on this listed above. proposed rule. Comments may be II. Procedural Matters Food and Nutrition Service submitted by one of the following methods: Executive Order 12866 and Executive 7 CFR Part 277 • Preferred method: Federal Order 13563 eRulemaking Portal: Go to http:// RIN 0584–AD99 Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 www.regulations.gov; follow the online direct agencies to assess all costs and Automated Data Processing and instructions for submitting comments benefits of available regulatory Information Retrieval System on docket FNS–2009–0020. alternatives and, if regulation is • Requirements Mail: Comments should be necessary, to select regulatory addressed to Neva Terry, Director, State approaches that maximize net benefits AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, Systems Office, Food and Nutrition (including potential economic, USDA. Service—USDA, 3101 Park Center environmental, public health and safety ACTION: Proposed rule. Drive, Room 820, Alexandria, VA effects, distributive impacts, and 22302–1500. equity). Executive Order 13563 • SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver emphasizes the importance of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance comments to the Food and Nutrition quantifying both costs and benefits, of Program (SNAP)—formerly the Food Service, State Systems Office, 3101 Park reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, Stamp Program) regulations to Center Drive, Room 820, Alexandria, and of promoting flexibility. implement the Food, Conservation, and Virginia 22302–1500, during business This proposed rule has been Energy Act of 2008 (the Farm Bill), hours of 9 a.m.–4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, designated non-significant under which requires adequate system testing from Monday–Friday, excluding Federal section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. before and after implementation of a holidays. new State automatic data processing All comments submitted in response to Regulatory Flexibility Act (ADP) and information retrieval system, this proposed rule will be included in This rule has been reviewed with including the evaluation of data from the record and will be made available to regard to the requirements of the pilot projects in limited areas for major the public. Please be advised that the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. systems changes, before the Secretary substance of the comments and the 601–612). It has been certified that this approves the system to be implemented identity of the individuals or entities rule would not have significant more broadly. It also provides that submitting the comments will be subject economic impact on a substantial systems be operated in accordance with to public disclosure. FNS will make the number of small entities. State agencies an adequate plan for continuous comments publicly available on the which administer SNAP will be affected updating to reflect changed policy and Internet via http://www.regulations.gov. to the extent that they implement new circumstances, and for testing the effects All written submissions will be State automated systems or major of the system on access by eligible available for public inspection at the changes to existing systems. households and on payment accuracy. address above during regular business This proposed rule would also specify hours. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the requirements for submission of a test FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Title II of the Unfunded Mandates plan. Further, the rule proposes Questions regarding this rulemaking Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public changing the due date of an Advance should be addressed to Neva Terry, Law 104–4, establishes requirements for Planning Document Update (APDU) Director, State Systems Office, at the Federal agencies to assess the effects of from 90 days after to 60 days prior to the above address if mailed, by telephone at their regulatory actions on State, local, expiration of the Federal financial (703) 605–4315 or via the Internet at and tribal governments and the private participation (FFP) approval and revises [email protected]. sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, language regarding the Federal share of the Department generally must prepare costs in consolidated information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: a written statement, including a cost/ technology (IT) operations to specify I. Additional Information on Comment benefit analysis, for proposed and final that the threshold for service agreements Filing rules with Federal mandates that may applies to federally aided public result in expenditures to State, local, or assistance programs, rather than to Written Comments tribal governments, in the aggregate, or SNAP alone. In addition, this rule Comments on the proposed rule to the private sector, of $100 million or proposes to amend the SNAP should be specific, confined to issues more in any one year. When such a regulations relating to the establishment pertinent to the proposal, and explain statement is needed for a rule, section of an automated data processing and the reason for any change you 205 of the UMRA generally requires the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52582 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Department to identify and consider a Executive Order 13175 choose to implement a certain reasonable number of regulatory E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies provision, they must implement it in alternatives and adopt the least costly, to consult and coordinate with tribes on such a way that it complies with the more cost-effective or least burdensome a government-to-government basis on regulations at 7 CFR 272.6. alternative that achieves the objectives policies that have tribal implications, Discrimination in any aspect of program of the rule. including regulations, legislative administration is prohibited by these This rule contains no Federal comments or proposed legislation, and regulations, the Food Stamp Act of 1977 mandates (under the regulatory other policy statements or actions that (the Act), the Age Discrimination Act of provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that have substantial direct effects on one or 1975 (Pub. L. 94–135), the impose costs on State, local, or tribal more Indian tribes, on the relationship Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93– governments or to the private sector of between the Federal Government and 112, section 504), and title VI of the $100 million or more in any one year. Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. This rule is, therefore, not subject to the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 2000d). Enforcement action may be requirements of sections 202 and 205 of brought under any applicable Federal the UMRA. Federal Government and Indian tribes. In late 2010 and early 2011, USDA law. Title VI complaints shall be Executive Order 12372 engaged in a series of consultative processed in accord with 7 CFR part 15. SNAP is listed in the Catalog of sessions to obtain input by Tribal Paperwork Reduction Act officials or their designees concerning Federal Domestic Assistance under No. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 10.561. For the reasons set forth in the the affect of this and other rules on tribes or Indian Tribal governments, or (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35; see 5 CFR part final rule in 7 CFR part 3015, Subpart 1320) requires that OMB approve all V and related Notice published at [48 whether this rule may preempt Tribal law. In regard to this rule, no adverse collections of information by a Federal FR 29114 for SNP; 48 FR 29115 for agency from the public before they can FSP], June 24, 1983, this Program is comments were offered at those sessions. Further, the policies contained be implemented. Respondents are not excluded from the scope of Executive required to respond to any collection of Order 12372, which requires in this rule would not have Tribal implications that preempt Tribal law. information unless it displays a current intergovernmental consultation with valid OMB control number. This State and local officials. Reports from the consultative sessions will be made part of the USDA annual proposed rule contains information Executive Order 13132 reporting on Tribal Consultation and collections that are subject to review Executive Order 13132 requires Collaboration. USDA will offer future and approval by OMB; therefore, FNS Federal agencies to consider the impact opportunities, such as webinars and has submitted an information collection of their regulatory actions on State and teleconferences, for collaborative under 0584–0083, which contains the local governments. Where such actions conversations with Tribal leaders and changes in burden from adoption of the have federalism implications, agencies their representatives concerning ways to proposals in the rule, for OMB’s review are directed to provide a statement for improve rules with regard to their affect and approval. inclusion in the preamble to the on Indian country. Comments on the information regulations describing the agency’s We are unaware of any current Tribal collection in this proposed rule must be considerations in terms of the three laws that could be in conflict with the received by October 24, 2011. categories called for under section proposed rule. We request that Send comments to the Office of (6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13132 commenters address any concerns in Information and Regulatory Affairs, (Prior Consultation With State Officials, this regard in their responses. OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for FNS, Washington, DC 20503. Please also send Nature of Concerns and the Need To Civil Rights Impact Analysis Issue This Rule, and Extent to Which a copy of your comments to Neva Terry, We Meet Those Concerns). FNS has FNS has reviewed this proposed rule Director, State Systems Office, Food and considered the impact of this rule on in accordance with the Department Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of State and local governments and Regulation 4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, determined that this rule does not have Analysis,’’ to identify and address any Room 820, Alexandria, VA 22302–1500. Federalism implications. This proposed major civil rights impacts the rule might For further information, or for copies of rule does not impose substantial or have on minorities, women, and persons the information collection requirements, direct compliance costs on State and with disabilities. After a careful review please contact Neva Terry at the address local governments. Therefore, under of the rule’s intent and provisions, and indicated above. Section 6(b) of the Executive Order, a the characteristics of SNAP households Comments are invited on: (1) Whether federalism summary impact statement is and individual participants, FNS has the proposed collection of information not required. determined that there are no civil rights is necessary for the proper performance impacts in this proposed rule. All data of the Agency’s functions, including Executive Order 12988 available to FNS indicate that protected whether the information will have This rule has been reviewed under individuals have the same opportunity practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice to participate in SNAP as non-protected Agency’s estimate of the proposed Reform. This rule is intended to have individuals. information collection burden, preemptive effect with respect to any FNS specifically prohibits the State including the validity of the State or local laws, regulations or and local government agencies that methodology and assumptions used; (3) policies which conflict with its administer the Program from engaging ways to enhance the quality, utility and provisions or which would otherwise in actions that discriminate based on clarity of the information to be impede its full implementation. Prior to age, race, color, sex, handicap, religious collected; and (4) ways to minimize the any judicial challenge to the provisions creed, national origin, or political burden of the collection of information of this rule or the application of its beliefs. SNAP nondiscrimination policy on those who are to respond, including provisions, all applicable administrative can be found at 7 CFR 272.6 (a). Where use of appropriate automated, procedures must be exhausted. State agencies have options, and they electronic, mechanical, or other

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52583

technological collection techniques or workload with regard to the additional development through modifications other forms of information technology. testing requirements, as rigorous testing and/or enhancements. State agencies All responses to this request for is already part of any well-managed will continue to be asked to provide comments will be summarized and systems project. Most State agencies copies to FNS of the requests for included in the request for OMB will recognize the similarities between proposals and contracts relating to approval. All comments will also the documents already prepared during system M&O. become a matter of public record. customary System Development Life Currently it is estimated that up to 53 This is a revision of a currently Cycle (SDLC) processes, and those State agencies may submit on an average approved collection. The new required by the SNAP APD approval of five (5) APD, Plan, or Update provisions in this rule, which do not processes. Although FNS is proposing to submission for a total of 265 annual increase burden hours, affect the require information from State agencies responses at an average estimate of 2.5 information collection requirements that on their plans for adequate system hours per respondent. The reporting will be merged into OMB Control testing, FNS believes this information is burden is 662.5 hours. In addition, FNS Number 0584–0083, once approved by already part of the regular SDLC estimated that up to 53 State agencies OMB. The current burden inventory for process; it should already be in the State may submit on an average of 5 APD, this collection is 0584–0083. These agencies’ possession and only needs to Plan, or Update submission and changes are contingent upon OMB be submitted to FNS for review and approximately 265 records at an average approval under the Paperwork approval. estimate of .11 minutes per Reduction Act of 1995. When the Further, information collections recordkeeper for an estimated total of information collection requirements associated with maintenance and 29.15 recordkeeping burden for this have been approved, FNS will publish operation (M&O) procurements activity hours per recordkeeper. Since a separate action in the Federal Register prescribed under 7 CFR 277.18 would this proposed rule will lessen the announcing OMB’s approval. be reduced as systems move past their burden for submittal of M&O IAPDs it Title: Supporting Statement for implementation phase. Currently, State is now estimated that the burden will Paperwork Reduction Act Submission. agencies are required to submit to FNS OMB Number: 0584–0083. Implementation APDs (IAPD) for M&O lessen to four (4) APD, Plan or Update Expiration Date: 12/31/2013. of their ADP systems. As proposed, submittals. Type of Request: Revision of a State agencies would no longer be The average burden per response, the currently approved collection; required to submit this IAPD annual burden hours and the Abstract: This proposed rule will information unless they contain annualized cost to respondents are have no impact on the State agency significant changes such as system summarized in the charts which follow.

REPORTING ESTIMATES OF HOUR BURDEN

Number of Frequency of Total annual Time per Annual report- Affected public Activity respondents response responses response ing burden

State Agencies ...... Other APD Plan or Up- 53 4 212 2.5 530 date.

RECORDKEEPING BURDEN

Number of Activity Number of records per Est. total Hours per Total recordkeepers respondent annual records recordkeeper burden

Other APD Plan or Update ...... 53 4 212 0.11 23.32

ANNUALIZED COST TO RESPONDENTS

Respondent Reporting and Hourly wage cost—prior to Type of survey instruments recordkeeping rate Federal cost burden sharing

Other APD Plan or Update ...... 553.32 $33.29 $18,420

Total ...... 7,463.26 33.29 246,310

E-Government Act Compliance III. Background evaluation of data from pilot projects in limited areas for major systems changes, The Food and Nutrition Service is Section 4121 of the Food, before the Secretary approves the committed to complying with the E- Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 system to be implemented more Government Act, 2002, to promote the amends subsection 16(g) of the Food broadly. It also provides that systems be use of the Internet and other and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. operated in accordance with an information technologies to provide 2016) to require adequate system testing adequate plan for continuous updating increased opportunities for citizen before and after implementation of a to reflect changed policy and access to Government information and new State ADP and information circumstances, and for testing the effects services, and for other purposes. retrieval system, including the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52584 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

of the system on access by eligible Since the access of needy people to specifications. The level of detail households and on payment accuracy. nutrition assistance is dependent upon specified in proposed section Systems development or acquisition, the proper functioning of SNAP 277.18(g)(2) would be provided to FNS whether in the public or private sector, automated systems, FNS is now prior to the State agency beginning its goes through a detailed process of required to ensure that all eligibility testing of the system. The test plan planning, analysis, preparation, systems are adequately reviewed and would include a contingency plan budgeting, and negotiation. In order to tested. component which identifies alternative receive Federal funding to develop, The law requires accountability for strategies that may be used if specific acquire, and/or implement information ensuring test results are satisfactory risk events occur, such as a failure of systems (IS) that support the operation prior to system implementation as a test results to support a decision to of FNS programs there are policies and condition for continued funding of the proceed to the next phase of the project. procedures that State agencies must project. If a State makes a decision to Examples include alternative schedule follow. This is referred to as the proceed to the next phase of the project activities, staffing plans and emergency Advance Planning Document (APD) (a ‘‘go/no-go’’ decision point, such as responses to reduce the impact of risk process which employs common testing or pilot) when significant errors events. industry standards that are required for have been identified but are not any well-planned and executed Systems resolved satisfactorily to support the 2. What would need to be addressed in Development Life Cycle (SDLC) project. decision to proceed, FNS can suspend the contingency plan for testing? The preparation, submission, review, or disallow Federal funds in whole or in approval, and use of the APD process part until the problems are resolved. Under the pressures of an overly and its related documents for project Section 277.18 of the FNS regulations optimistic schedule, a State agency may planning, management, and control addresses the Establishment of an feel compelled to move forward with a purposes comprise the successive steps Automated Data Processing and project even when testing results through which a State agency can meet Information Retrieval System. Section indicate that the system is not ready for Federal oversight requirements and 277.18(n) (Basis for continued Federal the next step. The purpose of a testing subsequently receive Federal written financial participation) is proposed to contingency plan is to assure FNS that prior approval and financial be amended as a result of Section 4121 the State agency has an agreed upon participation in IT projects. of the Farm Bill regarding IS testing. In alternative in place if testing indicates In developing this proposed rule, FNS addition, this regulation proposes to add that the system is not ready to progress has drawn on its experience with State or modify the following requirements: to the next stage. The plan should IS and with systems for Electronic • Change the Annual APDU due date address what steps will be taken in Benefits Transfer in the SNAP. FNS from 90 days after anniversary of response to an excessive failure rate or views this rule as having minimal approval to 60 days prior to the ‘‘no-go’’ decision at any point in the impact on State agency workload with expiration of the FFP approval; testing process. Such steps might • regard to the additional testing Revise language regarding Federal include: Delaying or revising staffing requirements, as rigorous testing is share of costs in consolidated IT plans; rescheduling training; adjusting already part of any well-managed IS operations, consistent with the pilot plans; and/or extending, project. Most State agencies will Department of Health and Human rescheduling or redeploying testing recognize the similarities between the Services (DHHS), to specify the resources such as space, contractor and documents already prepared during threshold for service agreements applies state staff, servers and other equipment. customary SDLC processes, and those to federally aided public assistance Plans might include researching, in proposed to be required by the SNAP programs, rather than to SNAP alone; advance, the authority to exercise APD approval processes. This regulation and personnel policies, utilize overtime pay proposes to codify the testing standards • Propose clarification and or compensatory time, or to withdraw or already found in well managed State simplification of existing regulations reschedule approved discretionary projects in order to assure that all State relating to the APD process. agencies meet those standards. leave. It should also include plans for Many State agencies already include 1. What changes is FNS proposing for revising other dependent schedules testing and pilot projects as well as 277.18(n), basis for continued Federal such as those for legacy system some form of graduated roll out when financial participation, as a result of the maintenance or the implementation of implementing major systems. System Food, Conservation and Energy Act of required annual mass changes. The plan testing is part of the overall project 2008? should address who has the authority to management and risk management FNS is proposing to move section activate contingency procedures and planning process; testing is essential for 277.18(n) (Basis for continued Federal how decisions will be made. successful system implementation financial participation) and renumber it Contingency plans should address both outcomes. In the past few years, some as 277.18(g). In addition, proposed project and business dependencies. State agencies have attempted language is being added to describe Although FNS would not dictate exactly aggressive implementation schedules of FNS’ expectations for a detailed testing what must be included, the plan would major system and program changes, plan starting at User Acceptance Testing be expected to demonstrate the State which have had adverse effects on (UAT) through pilot testing and agency’s awareness that testing is, by household access to SNAP benefits and including opportunities for State agency definition, the period when problems payment accuracy. Section 4121 of the and/or Federal reviews prior to UAT as are identified which may result in Farm Bill reflects Congress’ concern that well as after the system is fully delays. The plan must demonstrate that USDA use the Federal approval process implemented. the State agency is prepared to adjust to more deliberately review and monitor State agencies would submit a test and ‘‘fall back’’ to a sustainable position State agencies’ plans for major system plan which describes how all system to continue testing when necessary, and implementations, and encourage all testing will be conducted in order to not allow a project to proceed with State agencies to implement new verify that the system complies with unacceptable risks in order to stay on systems using sound testing practices. SNAP requirements and system design schedule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52585

3. How will FNS assess the adequacy of Adequate testing includes ensuring that Functional demonstrations and a State agency’s system test plan? high standards for test results are set acceptance testing should be completed As proposed, FNS would review a and met before the system is considered prior to implementation of the pilot. State agency’s overall plan to ensure to have passed the tests and be ready for FNS staff may participate to a limited that risk is mitigated and managed to the next phase. However, once extent in the functional demonstrations delivered, the State agency must and acceptance testing. the extent feasible. FNS’ examination of validate that the system meets the State agencies’ plans would include, but 7. What are the components of a performance expectations and all not be limited to, the following areas: successful UAT? functional requirements described in Risk management, rigorous the functional design specifications A State agency should develop a methodologies, industry standards, document. Testing methodology must formal test plan for UAT that includes professional test management, be rigorous and results must be real-life scenarios and establishes error repeatable test processes, specific pass/ documented thoroughly. If errors are severity levels, error tracking software, fail metrics, adequate time allotted for identified in the system’s functionality results reporting, and regression testing. testing, and an unbiased decision- or performance, the fixes the developer The system should be tested from end- making process. makes to the system to resolve these to-end, including both normal and FNS intends to use a pro-active errors should be regression tested. abnormal conditions such as user analysis of State test plans. Results from Regression testing is the process that mistakes. Once the UAT plan is the UAT and Pilot Test and others, if requires the users to validate that the executed, an acceptance decision is appropriate, would be evaluated from a error has been fixed and that the fix made based on the results of this testing, system perspective as well as a program does not adversely impact the system in followed by users’ sign-off upon perspective to determine whether their other ways. Only when these conditions successful completion of the UAT plan. outcomes can be considered successful. are met can testing be considered 8. What is the purpose of the Pilot Test? Although successful UAT and Pilot adequate to demonstrate that the system Test are commonly used decision is ready for pilot. The purpose of the Pilot Test (Pilot) points, ‘‘go/no-go’’ points may be Documentation of the results of is to provide the State agency with a established at any milestone in the performance and UAT of the system smaller scale shakedown test prior to SDLC to assess the project status and before the system is piloted in a expansion. Most State agencies determine if continuing to the next production environment needs to be recognize the need for Pilot project phase is in the best interest of the provided to FNS and FNS concurrence operations and first implement systems project. The project should not advance to advance from testing to pilot will be on a small scale. The length of the Pilot to the next phase until all critical a condition for continued FFP. Also, the would need to be agreed upon by the criteria are satisfactorily addressed. FFP State agency needs to provide State agency and FNS. Some of the could be in jeopardy if the State agency documentation to FNS of the pilot factors that would need to be taken into advances to the next phase without FNS evaluation. FNS’ approval to implement consideration will be the size of the approval. the system more broadly will also be a Pilot; the rate of phase-in of the Pilot condition for continued FFP. caseload; and the track record, if any, of 4. What data will a State agency need the system being implemented. A Pilot to provide to FNS to demonstrate its 6. What is meant by UAT? is important for more than just system testing is adequate? User Acceptance Testing (UAT) is a providing a dry run for the computer The State agency will need to provide crucial part of the integration and system. It is also an opportunity for a preliminary test plan in its initial testing phase of the SDLC. UAT is State agencies to determine and ensure IAPD, a final test plan prior to the start necessary to confirm that the developed that that all parties (e.g. recipients and of the testing phase, and test results system meets all State agency functional State/local staffs) are comfortable with throughout the testing phase. FNS and technical requirements. Testers the system, the State agency’s approach proposes to evaluate the initial should work with users early in the to training is effective, and any program information provided by a State agency project to define system criteria for and system interfaces are effective. This to determine if the State agency’s plans, meeting user needs, incorporate them rule does not remove the latitude methodology, results tracking and into the acceptance test plan, and create provided to State agencies in choosing analysis approach are adequate, and detailed test scripts. UAT should be the Pilot sites. State agencies should, whether additional information is conducted in a user environment in however, take into consideration how needed. FNS intends to work with the which simulated or real target platforms well the Pilot’s caseload represents the State agency to determine what and infrastructures are used. This demands on the fully operational information is practicable and require environment should be separate from system. only information that is necessary and the development and production The Pilot is a key milestone in project not otherwise available. FNS would environments, but as similar to the development and occurs when a fully expect to negotiate the reporting production environment as possible. functional prototype system is available requirements necessary to evaluate Typically, a separate test environment is for testing, but before statewide system performance with each State set up for testing by developers and an implementation. The Pilot needs to agency. additional test environment is set up for include operating all components of the UAT. system in a live environment. The State 5. What would be considered adequate UAT is a final test of the complete agency should define its own ‘‘go/no- system testing? SDLC that is conducted prior to pilot go’’ criteria and FNS may also establish Even before State testing begins, and implementation and the point at additional ‘‘go/no-go’’ criteria and ‘‘adequate testing’’ should include which the State agency ‘‘accepts’’ the decision points for continuing with holding the system developer system. It involves testing the system system implementation of the project. In responsible for delivering a product that capabilities as documented in the some cases, FNS may make approval of has been thoroughly tested by the system design, and is a precursor to Federal funds for implementation developer and is ready for UAT. accepting delivery of the system. conditional on the result of the Pilot.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52586 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

FNS may also participate in the Pilot to security components as well as program public’s understanding of the process. assist and corroborate the findings of the and financial aspects. Reviews by FNS Some subsections would be moved and State agency. are a function of its regulatory oversight renumbered to improve the flow and Under this proposal, State agencies authority. Resolution of any issues clarity of the entire section and improve would likely be reporting activity to identified or completion of corrective its usefulness as a reference for FNS for the duration of the Pilot, which action required by FNS, and subsequent regulatory authority. would provide FNS with an opportunity closure of a report, review or project FNS’ intent is to stress the importance to monitor Pilot activities, anticipate the does not constitute ‘‘certification.’’ of project management and risk success of the Pilot, and determine if management in the system planning 11. Why is FNS proposing changes to rollout may occur. The State agency process. These are not new concepts, the annual Advanced Planning must allow sufficient time after the Pilot but this renewed emphasis is to assist Document Update (APDU) due date? period to evaluate Pilot results and State agencies’ focus on these areas in secure FNS concurrence for rollout. FNS proposes in paragraph order to increase the likelihood of Pilot tests may also be necessary in 277.18(c)(3)(i)(C) to align the due date positive outcomes. limited areas for major system changes. for the annual APDU from the current FNS proposes to interpret the limited requirement of within 90 days after the 14. How is FNS changing the current area as not synonymous with a anniversary date of the original APD order in § 277.18 and moving provisions geographic area, but rather focus on a approval to the current Department of within the section? limited scale or scope of the Pilot. Health and Human Services (DHHS) Paragraph 277.18(a) (Scope and requirement of 60 days prior to the 9. How does a State agency move application) provides an introductory expiration of the FFP approval. forward and expand beyond the pilot statement for the rest of the section. It Although this proposal shortens the phase? currently contains a sentence regarding timeframe provided to State agencies for cost allocation which has been moved to Upon successful completion of the submission of annual updates, since paragraph 277.18(j) (General cost Pilot project, the State agency would most APDs are submitted to both USDA requirements). have to receive written approval from and DHHS, FNS believes creating Paragraph 277.18(d) (APD content FNS before expanding beyond the Pilot. consistency on this due date would requirements) contains a discussion on This rule proposes at paragraph simplify the process for State agencies the cost allocation plan for the Planning 277.18(g)(2)(ii) that State agencies and increase the likelihood that the APD (PAPD). This is clarified and operate Pilot projects until a state of document will be submitted timely to moved to new paragraph routine operation is reached with the both Departments. 277.18(d)(1)(vii). full caseload in the Pilot area (usually Paragraph 277.18(e) (APD update) is a minimum duration of three months). 12. Why is FNS proposing a change to the provision regarding service moved and renumbered as 277.18 (d)(3). This waiting period would permit the Paragraph 277.18(f) (Service agreements? system to work through all functions agreements) language which requires a and potential system problems. Service agreements are used when IT State agency to maintain a copy of its services are to be provided by a 10. Does FNS propose to certify system service agreements in its files for centralized State facility or another testing and outcomes? Federal review is moved from the State or local agency. The current introductory paragraph to a new No. To ‘‘certify’’ a system generally regulatory language at paragraph paragraph 277.18(e)(9) and the entire means that the certifying entity verifies 277.18(f)(6) references the need to paragraph is moved and renumbered as through independent evaluation that a obtain FNS approval when these 277.18(e). fixed set of standardized tests have been equipment and services will primarily Paragraph 277.18(g) (Conditions for passed or criteria on a standard support the SNAP by billing it for more receiving FFP), is moved and checklist have been met. The certifying than 50 percent of the total charges renumbered as 277.18(f). agency issues some sort of statement or made to all users. FNS is proposing to Paragraph 277.18(h) (Emergency document attesting to the certification, modify this language at paragraph acquisition requirements), is moved and which may have legal implications. FNS 277.18(e)(6) to clarify that the 50 renumbered as 277.18(i). does not certify systems or system percent threshold for service agreements Paragraph 277.18(i) (Cost testing. FNS may, however, conduct pre applies to the sum total of all Federal determination and claiming costs) is and/or post implementation reviews. public assistance programs and not just renamed as General cost requirements, These reviews would be intended to: the SNAP portion. This modification moved, and renumbered as 277.18(j). Evaluate system performance and would make the FNS language more Paragraph 277.18(j) (Procurement accuracy; verify that functional consistent with that of DHHS, which requirements) is moved and renumbered requirements were met; ensure that the does not identify any specific programs as 277.18(c)(2)(iii). policy to be administered is accurate; in its regulatory language relating to Paragraph 277.18(n) (Basis for analyze data capture, integrity edits and service agreements. continued Federal financial calculations; verify that UAT was participation) is moved and renumbered 13. Why is FNS proposing additional thorough and successfully completed; as 277.18(g) and, ensure that the system interfaces changes to the Automated Data Paragraph 277.18(o) (Disallowance of successfully with other programs and Processing and Information Retrieval Federal financial participation) is external entities, including EBT. FNS System requirements section of the moved and renumbered as 277.18(h). may conduct reviews either onsite or by regulations beyond those mandated by Paragraph 277.18(p) (ADP system examining relevant documents provided the Farm Bill? security requirements and review by the State agency. Post The last changes made to § 277.18 process) is moved and renumbered as implementation reviews may be were in 1996. Since then FNS has 277.18(m). conducted once the system is fully identified provisions in this section of No changes are being made to operational Statewide. These system the regulations that need clarification paragraph 277.18(k) (Access to the reviews encompass technical and and enhancement to improve the system and records).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52587

FNS removed paragraph 277.18(m) 19. Why is a definition for removed as this is not the intent of the (Use of ADP systems) as it was ‘‘Enhancement’’ added? APDU. determined to be unnecessary. State agencies often make corrective 22. Why is FNS waiving the annual 15. What terminology changes would be and adaptive changes in the course of APDU if an As Needed APDU has been made in this proposed rule? normal maintenance and operations of a submitted? system. For extensive renovation or In paragraph 277.18(c)(3)(i)(C) FNS There are two terminology changes replacement of a system, a State agency includes a provision for FNS to waive made in § 277.18. All instances of the would undertake a detailed planning the annual APDU or reset the APD use of the ‘‘Food Stamp Program’’ or process. Enhancements to a system anniversary date to coincide with the As ‘‘FSP’’ are changed to the often fall somewhere in between. By Needed APDU, if appropriate. ‘‘Supplemental Nutrition Assistance providing a definition of Recognizing that many State agencies Program’’ or ‘‘SNAP’’ the name made ‘‘enhancement’’ this regulation will help which submit As Needed APDUs may effective by the Food, Conservation, and State agencies understand the be duplicating their efforts when Energy Act of 2008 on October 1, 2008. distinctions, and know when an submitting annual APDUs, FNS hopes In addition, all instances of the use of enhancement may represent a to alleviate this burden by waiving the ‘‘Automated Data Processing’’ (ADP) substantial enough change in system submission of the Annual APDU until would be changed to ‘‘Information functionality to require FNS approval. the following year or modifying the System’’ (IS) or to ‘‘Information Guidance presented in FNS Handbook Annual APDU due date to be one year Technology’’ (IT), as appropriate given 901, ‘‘Advance Planning Documents’’ as from the approval of the As Needed the context of their use. well as this rulemaking clarifies when APDU . This is intended to lessen the enhancements may require prior State reporting burden. 16. What changes is FNS making to the approval via the submission of definitions § 277.18(b)? documentation to FNS. 23. Are State agencies required to approve all IS acquisitions no matter This paragraph currently provides 20. Why would FNS expand the how small? definitions for 18 terms commonly used definition of Implementation APD? in the remainder of this section. Some In paragraph 277.18(c)(4) (Approval The definition would be expanded to by the State agency) FNS is revising the definitions are antiquated and therefore delineate the major activities of the would be removed, globally replaced (as language to allow the State agency to System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) delegate approval authority to any discussed in the previous question); or that are expected to occur during the subordinate entity for those acquisitions renamed. Others would be incorporated Implementation Phase, which the of IS equipment and services not in the subsection that specifically Implementation APD encompasses. requiring prior approval by FNS. The addresses that topic, such as Feasibility These major activities are defined as State agency is free to set its own pre- Study. Four definitions are added to this design, development, testing, and approval thresholds so long as those section which are not related to new implementation. The intent is to thresholds do not exceed the FNS pre- requirements, but intended to provide a provide clarification to State agencies approval thresholds. ready reference summary for terms used that the APD process follows that of the in this section: acquisition, project, SDLC and mirrors State government and 24. Why is FNS making changes to the Commercial Off-the- Shelf software, and industry standards. APD content requirements in enhancements. paragraphs 277.18(c), 277.18(d) and 21. Why would the APDU definition be 277.18(e)? 17. Why are definitions proposed to be revised? Language on content requirements for added for ‘‘acquisition’’ and ‘‘project’’? In paragraph 277.18(b) (Definitions), an PAPD, Implementation APD (IAPD), In paragraph 277.18(b) (Definitions), FNS clarifies that the APDU is more Annual APDU and As Needed APDU is the terms ‘‘acquisition’’ and ‘‘project’’ than an annual report as the current being revised to allow FNS to be more are changed to clarify the difference definition states. The APDU is an responsive to States that are between the two. FNS added these annual or as needed report of activities implementing IS and to revise definitions to assist the reader in noting as well as a request for continuation of requirements in the future by policy funding, either at the current or an that projects and acquisitions are rather than regulation if circumstances updated funding amount. The APDU separate events and while they may be warrant. Detailed guidance on the reports the status of activities as well as related in the holistic view of the specific content can be found in FNS changes to the project’s scope, schedule, project, the review requirements and Handbook 901, ‘‘Advanced Planning budget, cost allocation or procurement submission thresholds vary as discussed Documents.’’ strategy. As previously defined, it may in paragraph 277.18(c). have been implied this was simply a 25. Why is FNS making changes to the dollar thresholds for prior approval of 18. Why is the definition of Commercial report and did not emphasize the IS procurements? Off-the-Shelf software added to the importance of this update as a regulation? requirement for continuing funding for FNS proposes in 277.18(c)(1) and the project. FNS often approves funding 277.18(c)(2) to align the dollar In paragraph 277.18(b) (Definitions), or project approval for a specified thresholds for prior approval for IS FNS added the definition of Commercial period of time during the project. The procurements to the current Department Off-the-Shelf (COTS) products which mechanism to ensure that funding and of Health and Human Services (DHHS) are beginning to find a place in the project approval continues for future requirement of $6 million versus the Human Services sector. A definition is development through project current FNS requirement of $5 million. added to specify FNS’ criteria for completion is the APDU, either annual Also, FNS proposes to align the dollar software to be considered COTS, and or as needed, whichever is appropriate thresholds for prior approval of contract clarify where Federal ownership rules for the conditions of a specific project. amendments to the current DHHS do and do not apply to COTS products. The phrase ‘‘self-certification’’ was requirement of 20 percent

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52588 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(cumulatively) of base contract costs. complete documentation is not received of suspending or disallowing a part of FNS believes creating consistency on within that timeframe, costs may be the funding. these dollar thresholds would simplify disallowed. 31. Why is FNS removing Appendix A the process for State agencies. 28. Why is FNS renaming the paragraph to Part 277 (Principles for Determining 26. Why would FNS remove the currently called ‘‘Cost determination Costs Applicable to Administration of requirement that a system be used for and claiming costs’’? the SNAP by State Agencies)? the lifespan specified in the cost benefit In paragraph 277.18(i)(Cost FNS is removing Appendix A to Part analysis of the Implementation Advance determination and claiming costs), FNS 277 (Principles for Determining Costs Planning Document? is renaming the paragraph as ‘‘General Applicable to Administration of the The requirements for the cost benefits cost requirements’’ to increase SNAP by State Agencies) because it is analysis in paragraph 277.18(d)(2)(vii) consistency within the section. In the now obsolete and has been replaced by included a statement indicating the paragraph on Development costs, FNS is an updated version of OMB Circular A– period of time the State agency intended inserting a reference to the cost 87 Cost Principals for State, Local, and to use the proposed equipment or principles set forth in OMB Circular A– Indian Tribal Governments as found at system. Paragraph 277.18(m) required 87 (2 CFR part 225). This Circular 2 CFR 225. As a result of this removal, that systems designed, developed or establishes principles and standards for FNS is also relocating two provisions installed with FFP be used for the determining costs for Federal awards and updating references to Appendix A period of time specified in the cost carried out through grants, cost in other sections. benefit analysis. These were determined reimbursement contracts, and other FNS is relocating one provision from to be unnecessary and therefore have agreements with State and local Appendix A to another section to been removed. These were originally governments and federally-recognized enhance the information provided in meant to assure that a system was kept Indian tribal governments that section. The section to be enhanced in use long enough to reach the ‘‘break (governmental units). The paragraph on includes: paragraph 277.13(b) even’’ date determined in the cost Budget authority, clarifies that an As (nonexpendable personal property) to benefit analysis. However, experience Needed APDU report, as well as an increase the $1,000 threshold for capital has shown that many facts and amended budget, would be required for expenditures to $5,000, as currently assumptions used in that analysis FNS approval. provided for in Appendix A. change significantly over the life of the 29. What is the purpose of adding a References to Appendix A included in system, likely making the break even discussion of Commercial Off-the-Shelf eight other regulatory sections would be date, and therefore the anticipated lifespan inaccurate. Furthermore, State (COTS) software to the regulation? changed to refer to OMB Circular A–87 agencies often keep systems in use long In paragraph 277.18(l) (Ownership (2 CFR 225). These sections include: past the anticipated lifespan due to rights), FNS clarifies that software 272.1 (159) Amendment (385) which budget pressures, and consider system packages which meet the definition of relates to funding; 274.12(k)(2) which replacement only when driven by COTS at paragraph 277.18(b) are not relates to costs; 276.4(d) which relates to technological necessity, such as subject to the ownership provisions of disallowance; 277.6(b)(6) which relates unsupportable platforms, outdated this paragraph. Along with long- to costs; 277.9(c)(2) which relates to programming languages, or the established licensed COTS products costs; 277.13(g) which relates to excessive cost of maintaining antiquated such as operating systems, database copyrights; 277.16(b)(2) which relates to systems. Finally, the advance planning software and desktop/office software, disallowance; and 277.18(i)(1) which period and SDLC associated with a FNS recognizes the potential of COTS relates to costs. In addition, although large-scale, complex project require that software in the Human Services sector § 277.4 does not currently contain a State agencies begin the process of to provide a proprietary framework and/ reference to Appendix A, FNS is adding system replacement years before their or tool set which can be used to a reference to OMB Circular A–87 (2 legacy systems reach the true end of standardize, simplify and speed the CFR 225) as this section relates to their lifespan and become process of building public domain funding and allowable costs. insupportable. modules, objects or processes within it. 32. Does FNS plan to provide additional The addition of language about COTS 27. Is FNS changing the requirements guidance for State agencies to assist products seeks to recognize exceptions for an Emergency Acquisition Request their implementing this rulemaking? to the overarching ownership provisions (EAR)? in the rule. However, a clarification in Yes, FNS plans to update the FNS No, the changes in paragraph the language emphasizes that FFP Handbook 901, ‘‘Advance Planning 277.18(h) regarding EARs, as in would not be available for COTS Documents,’’ and provide other training paragraph 277.18(i), only clarify the products developed specifically for the and technical assistance materials, once relationship of emergency acquisition SNAP program. the final rulemaking is issued. FNS requirements to general acquisition invites suggestions for areas in which requirements. The existing language 30. What is the impact of the language guidance would be useful. At this time, might have been interpreted to mean added to Disallowance of FFP? the following items have been that FNS may recognize the need for a Current regulatory language at tentatively identified for further State agency to act quickly, but does not paragraph 277.18 (o) states that FFP in guidance: actually approve anything until after the a project can be disallowed for failure to • When system enhancements may receipt of an approvable IAPD following comply with the criteria, requirements, require prior approval; the emergency action. The revised and other undertakings described in the • PAPD requirements, including: language is intended to clarify that FNS approved or modified APD. The proposed budget and cost allocation does provide formal conditional language makes it more consistent with plan; approval of EARs, assuring financial DHHS regulations and allows FNS • IAPD requirements, including: cost support for up to 90 days, until an flexibility in dealing with these benefit analysis, project management approvable IAPD is submitted. If occurrences by giving FNS the options plan; resource requirements statement;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52589

cost allocation plan; implementation reimbursed by FNS for the cost incurred sole implementer or integrator of the plan; training plan; and test plan. in such disposition. product. Enhancement means modifications List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 277 (C) If disposition or other instructions are not issued by FNS within 120 days which change the functions of software Food stamps, Fraud, Government of a request from the State agency the and hardware beyond their original procedure, Grant programs—social State agency shall sell the property and purposes, not just to correct errors or programs, Records, Reporting and reimburse FNS an amount which is deficiencies which may have been recordkeeping requirements. computed by applying the percentage of present in the software or hardware, or For the reasons set forth in the FNS participation in the cost of the to improve the operational performance preamble, 7 CFR Part 277 is proposed to property to the sales proceeds. The State of the software or hardware. Software be amended as set forth below: agency may, however, deduct and retain enhancements that substantially from FNS’ share $500 or 10 percent of increase risk or cost or functionality will PART 277—PAYMENTS OF CERTAIN the proceeds, whichever is greater, for require submission of an IAPD or an As ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF STATE the State agency selling and handling Needed IAPDU. AGENCIES expenses. Implementation Advance Planning 1. The authority citation for part 277 3. Revise § 277.18 to read as follows: Document or Implementation APD continues to read as follows: (IAPD) means a written plan of action § 277.18 State Systems Advance Planning requesting FFP to acquire and Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2036. Document (APD) process. implement information system (IS) 2. In § 277.13: (a) Scope and application. This services and/or equipment. The a. Revise the figure ‘‘$1,000’’ to read section establishes conditions for initial Implementation APD includes the ‘‘$5,000’’ wherever it occurs in the and continuing authority to claim design, development, testing, and following paragraphs: Federal financial participation (FFP) for implementation phases of the project. i. (b)(2)(iii)(A); the costs of the planning, development, Information System (IS) means a ii. (b)(3)(i); acquisition, installation and combination of hardware and software, iii. (b)(3)(ii) introductory text; implementation of Information data, and telecommunications that iv. (c) introductory text; and System(IS) equipment and services used performs specific functions to support v. (e)(3) introductory text; and in the administration of the the State agency, or other Federal, State, b. Revise paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance or local organization. (b)(3) to read as follows: Program and as prescribed by Project means a related set of appropriate Food and Nutrition Service information technology related tasks, § 277.13 Property. (FNS) directives and guidance (i.e., FNS undertaken by a State, to improve the * * * * * Handbook 901, OMB Circulars, etc.). efficiency, economy and effectiveness of (b) * * * (b) Definitions. administration and/or operation of its (2) * * * Acquisition means obtaining supplies human services programs. A project (iii) When the State agency no longer or services through a purchase or lease, may also be a less comprehensive has need for such property in any of its regardless of whether the supplies or activity such as office automation, federally financed activities, the services are already in existence or must enhancements to an existing system, or property may be used for the State be developed, created, or evaluated. an upgrade of computer hardware. agency’s own official activities in Advance Planning Document for Request for Proposal or RFP means accordance with the following project planning or Planning APD (APD the document used for public standards: or PAPD) means a brief written plan of solicitations of competitive proposals (A) If the property had a total action that requests FFP to accomplish from qualified sources as outlined in acquisition cost of less than $1,000, the the planning activities necessary for a § 277.14(g)(3). State agency may use the property State agency to determine the need for, (c) Requirements for FNS prior without reimbursement to FNS. feasibility of, projected costs and approval of IS projects.—(1) General * * * * * benefits of an IS equipment or services prior approval requirements. The State (3) Disposition. If the State agency has acquisition, plan the acquisition of IS agency shall request prior FNS approval no need for the property, disposition of equipment and/or services, and to by submitting the Planning APD, the the property shall be made as follows: acquire information necessary to Implementation APD, the draft (i) If the property had a total prepare an Implementation APD. acquisition instrument, and/or the acquisition cost of less than $1,000 per Advance Planning Document Update justification for the sole source unit, the State agency may sell the (APDU) means a document submitted acquisition if applicable, as specified in property and retain the proceeds. annually (Annual APDU) by the State paragraph (c)(2) of this section. A State (ii) If the property had an acquisition agency to report the status of project agency must obtain written approval cost of $1,000 or more per unit, the State activities and expenditures in relation to from FNS to receive federal financial agency: the approved Planning APD or participation of any of the following (A) If instructed to ship the property Implementation APD; or on an as activities: elsewhere, the State agency shall be needed (As Needed APDU) basis to (i) When it plans a project to enhance reimbursed with an amount which is request funding approval for project or replace its IS that it anticipates will computed by applying the percentage of continuation when significant project have total project costs in Federal and the State agency’s participation in the changes occur or are anticipated. State funds of $6 million or more. cost of the property to the current fair Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) (ii) Any IS competitive acquisition market value of the property, plus any means proprietary software products that costs more than $6 million in shipping or interim storage costs that are ready-made and available for Federal and State funds. incurred. sale to the general public at established (iii) When the State agency plans to (B) If instructed to otherwise dispose catalog or market prices in which the acquire IS equipment or services non- of the property, the State agency shall be software vendor is not positioned as the competitively from a nongovernmental

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52590 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

source, and the total State and Federal shall obtain prior written approval from (D) As Needed APDU as described in cost is more than $1 million. FNS for contracts which are associated paragraph (d)(4) of this section. As (iv) For the acquisition of IS with an EBT system regardless of the Needed APDU are required to obtain a equipment or services to be utilized in cost. commitment of FFP whenever an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) (C) Contract amendments. All significant project changes occur. system regardless of the cost of the contract amendments must be submitted Significant project changes are defined acquisition in accordance with 7 CFR to FNS. Unless specifically exempted by as changes in cost, schedule, scope or 274.12 (EBT issuance system approval FNS, the State agency shall obtain prior strategy which exceed FNS-defined standards). written approval from FNS of any thresholds or triggers. Without such (2) Specific prior approval contract amendments which approval, the State agency is at risk for requirements. (i) For IS projects which cumulatively exceed 20 percent of the funding of project activities which are require prior approval, as specified in base contract costs before being signed not in compliance with the terms and paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the State by the State agency. The State agency conditions of the approved APD and agency shall obtain the prior written shall obtain prior written approval from subsequently approved APDU until approval of FNS for: FNS for contracts which are associated such time as approval is specifically (A) Conducting planning activities, with an EBT system regardless of the granted by FNS. entering into contractual agreements or cost. (E) Acquisition documents as making any other commitment for (iii) Procurement requirements.—(A) described in § 277.14(g). acquiring the necessary planning Procurements of IS equipment and (F) Emergency Acquisition Requests services; services are subject to § 277.14 as described in paragraph (i) of this (B) Conducting design, development, (procurement standards) regardless of testing or implementation activities, section. any conditions for prior approval (ii) The State agency must obtain prior entering into contractual agreements or contained in this section, except the making any other commitment for the FNS approval of the documents requirements of § 277.14(b)(1) and (2) specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this acquisition of IS equipment or services. regarding review of proposed contracts. (ii) For IS equipment and services section in order to claim and receive Those procurement standards include a reimbursement for the associated costs acquisitions requiring prior approval as requirement for maximum practical specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this of the IS acquisition. open and free competition regardless of (4) Approval by the State agency. section, prior approval of the following whether the procurement is formally documents associated with such Approval by the State agency is required advertised or negotiated. for all documents and acquisitions acquisitions is also required: (B) The standards prescribed by specified in § 277.18 prior to submission (A) Requests for Proposals (RFPs). § 277.14, as well as the requirement for for FNS approval. However, the State Unless specifically exempted by FNS, prior approval in this paragraph (c), agency may delegate approval authority the State agency shall obtain prior apply to IS services and equipment to any subordinate entity for those written approval of the RFP before the acquired primarily to support SNAP acquisitions of IS equipment and RFP may be released. However, RFPs for regardless of the acquiring entity. services not requiring prior approval by acquisition estimated to cost up to $6 (C) The competitive procurement FNS. million or competitive procurements policy prescribed by § 277.14 shall be from non-governmental sources and applicable except for IS services (5) Prompt action on requests for prior which are an integral part of the provided by the agency itself, or by approval. FNS will reply promptly to approved APD, need not receive prior other State or local agencies. State agency requests for prior approval. approval from FNS. The State agency (iv) The State agency must obtain If FNS has not provided written shall submit a written request to get prior written approval from FNS, as approval, disapproval or a request for prior written approval to acquire IS specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) additional information within 60 days equipment or services non- of this section, to claim and receive of FNS’ acknowledgment of receipt of competitively from a nongovernmental reimbursement for the associated costs the State agency’s request, the request source when the total State and Federal of the IS acquisition. will be deemed to have provisionally cost is more than $1 million State (3) Document submission met the prior approval requirement in agencies shall submit RFPs under this requirements.—(i) For IS projects this paragraph (c). However, provisional threshold amount on an exception basis. requiring prior approval as specified in approval will not exempt a State agency The State agency shall obtain prior paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)of this section, from having to meet all other Federal written approval from FNS for RFPs the State agency shall submit the requirements which pertain to the which are associated with an EBT following documents to FNS for acquisition of IS equipment and system regardless of the cost. approval: services. Such requirements remain (B) Contracts. All contracts must be (A) Planning APD as described in subject to Federal audit and review. submitted to FNS. Unless specifically paragraph (d)(1) of this section. (d) APD content requirements—(1) exempted by FNS, the State agency shall (B) Implementation APD as described Planning APD (PAPD). The PAPD is a obtain prior written approval before the in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. written plan of action to acquire contract may be signed by the State (C) Annual APDU as described in proposed services or equipment and to agency. However, contracts for paragraph (d)(3) of this section. The perform necessary activities to competitive procurements costing up to Annual APDU shall be submitted to investigate the feasibility, system $6 million and for noncompetitive FNS 60 days prior to the expiration of alternatives, requirements and resources acquisitions from nongovernmental the FFP approval, unless the submission needed to replace, modify or upgrade sources costing up to $1 million and date is specifically altered by FNS. In the State agency’s IS. The PAPD shall which are an integral part of the years where an As Needed APDU is contain adequate documentation to approved APD need not be submitted to required, as described in paragraph demonstrate the need to undertake a FNS. State agencies shall submit (c)(3)(i)(D) of this section, FNS may planning process, as well as a thorough contracts under this threshold amount waive or modify the requirement to description of the proposed planning on an exception basis. The State agency submit the annual APDU. activities, and estimated costs and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52591

timeline, as specified by FNS in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for IS grant an exception to the State wide Handbook 901. equipment and IS services that are integrated requirement. These (2) Implementation APD (IAPD). The acquired from commercial sources exceptions will be based on an IAPD is a written plan of action to primarily to support federally aided assessment of the proposed system’s acquire the proposed IS services or public assistance programs and require ability to meet the State agency’s need equipment and to perform necessary the provider to comply with § 277.14 for automation. Systems funded as activities to design, develop, acquire, (procurement standards) for exceptions to this rule, however, should install, test, and implement the new IS. procurements related to the service be capable to the extent necessary, of an The Implementation APD shall contain agreement. IS equipment and services automated data exchange with the State detailed documentation of planning and are considered to be primarily acquired agency system used to administer preparedness for the proposed project, to support federally aided public TANF. In no circumstances will funding as enumerated by FNS in Handbook assistance programs when the Programs be available for systems which duplicate 901, demonstrating the feasibility of the may reasonably be expected to either be other State agency systems, whether project, thorough analysis of system billed for more than 50 percent of the presently operational or planned for requirements and design, a rigorous total charges made to all users of the IS future development. management approach, stewardship of equipment and services during the time (g) Basis for continued Federal Federal Funds, a realistic schedule and period covered by the service financial participation (FFP).—(1) FNS budget, and preliminary plans for key agreement, or directly charged for the will continue FFP at the levels approved project phases. total cost of the purchase or lease of IS in the Planning APD and the (3) Annual APDU content equipment or services; Implementation APD provided that requirements. The Annual APDU is a (7) Include the beginning and ending project development proceeds in yearly update to ongoing IS projects dates of the period of time covered by accordance with the conditions and when planning or implementation the service agreement; and terms of the approved APD and that IS activities occur. The Annual APDU (8) Include a schedule of expected resources are used for the purposes shall contain documentation on the total charges to the Program for the authorized. FNS will use the APDU to project activity status and a description period of the service agreement. monitor IS project development. The of major tasks, milestones, budget and (9) State Agency Maintenance of submission of the Update as prescribed any changes, as specified by FNS in Service Agreements. The State agency in § 277.18(d) for the duration of project Handbook 901. will maintain a copy of each service development is a condition for (4) As Needed APDU content agreement in its files for Federal review continued FFP. In addition, periodic requirements. The As Needed APDU upon request. onsite reviews of IS project document shall contain the items as (f) Conditions for receiving Federal development and State and local agency defined in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(D) of this financial participation (FFP).—(1) A IS operations may be conducted by or section with emphasis on the area(s) State agency may receive FFP at the 50 for FNS to assure compliance with where changes have occurred or are percent reimbursement rate for the costs approved APDs, proper use of IS anticipated that triggered the of planning, design, development or resources, and the adequacy of State or submission of the APDU, as detailed by installation of IS and information local agency IS operations. FNS in Handbook 901. retrieval systems if the proposed system (2) Pre-implementation. The State (e) Service agreements. The State will: agency must demonstrate through agency shall execute service agreements (i) Assist the State agency in meeting thorough testing that the system meets when IS services are to be provided by the requirements of the Food and all program functional and performance a State central IT facility or another Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended; requirements. FNS may require a pre- State or local agency. Service Agreement (ii) Meet the Automation of Data implementation review of the system to means the document signed by the State Processing/Computerization of validate system functionality prior to or local agency and the State or local Information Systems Model Plan State agency testing. central IT facility whenever an IT program standards specified in (i) Testing. The State agency must facility provides IT services to the State § 272.10(b)(1) through (3) of this provide a complete test plan prior to the or local agency. Service agreements chapter, except the requirements in start of the testing phase. The State shall: § 272.10(b)(2)(vi), (b)(2)(vii), and agency must provide documentation to (1) Identify the IS services that will be (b)(3)(ix) of this chapter to eventually FNS of the results of performance and provided; transmit data directly to FNS; User Acceptance Testing (UAT) before (2) Include a schedule of rates for (iii) Be likely to provide more efficient the system is piloted in a production each identified IS service, and a and effective administration of the environment. FNS concurrence to certification that these rates apply program; and advance from testing to pilot is a equally to all users; (iv) Be compatible with such other condition for continued FFP. All aspects (3) Include a description of the systems utilized in the administration of of program eligibility must be tested to method(s) of accounting for the services other State agency programs including ensure that the system makes accurate rendered under the agreement and the program of Temporary Assistance eligibility determinations in accordance computing services charges; for Needy Families (TANF). with federal regulations and approved (4) Include assurances that services (2) State agencies seeking FFP for the state policies, and that system provided will be timely and satisfactory; planning, design, development or functionality meets the required (5) Include assurances that installation of IS shall develop State functional specifications. The State information in the IS as well as access, wide systems which are integrated with agency shall describe how all system use and disposal of IS data will be TANF. In cases where a State agency testing will be conducted and the safeguarded in accordance with can demonstrate that a local, dedicated, resources to be utilized in order to provisions of § 272.1(c) (disclosure) and or single function (issuance or verify the system complies with SNAP § 277.13 (property); certification only) system will provide requirements, system design (6) Require the provider to obtain for more efficient and effective specifications, and performance prior approval from FNS pursuant to administration of the program, FNS may standards including responsiveness,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52592 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

usability, capacity, and security. Testing that program policy is correctly applied, date the State agency acquires the IS includes but is not limited to unit whether project goals and objectives equipment and services. testing, integration testing, performance were met, that IS equipment and (iv) If the complete IAPD submission testing, end-to-end testing, UAT, and services are being properly used and required by paragraph (d)(2) of this regression testing. During UAT detailed accurate inventory records exist, and the section is not received by FNS within 90 scripts covering all areas of program actual costs of the project. days from the date of the initial written functionality shall be used so that any (h) Disallowance of Federal financial request, costs may be subject to errors identified can be replicated, participation (FFP). If FNS finds that disallowance. corrected, and re-tested. any acquisition approved under the (j) General cost requirements.—(1) At a minimum, the Test Plan shall provisions of § 277.18(c) fails to comply Cost determination. Actual costs must address: with the criteria, requirements, and be determined in compliance with OMB (A) The types of testing to be other undertakings described in the Circular A–87 (2 CFR 225) and an FNS performed; approved or modified APD, payment of approved budget, and must be (B) The organization of the test team FFP may be suspended or may be reconcilable with the approved FNS and associated responsibilities; disallowed in whole or in part. funding level. A State agency shall not (C) Test database generation; (i) Emergency acquisition claim reimbursement for costs charged (D) Test case development; requirements. The State agency may to any other Federal program or uses of (E) Test schedule; request FFP for the costs of IS (F) Documentation of test results; IS systems for purposes not connected equipment and services acquired to with SNAP. The approved APD cost (G) Acceptance testing shall include meet emergency situations in which: functional requirements testing, error allocation plan includes the methods (1) The State agency can demonstrate which will be used to identify and condition handling and destructive to FNS an immediate need to acquire IS testing, security testing, recovery classify costs to be claimed. This equipment or services in order to methodology must be submitted to FNS testing, controls testing, stress and continue operation of SNAP; and the throughput performance testing, and as part of the request for FNS approval State agency can clearly document that of funding as required in paragraph (d) regression testing; the need could not have been (H) The decision criteria, including of this section. Operational costs are to anticipated or planned for and be allocated based on the statewide cost specific test results which must be met precludes the State from following the before the State may exit the testing allocation plan rather than the APD cost prior approval requirements of plan. Approved cost allocation plans for phase, the roles or titles of the paragraph (c) of this section. FNS may individuals responsible for verifying ongoing operational costs shall not provide FFP in emergency situations if apply to IS system development costs that these criteria have been met, and the following conditions are met: the sign-off process which will under this section unless (2) The State agency must submit a documentation required under document that the criteria have been written request to FNS prior to the met. paragraph (c) of this section is acquisition of any IS equipment or submitted to and approvals are obtained (I) FNS may require any or all of these services. The written request shall tests to be repeated in instances where from FNS. Any APD-related costs include: approved by FNS shall be excluded in significant modifications are made to (i) A brief description of the IS determining the State agency’s the system after these tests are initially equipment and/or services to be administrative costs under any other completed or if problems that surfaced acquired and an estimate of their costs; section of this part. during initial testing warrant a retest. (ii) A brief description of the FNS reserves the right to participate and circumstances which result in the State (2) Cost identification for purposes of conduct independent testing, as agency’s need to proceed with the FFP claims. State agencies shall assign necessary, during UAT and at acquisition prior to fulfilling approval and claim the costs incurred under an appropriate times during system design, requirements at paragraph (c) of this approved APD in accordance with the development, implementation, and section; and following criteria: operations. (iii) A description of the adverse (i) Development costs. Using its (ii) Pilot. Prior to statewide rollout of impact which would result if the State normal departmental accounting the system there must be a test of the agency does not immediately acquire system, in accordance with the cost fully operational system in a live the IS equipment and/or services. principles set forth in OMB Circular A– production environment. Pilots must (3) Upon receipt of a written request 87 (2 CFR 225), the State agency shall operate until a state of routine operation for emergency acquisition FNS shall specifically identify what items of costs is reached with the full caseload in the provide a written response to the State constitute development costs, assign pilot area. The design of this pilot shall agency within 14 days. The FNS these costs to specific project cost provide an opportunity to test all response shall: centers, and distribute these costs to components of the system as well as the (i) Inform the State agency that the funding sources based on the specific data conversion process and system request has been disapproved and the identification, assignment and performance. The duration of the pilot reason for disapproval; or, distribution outlined in the approved must be for a sufficient period of time (ii) FNS recognizes that an emergency APD. The methods for distributing costs to thoroughly evaluate the system situation exists and grants conditional set forth in the APD should provide for (usually a minimum duration of three approval pending receipt of the State assigning identifiable costs, to the extent months). The State agency must provide agency’s formal submission of the IAPD practicable, directly to program/ documentation to FNS of the pilot information specified at paragraph (d)(2) functions. The State agency shall amend evaluation. FNS approval to implement of this section within 90 days from the the cost allocation plan required by the system more broadly is a condition date of the State agency’s initial written § 277.9 (administrative cost principles) for continued FFP. request. to include the approved APD (iii) Post-implementation Review. (iii) If FNS approves the request methodology for the identification, After the system is fully implemented submitted under paragraph (i)(1) of this assignment and distribution of the FNS may conduct a review to validate section, FFP will be available from the development costs.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52593

(ii) Operational costs. Costs incurred intervals as are deemed necessary by procedures to address the following for the operation of an IS shall be FNS, in order to determine whether the areas of IS security: identified and assigned by the State conditions for approval are being met (A) Physical security of IS resources; agency to funding sources in accordance and to determine the efficiency, (B) Equipment security to protect with the approved cost allocation plan economy and effectiveness of the equipment from theft and unauthorized required by § 277.9 (administrative cost system. Failure to provide full access to use; principles). all parts of the system may result in (C) Software and data security; (iii) Service agreement costs. States suspension and/or termination of SNAP (D) Telecommunications security; that operate a central data processing funds for the costs of the system and its (E) Personnel security; facility shall use their approved central operation. (F) Contingency plans to meet critical service cost allocation plan required by (l) Ownership rights—(1) Software.— processing needs in the event of short- OMB Circular A–87 (2 CFR part 225) to (i) The State or local government shall or long-term interruption of service; identify and assign costs incurred under include a clause in all procurement (G) Emergency preparedness; and service agreements with the State instruments which provides that the (H) Designation of an Agency IS agency. The State agency shall then State or local government shall have all Security Manager. distribute these costs to funding sources ownership rights in any software or (iii) Periodic risk analyses. State in accordance with paragraphs (j)(2)(i) modifications thereof and associated agencies shall establish and maintain a and (ii) of this section. documentation designed, developed or program for conducting periodic risk (3) Capital expenditures. The State installed with FFP under this section. analyses to ensure that appropriate, agency shall charge the costs of IT (ii) FNS reserves a royalty-free, cost-effective safeguards are equipment having unit acquisition costs nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to incorporated into new and existing or total aggregate costs, at the time of reproduce, publish, or otherwise use systems. In addition, risk analyses shall acquisition, of more than $25,000 by and to authorize others to use for be performed whenever significant means of depreciation or use allowance, Federal Government purposes, such system changes occur. unless a waiver is specifically granted software, modifications, and (3) IS security reviews. State agencies by FNS. If the equipment acquisition is documentation. shall review the security of IS involved part of an APD that is subject to the in the administration of SNAP on a (iii) Proprietary operating/vendor prior approval requirements of biennial basis. At a minimum, the software packages which meet the paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the State reviews shall include an evaluation of definition of COTS at paragraph agency may submit the waiver request physical and data security, operating 277.18(b) shall not be subject to the as part of the APD. procedures, and personnel practices. ownership provisions in paragraphs (4) Claiming costs. Prior to claiming State agencies shall maintain reports of (l)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. FFP is funding under this section the State their biennial IS security reviews, not available for development costs for agency shall have complied with the together with pertinent supporting proprietary application software requirements for obtaining approval and documentation, for Federal review upon developed specifically for SNAP. prior approval of paragraph (c) of this request. (2) Information Systems equipment. section. (4) Applicability. The security The policies and procedures governing (5) Budget authority. FNS approval of requirements of this section apply to all title, use and disposition of property requests for funding shall provide IS systems used by State and local purchased with FFP, which appear at notification to the State agency of the governments to administer SNAP. budget authority and dollar limitations § 277.13 (property) are applicable to IS under which such funding may be equipment. Dated: August 10, 2011. claimed. FNS shall provide this amount (m) Information system security Audrey Rowe, as a total authorization for such funding requirements and review process—(1) Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. which may not be exceeded unless Information system security [FR Doc. 2011–20796 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] amended by FNS. FNS’s determination requirements. State and local agencies BILLING CODE 3410–30–P of the amount of this authorization shall are responsible for the security of all IS be based on the budget submitted by the projects under development, and State agency. Activities not included in operational systems involved in the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the approved budget, as well as administration of SNAP. State and local continuation of approved activities agencies shall determine appropriate IS Federal Aviation Administration beyond scheduled deadlines in the security requirements based on approved plan, shall require FNS recognized industry standards or 14 CFR Part 39 compliance with standards governing approval of an As Needed APD Update [Docket No. FAA–2011–0596; Directorate as prescribed in paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(D) security of Federal information systems Identifier 2008–SW–37–AD] and (d)(4) of this section, including an and information processing. amended State budget. Requests to (2) Information security program. RIN 2120–AA64 State agencies shall implement and amend the budget authorization Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter approved by FNS shall be submitted to maintain a comprehensive IS Security Program for IS and installations Canada Ltd. Model BO 105 LS A–3 FNS prior to claiming such expenses. Helicopters (k) Access to the system and records. involved in the administration of the Access to the system in all aspects, SNAP. IS Security Programs shall AGENCY: Federal Aviation including but not limited to design, include the following components: Administration, DOT. development, and operation, including (i) Determination and implementation ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking work performed by any source, and of appropriate security requirements as (NPRM). including cost records of contractors prescribed in paragraph (m)(1) of this and subcontractors, shall be made section. SUMMARY: This document proposes available by the State agency to FNS or (ii) Establishment of a security plan superseding an existing airworthiness its authorized representatives at and, as appropriate, policies and directive (AD) for Eurocopter Canada

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52594 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Ltd. Model BO 105 LS A–3 helicopters. comments on the overall regulatory, issued Canadian AD No. CF–2008– That AD currently requires establishing economic, environmental, and energy 17R1, dated May 26, 2008, to correct an a life limit for certain tension-torsion aspects of the proposed AD. We will unsafe condition for the Eurocopter (TT) straps. This action would require consider all comments received by the Canada Ltd. (formerly MBB Canada reducing the ‘‘number of flights’’ life closing date and may amend the Ltd.) Model BO 105–LS–A3 helicopters. limit and providing a time-in-service proposed AD because of those Transport Canada advises that ‘‘the (TIS) life limit for those TT straps. This comments. tension-torsion strap (TTS) failure on a proposal is prompted by a recalculation We will post all comments we MBB BK 117 helicopter in July 1999, by the manufacturer and subsequent receive, without change, to http:// initiated a TTS service life changes to the service information www.regulations.gov, including any recalculation. This recalculation related to the retirement time of the TT personal information you provide. We changed the retirement time in Chapter strap initially adopted as a result of an will also post a report summarizing each 4 of Maintenance Manual. As a result of accident in which a main rotor blade substantive verbal contact with FAA this change, the TTS in service are to be (blade) separated from a Eurocopter personnel concerning this proposed replaced or inspected as a precautionary Deutschland GMBH (ECD) Model MBB– rulemaking. Using the search function measure, pending already accumulated BK 117 helicopter due to fatigue failure of the docket web site, you can find and service hours and the calendar time of a TT strap. The same part-numbered read the comments to any of our since their last installation.’’ TT strap is used on Model BO 105 LS dockets, including the name of the Since the issuance of the Transport A–3 helicopters. The actions specified individual who sent or signed the Canada AD, the type certificate for this by the proposed AD are intended to comment. You may review the DOT’s helicopter model has been transferred to prevent fatigue failure of a TT strap, loss complete Privacy Act Statement in the the Federal Republic of Germany. The of a blade, and subsequent loss of Federal Register published on April 11, European Aviation Safety Agency control of the helicopter. 2000 (65 FR 19477–78). (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Federal Republic of Germany, DATES: Comments must be received on Examining the Docket or before October 24, 2011. has adopted Transport Canada AD No. You may examine the docket that CF–2008–17R1, dated May 26, 2008, ADDRESSES: Use one of the following contains the proposed AD, any and requires compliance with that AD. addresses to submit comments on this comments, and other information on the proposed AD: Related Service Information • Internet at http://www.regulations.gov Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to or in person at the Docket Operations Eurocopter Canada Limited issued http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB–BO 105 instructions for submitting comments. • Monday through Friday, except Federal LS–10–10, Revision 1, dated January 8, Fax: (202) 493–2251. holidays. The Docket Operations office 2008 (ASB). The ASB describes • Mail: U.S. Department of (telephone (800) 647–5527) is located in procedures for determining the total Transportation, Docket Operations, Room W12–140 on the ground floor of accumulated installation time and M–30, West Building Ground Floor, the West Building at the street address factoring the number of flights on each Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey stated in the ADDRESSES section. TT strap. The ASB also describes and Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. contains a graph for determining the • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. revised life limit, and provides various Transportation, Docket Operations, compliance intervals, inspection M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Discussion provisions, and replacement criteria for Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey On September 5, 2000, we issued the TT strap. The previously described Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, superseding AD 2000–18–13, ASB specifies procedures for between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Amendment 39–11899 (65 FR 55452, determining the total accumulated through Friday, except Federal holidays. September 14, 2000), to establish a life installation time and number of flights You may get the service information limit for TT strap, part number (P/N) on TT strap, P/N 2604067 (Bendix) or identified in this proposed AD from 2604067 (Bendix) or P/N J17322–1 P/N J17322–1 (Lord). The ASB also American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 (Lord), of 120 months or 40,000 flights, describes establishing a revised life Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75053– whichever occurs first. That action was limit for the TT strap of 120 months, 4005, telephone (972) 641–3460, fax prompted by an accident in July 1999 in 25,000 flights, or 3,800 hours, (972) 641–3527, or at http:// which a blade separated from a whichever occurs first. Transport www.eurocopter.com. Eurocopter Deutschland GMBH (ECD) Canada classified this alert service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Model MBB–BK 117 helicopter due to bulletin as mandatory and issued AD Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, fatigue failure of a TT strap. The same No. CF–2008–17R1, dated May 26, 2008, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations part-numbered TT strap is also used on to ensure the continued airworthiness of and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., the Eurocopter Canada Ltd. Model BO these helicopters. EASA, the Technical Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone 105 LS A–3 helicopters. The Agent for the current type certificate (817) 222–5122, fax (817) 222–5961. requirements of that AD are intended to holder, the Federal Republic of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: prevent failure of a TT strap, loss of a Germany, has adopted and requires blade, and subsequent loss of control of compliance with Transport Canada AD Comments Invited the helicopter. No. CF–2008–17R1, dated May 26, 2008. We invite you to send any written Since issuing that AD, the relevant data, views, or arguments about manufacturer has recalculated the FAA’s Evaluation and Unsafe Condition this proposed AD. Send your comments retirement time, provided a time-in- Determination to an address listed under the caption service (TIS) limit, and issued revised This helicopter has been approved by ADDRESSES. Include the ‘‘Docket No. service information related to the life the aviation authority of the Federal FAA–2011–0596; Directorate Identifier limit of the TT strap. Republic of Germany and is approved 2008–SW–37–AD’’ at the beginning of Transport Canada, which is the for operation in the United States. your comments. We specifically invite aviation authority for Canada, has Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52595

the Federal Republic of Germany, 2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the Applicability: Model BO 105 LS A–3 EASA, their technical representative, DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures helicopters, with tension-torsion (TT) strap, has notified us of the unsafe condition (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); part number (P/N) 2604067 (Bendix) or J17322–1 (Lord), installed, certificated in any described in the Transport Canada AD, 3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in category. which has been adopted by EASA. We Alaska to the extent that it justifies Compliance: Required as indicated, unless are proposing this AD because we making a regulatory distinction; and accomplished previously. evaluated all information provided by 4. Will not have a significant To prevent fatigue failure of a TT strap, EASA and Transport Canada and economic impact, positive or negative, loss of a main rotor blade, and subsequent determined the unsafe condition exists on a substantial number of small entities loss of control of the helicopter accomplish and is likely to exist or develop on other under the criteria of the Regulatory the following: helicopters of the same type design. Flexibility Act. (a) Before further flight: (1) Create a component log card or This proposed AD would require We prepared an economic evaluation equivalent record for each TT strap. establishing a revised life limit for TT of the estimated costs to comply with (2) Review the history of each helicopter strap, P/N 2604067 (Bendix) or P/N this proposed AD. See the AD docket to and TT strap. Determine the age since initial J17322–1 (Lord), of 120 months, examine the economic evaluation. installation on any helicopter (age) and the 25,000 flights, or 3,800 hours time-in- number of flights on each affected TT strap. Authority for This Rulemaking service (TIS), whichever occurs first. Enter the age, hours time-in-service (TIS), Title 49 of the United States Code and the number of flights for each TT strap Differences Between This Proposed AD specifies the FAA’s authority to issue on the component log card or equivalent and the Transport Canada AD rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, record. When the number of flights is unknown, multiply the number of hours TIS Our AD differs from the Transport Section 106, describes the authority of by 5 to determine the number of flights. If a Canada AD as follows: the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, TT strap has been previously used at any • The Transport Canada AD uses the Aviation Programs, describes in more time on Model BO–105LS A–3 ‘SUPER terms ‘‘air time hours’’ and ‘‘flight detail the scope of the Agency’s LIFTER’’, BO–105 CB–5, BO–105 CBS–5, hours’’ to describe compliance times, authority. BO–105 DBS–5, or any MBB–BK 117 series and this proposed AD uses the term We are issuing this rulemaking under helicopter, multiply the total number of ‘‘hours time-in-service’’. the authority described in Subtitle VII, flights accumulated on those other models by • Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, a factor of 1.6 and then add that result to the The Transport Canada AD requires number of flights accumulated on the inspections for tension-torsion straps ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that helicopters affected by this AD. that have an accumulated installation section, Congress charges the FAA with (3) Remove any TT strap from service if the time of 10 or more years, and our AD promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in total hours TIS or number of flights and age does not require these inspections. air commerce by prescribing regulations cannot be determined. • The Transport Canada AD requires for practices, methods, and procedures (b) Remove any TT strap, P/N 2604067 verifying and establishing a new service the Administrator finds necessary for (Bendix) or P/N J17322–1 (Lord), that has been in service for 120 months since initial life for the tension-torsion straps within safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority installation on any helicopter, or has the next 25 hours TIS, and this AD accumulated 25,000 flights (a flight is a requires this to be done before further because it addresses an unsafe condition takeoff and a landing), or has been in service flight. that is likely to exist or develop on for 3,800 hours TIS. products identified in this rulemaking (c) This AD revises the Airworthiness Costs of Compliance action. Limitations Section of the maintenance manual by establishing a revised life limit for We estimate that this proposed AD List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 would affect 13 helicopters of U.S. the TT strap, P/N 2604067 (Bendix) or P/N registry and the proposed actions would Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation J17322–1 (Lord), of 120 months, 25,000 safety, Safety. flights, or 3,800 hours TIS, whichever occurs take about 15 work hours per helicopter first. to accomplish at an average labor rate of The Proposed Amendment Note 1: Eurocopter Canada Limited Alert $85 per work hour. Required parts Service Bulletin No. ASB–BO 105 LS–10–10, would cost about $13,867 per Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2008, which is helicopter. Based on these figures, we not incorporated by reference, contains estimate the total cost impact of the the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR Part additional information about the subject of proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 39 as follows: this AD. $196,846 to replace all the affected TT PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS (d) To request a different method of straps in the entire fleet. compliance or a different compliance time DIRECTIVES for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR Regulatory Findings 1. The authority citation for Part 39 39.19. Contact the Manager, Safety We have determined that this Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Sharon continues to read as follows: Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, proposed AD would not have federalism Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy implications under Executive Order Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, 13132. Additionally, this proposed AD § 39.13 [Amended] Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222–5122, fax would not have a substantial direct 2. Section 39.13 is amended by (817) 222–5961, for information about effect on the States, on the relationship removing Amendment 39–11899 (65 FR previously approved alternative methods of between the national Government and 55452; September 14, 2000), and adding compliance. the States, or on the distribution of (e) The Joint Aircraft System/Component the following new airworthiness (JASC) Code is 6200: Main Rotor System. power and responsibilities among the directive (AD): various levels of government. Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed EUROCOPTER CANADA LTD.: Docket No. in Transport Canada (Canada) AD No. CF– For the reasons discussed above, I FAA–2011–0596; Directorate Identifier 2008–17R1, dated May 26, 2008. The certify that the proposed regulation: 2008–SW–37–AD. Supersedes AD 2000– European Aviation Safety Agency, which is 1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 18–13; Amendment 39–11899; Docket the Technical Agent for the current type action’’ under Executive Order 12866; No. 99–SW–68–AD. certificate holder, the Federal Republic of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52596 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Germany, has adopted and requires FAA will present a briefing on the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION compliance with the Transport Canada AD. proposed establishment of Class C Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 3, airspace at Long Beach, CA. Each 16 CFR Parts 239, 700, 701, 702 and 2011. participant will be given an opportunity 703 to deliver comments or make a Kim Smith, Request for Comment Concerning presentation, although a time limit may Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Interpretations of the Magnuson-Moss Certification Service. be imposed. Only comments concerning Warranty Act; Rule Governing [FR Doc. 2011–21472 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] the proposal to establish Long Beach Disclosure of Written Consumer BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Class C airspace will be accepted. Product Warranty Terms and (b) The meetings will be open to all Conditions; Rule Governing Pre-Sale persons on a space-available basis. Availability of Written Warranty Terms; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION There will be no admission fee or other Rule Governing Informal Dispute Federal Aviation Administration charge to attend and participate. Settlement Procedures; and Guides for (c) Any person wishing to make a the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees 14 CFR Part 71 presentation to the FAA panel will be asked to sign in and estimate the Proposed Establishment of Class C AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. amount of time needed for such Airspace for Long Beach, CA; Public ACTION: Request for public comment. Meetings presentation. This will permit the panel to allocate an appropriate amount of SUMMARY: As part of its systematic AGENCY: Federal Aviation time for each presenter. These meetings review of all Federal Trade Commission Administration (FAA), DOT. will not be adjourned until everyone on (‘‘AFTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) rules and ACTION: Notice of meetings. the list has had an opportunity to guides, the FTC seeks public comment address the panel. on a set of warranty-related SUMMARY: This notice announces two (d) Position papers or other handout Interpretations, Rules and Guides: its fact-finding informal airspace meetings Interpretations of the Magnuson-Moss to solicit information from airspace material relating to the substance of these meetings will be accepted. Warranty Act (‘‘Interpretations’’ or users and others, concerning a proposal ‘‘Rule 700’’); its Rule Governing Participants wishing to submit handout to establish Class C airspace at Long Disclosure of Written Consumer Product material should present an original and Beach, CA. The purpose of these Warranty Terms and Conditions (‘‘Rule meetings is to provide interested parties two copies (3 copies total) to the 701’’); its Rule Governing Pre-Sale an opportunity to present views, presiding officer. There should be Availability of Written Warranty Terms recommendations, and comments on the additional copies of each handout (‘‘Rule 702’’); its Rule Governing proposal. All comments received during available for other attendees. Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures these meetings will be considered prior (e) These meetings will not be (‘‘Rule 703’’); and its Guides for the to any issuance of a notice of proposed formally recorded. However, a summary Advertising of Warranties and rulemaking. of comments made at the meetings will Guarantees (‘‘Guides’’). The DATES: The informal airspace meetings be filed in the docket. Commission requests public comment will be held on October 25 and 26, 2011. on the overall costs, benefits, necessity Meetings will run from 6 p.m. until Agenda for the Meetings and regulatory and economic impact of 9 p.m. Comments must be received on these Interpretations, Rules and Guides. or before December 12, 2011. —Sign-in. DATES: Written comments must be ADDRESSES: —Presentation of meeting procedures. The meetings will be held at received on or before October 24, 2011. the Holiday Inn Long Beach Airport, —FAA briefing on the proposed 2640 N. Lakewood Blvd., Long Beach, ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a establishment of the Class C Airspace comment online or on paper by CA 90815, 562–597–4401. Area. Comments: Send comments on the following the instructions in the proposal, in triplicate, to: John Warner, —Solicitation of public comments. Request for Comment portion of the Operations Support Group, AJV–W2, —Closing comments. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section Western Service Area, Air Traffic below. Write ‘‘Magnuson-Moss Issued in Washington, DC, on August 16, Warranty Act Rule Review, 16 CFR Part Organization, Federal Aviation 2011. Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, 700, P114406,’’ on your comment, and SW., Renton, WA 98057. Gary A. Norek, file your comment online at https:// FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ Anderson (838) 537–5847 or Rick ATC Procedures Group. warrantyrulesanprm by following the Pfahler, (858) 537–5830, FAA Support [FR Doc. 2011–21424 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] instructions on the Web-based form. If Managers, Southern California BILLING CODE 4910–13–P you prefer to file your comment on TRACON, 9175 Kearny Villa Road, San paper, mail or deliver your comment to Diego, CA 92126: the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Room H–113 (Annex G), 600 Meeting Procedures Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., (a) Doors open 30 minutes prior to the Washington, DC 20580. beginning of each meeting. The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: meetings will be informal in nature and Svetlana S. Gans, Attorney, Division of will be conducted by one or more Marketing Practices, Bureau of representatives of the FAA Western Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Service Area. A representative from the Commission, H–286, 600 Pennsylvania

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52597

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, Interpretations, like industry guides, are C. 16 CFR Part 702: Pre-Sale Availability (202) 326–3708. administrative interpretations of the of Written Warranty Terms SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: law. Therefore, they do not have the Section 2302(b)(1)(A) of the Act force of law and are not independently I. Background directs the Commission to promulgate enforceable. The Commission may take rules requiring that the terms of any A. 16 CFR 700: Interpretations of the action under the FTC Act, however, if written warranty on a consumer product Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act a business makes claims inconsistent be made available to the prospective The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act with the Interpretations. In any such purchaser prior to the sale of the (‘‘Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 2301–2312, which enforcement action, the Commission product. Accordingly, on December 31, governs written warranties on consumer must prove that the act or practice at 1975, the Commission published Rule products, was signed into law on issue is unfair or deceptive in violation 702. In promulgating Rule 702, the January 4, 1975. After the Act was of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Commission determined that the passed, the Commission received many availability of warranty information questions concerning the Act’s B. 16 CFR 701: Disclosure of Written prior to sale is an important tool for requirements. In responding to these Consumer Product Warranty Terms and consumers in making a purchasing inquiries, the Commission initially Conditions decision either about the product itself published, on June 18, 1975, a policy Section 2302(b)(1)(A) of the Act or about buying a service contract for statement in the Federal Register (40 FR the product. The Rule was amended on authorizes the Commission to 25721) providing interim guidance March 12, 1987 (52 FR 7569). Among promulgate rules regarding the during the initial implementation of the other things, Rule 702 now requires Act. As the Commission continued to disclosure of written warranty terms. sellers to make warranties readily receive questions and requests for Accordingly, on December 31, 1975, the available either by (1) Displaying the advisory opinions, however, it Commission published in the Federal warranty document in close proximity determined that more comprehensive Register (40 FR 60188) its Rule to the product or (2) furnishing the guidance was appropriate. Therefore, on Governing Disclosure of Written warranty document on request and July 13, 1977, the Commission Consumer Product Warranty Terms and posting signs in prominent locations published in the Federal Register (42 Conditions. Rule 701 establishes advising consumers that warranties are FR 36112) its Interpretations of the disclosure requirements for written available. The Rule requires warrantors Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to assist warranties on consumer products that to provide materials to enable sellers to warrantors and suppliers of consumer cost more than $15.00 (40 FR 60171– comply with the Rule’s requirements, products in complying with the Act. 60172). It also specifies the aspects of and also sets out the methods by which These Interpretations are intended to warranty coverage that must be warranty information can be made clarify the Act’s requirements for disclosed in written warranties, as well available prior to the sale if the product manufacturers, importers, distributors as the exact language that must be used is sold through catalogs, mail order or and retailers. The Interpretations for certain disclosures regarding state door-to-door sales. Though discussed in provide explanation on a number of law on the duration of implied staff guidelines, Rule 702 currently does topics, including guidance on whether a warranties and the availability of not set out the methods by which particular product would be considered warranty information can be made a ‘‘consumer product’’ under the Act; consequential or incidental damages. Under Rule 701, warranty information available for products sold over the permissible uses of warranty registration Internet. cards under the Act; illegal tying must be disclosed in simple, easily arrangements under Section 2302(c) of understandable, and concise language in D. 16 CFR Part 703: Informal Dispute the Act 1; and service contracts.2 These a single document. In promulgating Settlement Procedures Rule 701, the Commission determined Section 2310(a)(2) of the Act directs 1 Section 2302(c) prohibits warrantors from that certain material facts about product the Commission to prescribe the employing ‘‘tying’’ arrangements—i.e., conditioning warranties must be disclosed because a written warranty’s coverage on the consumer’s minimum standards for any informal using, in connection with the warranted product, an failure to do so would be deceptive or dispute settlement mechanism article or service identified by brand, trade, or misleading. In addition to specifying the (‘‘IDSM’’) that a warrantor, by including corporate name (unless the warrantor provides that information that must appear in a a ‘‘prior resort’’ clause in its written article or service to the consumer without charge). written warranty, Rule 701 also requires The interpretations contained in Section 700.10 warranty, requires consumers to use explain that ‘‘[n]o warrantor may condition the that, if the warrantor uses a warranty before they may file suit under the Act continued validity of a warranty on the use of only registration or owner registration card, to obtain a remedy for warranty non- authorized repair service and/or authorized the warranty must disclose whether performance. Accordingly, on December replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance.’’ 16 CFR 700.10. Section 700.10 return of the registration card is a 31, 1975, the Commission published further provides that a warrantor is prohibited from condition precedent to warranty Rule 703. Rule 703 contains extensive denying liability where the warrantor cannot coverage. procedural safeguards for consumers demonstrate that the defect or damage was caused that an IDSM must incorporate if a by the use of unauthorized articles or services. Id. 2 The Act specifies that ‘‘[t]he term ‘service consideration beyond the purchase price of the warrantor requires consumers seeking contract’ means a contract in writing to perform, consumer product in order to benefit from the warranty redress to use it. These over a fixed period of time or for a specified agreement.’’ Id. By contrast, a service contract is not standards include, but are not limited duration, services relating to the maintenance or part of the basis of the bargain—it is often sold to, requirements concerning the IDSM’s repair (or both) of a consumer product.’’ 15 U.S.C. separately and for consideration additional to the structure (e.g., funding, staffing and 2301(8). Although a service contract is similar to a price of the product itself. ‘‘An agreement which written warranty, § 700.11 distinguishes a service neutrality), the qualifications of staff or would meet the [Act’s] definition of written contract from a warranty on the basis that a decision makers, the IDSM’s procedures warranty * * * but for its failure to satisfy the basis warranty must be ‘‘part of the basis of the bargain for resolving disputes, recordkeeping [to purchase a consumer product].’’ 16 CFR of the bargain test is a service contract.’’ 16 CFR 700.11(a). In other words, to be a warranty, it ‘‘must 700.11(c). The interpretations, however, do not set and annual audits. be conveyed at the time of sale of the consumer forth the specific manner in which service contract As noted, Rule 703 comes into play product and the consumer must not give any terms and conditions should be disclosed. only if the warranty includes a ‘‘prior

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52598 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

resort requirement.’’ Though few Therefore, the Commission now solicits Rules or Guides be changed because of warrantors have such a requirement, comments on, among other things, the these developments? If so, how? many state lemon laws, paralleling economic impact of, and the continuing 7. What are the effects, if any, of the Section 2310(a)(3) of the Act, prohibit need for, the Interpretations, Rules and Interpretations, Rules and Guides on the the consumer from pursuing any state the Guides; their benefits to consumers; costs, profitability, competitiveness and lemon law rights in court unless the and their burdens on firms subject to employment of small business entities? consumer first seeks a resolution of the their requirements. B. Specific Questions for Comment claim through an available IDSM. A threshold question for many state lemon III. Request for Comment 1. Should Rule 700.10, specifically, its lawsuits is whether the IDSM complies The Commission invites comment on interpretation of the Act’s tying with Rule 703 and thus whether the the Interpretations, Rules 701, 702, 703 prohibition contained in Section consumer must use the specified IDSM and the Guides. In addition, the 2302(c), be revised to improve the or may proceed directly to a court Commission requests responses to the effectiveness of the prohibition? Why or action. Thus, in effect, these states following general and specific why not? What changes, if any, should incorporate Rule 703 into their lemon questions. be considered? What evidence supports laws. these changes? A. General Questions for Comment 2. Should the Interpretations, Rules or E. 16 CFR Part 239: Guides for the 1. Is there a continuing need for Guides be amended to address service Advertising of Warranties and specific provisions of the contracts? Why or why not? What Guarantees Interpretations, Rules and Guides? Why changes, if any, should be considered? The Commission first adopted its or why not? What evidence supports these changes? Guides Against Deceptive Advertising of 2. What benefits and costs have the 3. Should Rule 702 be amended to Guarantees (later re-designated as the Interpretations, Rules and Guides had specifically address making warranty ‘‘Guides for the Advertising of on businesses or firms that are subject documents accessible via online Warranties and Guarantees’’) on April to their requirements? commerce? Why or why not? What 26, 1960 ‘‘for the use of its staff in (a) What changes, if any, should be changes, if any, should be considered? evaluation of the advertising of made to the Interpretations, Rules and What evidence supports these changes? guarantees’’ (32 FR 15541). The Guides Guides to minimize any burden or cost 4. Should the informal dispute were subsequently published in the imposed on businesses or firms subject settlement mechanism requirements of Federal Register on November 8, 1967, to their requirements? Rule 703 be changed? Why or why not? and were codified at 16 CFR part 239. (b) What evidence supports these What changes, if any, should be made? The Guides were revised in 1985 to proposed changes? What evidence supports these changes? (c) How would these changes affect harmonize them with the Act’s IV. Instructions for Comment requirements (50 FR 18470, May 1, 1985 consumers and businesses, including Submissions and 50 FR 20899, May 21, 1985). They small businesses? were again reviewed in 1996. 3. What benefits and costs have the You can file a comment online or on The Guides recommend that Interpretations, Rules and Guides had paper. For the Commission to consider advertisements mentioning warranties on consumers who purchase the your comment, we must receive it on or or guarantees should contain a warranted products affected by the Act? before October 24, 2011. Write disclosure that the actual warranty (a) What changes, if any, should be ‘‘Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Rule document is available for consumers to made to the Interpretations, Rules and Review, 16 CFR part 700, P114406,’’ on read before they buy the advertised Guides to increase the benefits to your comment. Your comment— product. In addition, the Guides set consumers? including your name and your state— forth advice for using the terms (b) What evidence supports these will be placed on the public record of ‘‘satisfaction guarantees,’’ ‘‘lifetime’’ proposed changes? this proceeding, including, to the extent and similar representations. Finally, the (c) How would these changes affect practicable, on the public Commission Guides state that sellers or consumers and businesses, including Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/ manufacturers should not advertise that small businesses? publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of a product is warranted or guaranteed 4. Do the Interpretations, Rules and discretion, the Commission tries to unless they promptly and fully perform Guides overlap or conflict with other remove individual’ home contact their warranty obligations. As federal, state, or local laws or information from comments before mentioned previously, these Guides do regulations? What evidence supports placing them on the Commission Web not have the force of law and are not these asserted conflicts? Should the site. independently enforceable, however, Interpretations, Rules or Guides be Because your comment will be made the Commission may take action under changed in light of these asserted public, you are solely responsible for the FTC Act, if a business makes claims conflicts? If so, how? making sure that your comment does inconsistent with the Guides, and the 5. Provide any evidence concerning not include any sensitive personal act or practice is unfair or deceptive in the degree of industry compliance with information, like anyone’s Social violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. the Interpretations, Rules and Guides. Security number, date of birth, driver’s Does this evidence indicate the license number or other state II. Regulatory Review Interpretations, Rules or Guides should identification number or foreign country The Commission reviews its rules and be modified? If so, why and how? If not, equivalent, passport number, financial guides periodically. These reviews seek why not? account number, or credit or debit card information about the costs and benefits 6. Have changes in technology, number. You are also solely responsible of the rules and guides as well as their including but not limited to, the Internet for making sure that your comment does regulatory and economic impact. These and mobile technology, or economic not include any sensitive health reviews assist the Commission in conditions affected the need or purpose information, like medical records or identifying rules and guides that for the Interpretations, Rules and other individually identifiable health warrant modification or rescission. Guides? Should the Interpretations, information. In addition, do not include

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52599

any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or the Commission’s privacy policy, at FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If financial information which is obtained http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm. you have questions on this proposed from any person and which is privileged By direction of the Commission. rule, call or e-mail Mr. John J. Mauro, or confidential,’’ as provided in Section Waterways Management Branch, First Richard C. Donohue, 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Coast Guard District; telephone 617– FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Acting Secretary. 223–8355, e-mail In particular, do not include [FR Doc. 2011–21527 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] [email protected]. If you have competitively sensitive information BILLING CODE 6750–01–P questions on viewing or submitting such as costs, sales statistics, material to the docket, call Renee V. inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, Wright, Program Manager, Docket manufacturing processes or customer DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. names. SECURITY SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, Coast Guard Public Participation and Request for you must file it in paper form, with a Comments request for confidential treatment, and 33 CFR Part 110 We encourage you to participate in you have to follow the procedure [USCG–2011–0231] this rulemaking by submitting explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR comments and related materials. All 4.9(c).3 Your comment will be kept RIN 1625–AA01 comments received will be posted confidential only if the FTC General without change to http:// Anchorage Regulations; Wells, ME Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, www.regulations.gov and will include grants your request in accordance with AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. any personal information you have the law and the public interest. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. provided. Postal mail addressed to the Submitting Comments Commission is subject to delay due to SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to heightened security screening. As a establish three special anchorage areas If you submit a comment, please result, we encourage you to submit your in Wells Harbor, Wells, Maine. This include the docket number for this comment online. To make sure that the proposed action is necessary to facilitate rulemaking (USCG–2010–0231), Commission considers your online safe navigation in that area and provide indicate the specific section of this comment, you must file it at https:// safe and secure anchorages for vessels document to which each comment ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ not more than 20 meters in length. This applies, and provide a reason for each warrantyrulesanprm, by following the action is intended to increase the safety suggestion or recommendation. You instructions on the Web-based form. If of life and property in Wells Harbor, may submit your comments and this Notice appears at http:// improve the safety of anchored vessels, material online (via http:// www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also and provide for the overall safe and www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or may file a comment through that Web efficient flow of vessel traffic and hand delivery, but please use only one site. commerce. of these means. If you submit a If you file your comment on paper, comment online via http:// write ‘‘Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act DATES: Comments and related material www.regulations.gov, it will be Rule Review, 16 CFR part 700, must be received by the Coast Guard on considered received by the Coast Guard P114406,’’ on your comment and on the or before October 7, 2011. Requests for when you successfully transmit the envelope, and mail or deliver it to the public meetings must be received by the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or following address: Federal Trade Coast Guard on or before September 13, mail your comment, it will be Commission, Office of the Secretary, 2011. considered as having been received by Room H–113 (Annex G), 600 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments the Coast Guard when it is received at Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., identified by docket number USCG– the Docket Management Facility. We Washington, DC 20580. If possible, 2011–0231 using any one of the recommend that you include your name submit your paper comment to the following methods: and a mailing address, an e-mail Commission by courier or overnight (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: address, or a telephone number in the service. http://www.regulations.gov. body of your document so that we can Visit the Commission Web site at (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. contact you if we have questions http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility regarding your submission. and the news release describing it. The (M–30), U.S. Department of To submit your comment online, go to FTC Act and other laws that the Transportation, West Building Ground http://www.regulations.gov, click on the Commission administers permit the Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey ‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will collection of public comments to Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– then become highlighted in blue. In the consider and use in this proceeding as 0001. ‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu appropriate. The Commission will (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail select ‘‘Proposed Rule’’ and insert consider all timely and responsive address above, between 9 a.m. and ‘‘USCG–2011–0231’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ public comments that it receives on or 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the before October 24, 2011. You can find Federal holidays. The telephone number balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. more information, including routine is 202–366–9329. If you submit your comments by mail or uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in To avoid duplication, please use only hand delivery, submit them in an one of these four methods. See the unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 3 In particular, the written request for confidential ‘‘Public Participation and Request for 11 inches, suitable for copying and treatment that accompanies the comment must Comments’’ portion of the electronic filing. If you submit include the factual and legal basis for the request, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION and must identify the specific portions of the section comments by mail and would like to comment to be withheld from the public record. See below for instructions on submitting know that they reached the Facility, FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). comments. please enclose a stamped, self-addressed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52600 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

postcard or envelope. We will consider Discussion of Proposed Rule Regulatory Analyses all comments and material received The proposed rule would create three We developed this proposed rule after during the comment period and may new special anchorage areas in Wells, considering numerous statutes and change the rule based on your Maine. These three new special executive orders related to rulemaking. comments. anchorage areas in Wells Harbor are Below we summarize our analyses Viewing Comments and Documents described below. All proposed based on 13 of these statutes or coordinates are North American Datum executive orders. To view comments, as well as 1983 (NAD 83). documents mentioned in this preamble Executive Order 12866 and Executive as being available in the docket, go to Anchorage A Order 13563 http://www.regulations.gov, click on the All of the waters enclosed by a line This proposed rule is not a significant ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then beginning at latitude 43°19′15.7″ N, regulatory action under section 3(f) of become highlighted in blue. In the longitude 070°33′42.1″ W; thence to Executive Order 12866, Regulatory ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG–2010– latitude 43°19′15.7″ N, longitude Planning and Review, as supplemented 0231’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the 070°33′40.3″ W; thence to latitude by Executive Order 13563, and does not ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ 43°19′2.6″ N, longitude 070°33′45.7″ W; require an assessment of potential costs column. You may also visit the Docket thence to latitude 43°19′3.7″ N, and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Management Facility in Room W12–140 longitude 70°33′42.6″ W; thence to the Order. The Office of Management and on the ground floor of the Department point of beginning. This area is Budget has not reviewed it under that of Transportation West Building, 1200 approximately 5,800 sq. yards, Order. New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, encompassing the central portion of We expect minimal additional cost DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Wells Harbor. impacts on fishing, or recreational boats Monday through Friday, except Federal anchoring because this rule would not Anchorage B holidays. We have an agreement with affect normal surface navigation. the Department of Transportation to use All of the waters enclosed by a line Although this regulation may have some the Docket Management Facility. beginning at latitude 43°19′11.1″ N, impact on the public, the potential longitude 070°33′49.8″ W; thence to Privacy Act impact will be minimized for the latitude 43°19′10.5″ N, longitude following reasons: Normal surface Anyone can search the electronic 070°33′47.3″ W; thence to latitude navigation will not be affected as this form of comments received into any of 43°19′8.7″ N, longitude 070°33′50.6″ W; area has been historically used as a our dockets by the name of the thence to latitude 43°19′8.3″ N, mooring field by the Town of Wells and individual submitting the comment (or longitude 070°33′47.3″ W; thence to the the number of vessels using the signing the comment, if submitted on point of beginning. This area is anchorage is limited due to depth (less behalf of an association, business, labor approximately 25,000 sq. yards, than or equal to 18 feet). encompassing the western portion of union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Small Entities Act notice regarding our public dockets Wells Harbor. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Anchorage C Federal Register (73 FR 3316). (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered All of the waters enclosed by a line whether this proposed rule would have Public Meeting beginning at latitude 43°19′17.7″ N, a significant economic impact on a longitude 070°33′34.0″ W; thence to substantial number of small entities. We do not now plan to hold a public latitude 43°19′18.4″ N, longitude The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises meeting. But, you may submit a request 070°33′32.9″ W; thence to latitude small businesses, not-for-profit for one on or before September 13, 2011 43°19′13.0″ N, longitude 070°33′26.2″ organizations that are independently using one of the four methods specified W; thence to latitude 43°19′13.8″ N, owned and operated and are not under ADDRESSES. Please explain why longitude 070°33′25.5″ W; thence to the dominant in their fields, and you believe a public meeting would be point of beginning. This area is governmental jurisdictions with beneficial. If we determine that one approximately 8,200 sq. yards, populations of less than 50,000. would aid this rulemaking, we will hold encompassing the eastern portion of The Coast Guard certifies under 5 one at a time and place announced by Wells Harbor. U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule a later notice in the Federal Register. Vessels not more than 20 meters in would not have a significant economic Basis and Purpose length are not required to sound signals impact on a substantial number of small as per Rule 35 of the Inland Navigation entities. This proposed rule would affect The legal basis for the proposed rule Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit the following entities, some of which is: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, anchor lights or shapes as per Rule 30 might be small entities: the owners or 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; and of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 operators of recreational and small Department of Homeland Security U.S.C. 2030) when at anchor in a special fishing vessels intending to anchor in Delegation No. 0170.1, which anchorage area. Additionally, mariners Wells Harbor. collectively authorize the Coast Guard utilizing the anchorage areas are The proposed rule would not have a to define anchorage grounds. encouraged to contact local and state significant economic impact on a The rule is intended to reduce the risk authorities, such as the local substantial number of small entities for of vessel collisions by creating three harbormaster, to ensure compliance the following reasons: Normal surface special anchorage areas in Wells Harbor. with any additional applicable state and navigation will not be affected as this This proposed rule would establish local laws. Such laws may involve, for area has been historically used as a special anchorage areas in the western, example, compliance with direction mooring field by the Town of Wells and central and eastern portions of Wells from the local harbormaster when the number of vessels using the Harbor creating anchorage for placing or using moorings within the anchorage is limited due to depth (less approximately 150 vessels. anchorage. than or equal to 18 feet).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52601

If you think that your business, have taking implications under technical standards (e.g., specifications organization, or governmental Executive Order 12630, Governmental of materials, performance, design, or jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity Actions and Interference with operation; test methods; sampling and that this rule would have a Constitutionally Protected Property procedures; and related management significant economic impact on it, Rights. systems practices) that are developed or please submit a comment (see adopted by voluntary consensus Civil Justice Reform ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it standards bodies. qualifies and how and to what degree This proposed rule meets applicable This proposed rule does not use this rule would economically affect it. standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of technical standards. Therefore, we did Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Assistance for Small Entities not consider the use of voluntary Reform, to minimize litigation, consensus standards. Under section 213(a) of the Small eliminate ambiguity, and reduce Business Regulatory Enforcement burden. Environment Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule we want to assist small entities in under Department of Homeland understanding this proposed rule so that We have analyzed this proposed rule Security Management Directive 023–01 they can better evaluate its effects on under Executive Order 13045, and Commandant Instruction them and participate in the rulemaking. Protection of Children from M16475.lD, which guide the Coast If the rule would affect your small Environmental Health Risks and Safety Guard in complying with the National business, organization, or governmental Risks. This rule is not an economically Environmental Policy Act of 1969 jurisdiction and you have questions significant rule and would not create an (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and concerning its provisions or options for environmental risk to health or risk to have made a preliminary determination compliance, please contact Mr. John J. safety that might disproportionately that this action is one of a category of Mauro, Waterways Management Branch, affect children. actions which do not individually or First Coast Guard District; telephone Indian Tribal Governments cumulatively have a significant effect on 617–223–8355, e-mail the human environment. We believe the [email protected]. The Coast This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive proposed rule would be categorically Guard will not retaliate against small excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph entities that question or complain about Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal (34)(f) of the Instruction because it this proposed rule or any policy or involves the establishment of special action of the Coast Guard. Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or anchorage grounds. We seek any Collection of Information more Indian tribes, on the relationship comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant This proposed rule would call for no between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of environmental impact from this new collection of information under the proposed rule. A preliminary Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. environmental analysis checklist is U.S.C. 3501–3520.). available in the docket where indicated Federalism Energy Effects under ADDRESSES. A rule has implications for federalism We have analyzed this proposed rule List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 under Executive Order 13132, under Executive Order 13211, Actions Federalism, if it has a substantial direct Concerning Regulations That Anchorage grounds. effect on State or local governments and Significantly Affect Energy Supply, For the reasons discussed in the would either preempt State law or Distribution, or Use. We have preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to impose a substantial direct cost of determined that it is not a ‘‘significant amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: compliance on them. We have analyzed energy action’’ under that order because this proposed rule under that Order and it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ PART 110—ANCHORAGE have determined that it does not have under Executive Order 12866 and is not REGULATIONS likely to have a significant adverse effect implications for federalism. 1. The authority citation for part 110 on the supply, distribution, or use of continues to read as follows: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act energy. The Administrator of the Office The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Information and Regulatory Affairs Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires has not designated it as a significant 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Federal agencies to assess the effects of energy action. Therefore, it does not Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. their discretionary regulatory actions. In require a Statement of Energy Effects particular, the Act addresses actions under Executive Order 13211. 2. Add § 110.9 to subpart A to read as that may result in the expenditure by a follows: Technical Standards State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of The National Technology Transfer § 110.9 Wells Harbor, Maine. $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 (a) Anchorage ‘‘A’’. All of the waters more in any one year. Though this U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use enclosed by a line beginning at latitude proposed rule would not result in such voluntary consensus standards in their 43°19′15.7″ N, longitude 070°′33″42.1’’ an expenditure, we do discuss the regulatory activities unless the agency W; thence to latitude 43°19′15.7″ N, effects of this rule elsewhere in this provides Congress, through the Office of longitude 070°33′40.3″ W; thence to preamble. Management and Budget, with an latitude 43°19′2.6″ N, longitude explanation of why using these 070°33′45.7″ W; thence to latitude Taking of Private Property standards would be inconsistent with 43°19′3.7″ N, longitude 70°33′42.6″ W; This proposed rule would not cause a applicable law or otherwise impractical. thence to the point of beginning. This taking of private property or otherwise Voluntary consensus standards are area is approximately 5,800 sq. yards,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52602 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

encompassing the central portion of operation of the CSX Railroad Vertical which each comment applies, and Wells Harbor. Lift Bridge across the Anacostia River, provide a reason for each suggestion or (b) Anchorage ‘‘B’’. All of the waters mile 3.4 at Washington, DC. The recommendation. You may submit your enclosed by a line beginning at latitude proposed change will alter the eight comments and material online (http:// 43°19′11.1″ N, longitude 070°33′49.8″ hour advance notice requirement for a www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or W; thence to latitude 43°19′10.5″ N, bridge opening to a 48 hour advance hand delivery, but please use only one longitude 070°33′47.3″ W; thence to notice requirement for a bridge opening. of these means. If you submit a latitude 43°19′8.7″ N, longitude The operating regulation change will comment online via http:// 070°33′50.6″ W; thence to latitude give more notice for trains and vessels www.regulations.gov, it will be 43°19′8.3″ N, longitude 070°33′47.3″ W; to adjust their schedules accordingly to considered received by the Coast Guard thence to the point of beginning. This ensure safe and efficient transits across when you successfully transmit the area is approximately 25,000 sq. yards, and through the bridge. comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or encompassing the western portion of DATES: Comments and related material mail your comment, it will be Wells Harbor. must reach the Coast Guard on or before considered as having been received by (c) Anchorage ‘‘C’’. All of the waters December 21, 2011. the Coast Guard when it is received at enclosed by a line beginning at latitude the Docket Management Facility. We ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 43 19 17.7 N, longitude 070 33 34.0 identified by docket number USCG– recommend that you include your name ° ′ ″ and a mailing address, an e-mail W; thence to latitude 43 19 18.4 N, 2011–0591 using any one of the longitude 070°33′32.9″ W; thence to address, or a phone number in the body ° ′ ″ following methods: latitude 43 19 13.0 N, longitude (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: of your document so that we can contact 070°33′26.2″ W; thence to latitude you if we have questions regarding your ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ http://www.regulations.gov. 43 19 13.8 N, longitude 070 33 25.5 (2) Fax: 202–493–2251. submission. W; thence to the point of beginning. (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility To submit your comment online, go to This area is approximately 8,200 sq. (M–30), U.S. Department of http://www.regulations.gov, click on the yards, encompassing the eastern portion Transportation, West Building Ground ‘‘submit a comment’’ box, which will of Wells Harbor. Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey then become highlighted in blue. In the (d) Regulations: This area is Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590– ‘‘Document Type’’ drop down menu principally for use by yachts and other 0001. select ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ and insert recreational craft. Temporary floats or (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail ‘‘USCG–2011–0591’’ in the ‘‘Keyword’’ buoys for marking anchors or moorings address above, between 9 a.m. and box. Click ‘‘Search’’ then click on the in place are allowed in this area. Fixed 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except balloon shape in the ‘‘Actions’’ column. mooring piles or stakes are not allowed. Federal holidays. The telephone number If you submit your comments by mail or All moorings or anchors shall be placed hand delivery, submit them in an is 202–366–9329. 1 well within the anchorage areas so that To avoid duplication, please use only unbound format, no larger than 8 ⁄2 by no portion of the hull or rigging will at one of these four methods. See the 11 inches, suitable for copying and any time extend outside of the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for electronic filing. If you submit them by anchorage. Comments’’ portion of the mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a Note: All anchoring in the areas is under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section the supervision of the Wells Harbor Master below for instructions on submitting stamped, self-addressed postcard or or other such authority as may be designated comments. envelope. We will consider all by the authorities of the Town of Wells, comments and material received during Maine. All coordinates referenced use datum: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If the comment period and may change NAD 83. you have questions on this proposed the rule based on your comments. rule, call or e-mail Lindsey Middleton, Dated: Aug. 9, 2011. Coast Guard; telephone 757–398–6629, Viewing Comments and Documents Daniel A. Neptun, e-mail [email protected]. If To view comments, as well as Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, you have questions on viewing or documents mentioned in this preamble First Coast Guard District. submitting material to the docket, call as being available in the docket, go to [FR Doc. 2011–21335 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, http://www.regulations.gov, click on the BILLING CODE 9110–04–P Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– ‘‘read comments’’ box, which will then 9826. become highlighted in blue. In the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ‘‘Keyword’’ box insert ‘‘USCG-2011- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 0591’’ and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click the SECURITY Public Participation and Request for ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ in the ‘‘Actions’’ Comments column. You may also visit the Docket Coast Guard We encourage you to participate in Management Facility in Room W12–140 this rulemaking by submitting on the ground floor of the Department 33 CFR Part 117 comments and related materials. All of Transportation West Building, 1200 [Docket No. USCG–2011–0591] comments received will be posted, New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, without change to http:// DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., RIN 1625–AA09 www.regulations.gov and will include Monday through Friday, except Federal any personal information you have Drawbridge Operation Regulation; holidays. We have an agreement with provided. Anacostia River, Washington, DC the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility. Submitting Comments AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Privacy Act ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this Anyone can search the electronic SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to rulemaking (USCG-2011-0591), indicate form of comments received into any of change the regulations governing the the specific section of this document to our dockets by the name of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52603

individual submitting the comment (or proposed rulemaking to discover any impact on a substantial number of small signing the comment, if submitted on impacts on train transit or water entities. behalf of an association, business, labor navigation as a result of the adjustment. This proposed rule would affect the union, etc.). You may review a Privacy During the test deviation period a bridge following entities, some of which might Act notice regarding our public dockets opening count has been requested from be small entities: The owners or in the January 17, 2008, issue of the the CSX Railroad Company. operators of vessels needing to transit Federal Register (73 FR 3316). through the bridge between October 1 Discussion of Proposed Rule and May 14 at all times and those Public Meeting The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 needing to transit between the hours of We do not now plan to hold a public CFR 117.253(b) for the CSX Railroad 7 p.m. and 9 a.m. and from 12 p.m. to meeting. But you may submit a request Bridge, mile 3.4 at Washington, DC. 1 p.m. between May 15 and September for one using one of the four methods Paragraph (b)(1)(iv) would change to 30. specified under ADDRESSES. Please state the following: At all other times, if This action will not have a significant explain why one would be beneficial. If at least 48 hours notice is given to the economic impact on a substantial we determine that one would aid this controller at the Benning Yard Office. number of small entities for the rulemaking, we will hold one at a time The remainder of paragraph (1) and following reasons: the rule adds and place announced by a later notice paragraphs (2) through (6) would remain minimal restrictions to the movement of in the Federal Register. the same as currently published. waterway navigation by requiring Basis and Purpose Vessels that are able to pass through vessels that are not essential public the bridge in the closed position may do vessels, vessels with dangerous The CSX Railroad Company has so at any time. There are no alternate emergencies, or vessels transiting requested a change in the operating routes for vessels that cannot pass through the bridge at specified excluded regulation for the CSX Railroad Vertical through the bridge in the closed times to give 48 hours of notice when Lift Bridge, across the Anacostia River, position. The Coast Guard will inform requesting a bridge opening. Vessels mile 3.4, at Washington, DC. The change waterway users through the Local and that can safely transit under the bridge will replace the current eight hour Broadcast Notices to Mariners. in the closed position may do so at any advance notice requirement for a bridge Regulatory Analyses time. opening to a 48 hour advance notice If you think that your business, requirement for a bridge opening. The We developed this proposed rule after organization, or governmental bridge is part of a rail line that is used considering numerous statutes and jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity for regular passenger service and there executive orders related to rulemaking. and that this rule would have a are 21 train transits a day across this Below we summarize our analyses significant economic impact on it, bridge. Therefore, it is necessary that based on 13 of these statutes or please submit a comment (see ample time is given to maintain an executive orders. ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it accurate schedule for trains and vessels Regulatory Planning and Review qualifies and how and to what degree for a safe and efficient travel across and this rule would economically affect it. through the bridge. This proposed rule is not a The current operating schedule for the ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Assistance for Small Entities bridge is set out in 33 CFR 117.253(b). section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Under section 213(a) of the Small The regulation was established in Regulatory Planning and Review, and Business Regulatory Enforcement August 2004 and allows the bridge to be does not require an assessment of Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), operated from a remote location, the potential costs and benefits under we want to assist small entities in Benning Yard office. The draw of the section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office understanding this proposed rule so that bridge shall open on signal at all times of Management and Budget has not they can better evaluate its effects on for public vessels of the United States, reviewed it under that Order. them and participate in the rulemaking. state and local government vessels, The proposed change is expected to If the rule would affect your small commercial vessels and any vessels in have only a minimal impact on business, organization, or governmental an emergency involving danger to life or maritime traffic transiting the bridge. jurisdiction and you have questions property; between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m., Mariners can plan their trips in concerning its provisions or options for and between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m. from accordance with the scheduled advance compliance, please contact Lindsey May 15 through September 30; and notice requirement for a bridge opening Middleton, Bridge Management between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. from May 15 to minimize delay. Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, through September 30 if notice is given Small Entities (757) 398–6629 or to the controller no later than 6 p.m. on [email protected]. The the day for which the opening is Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act Coast Guard will not retaliate against requested. At all other times the bridge (5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered small entities that question or complain will open if at least 8 hours notice is whether this proposed rule would have about this proposed rule or any policy given. a significant economic impact on a or action of the Coast Guard. The vertical clearance of the bridge is substantial number of small entities. 5 feet at Mean High Water in the closed The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises Collection of Information position and 29 feet at Mean High Water small businesses, not-for-profit This proposed rule would call for no in the open position. There are 21 train organizations that are independently new collection of information under the transits across this bridge every day. owned and operated and are not Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 There have been two bridge openings in dominant in their fields, and U.S.C. 3501–3520.). the past two years for vessels taller than governmental jurisdictions with five feet. populations of less than 50,000. Federalism We are testing the potential operating The Coast Guard certifies under 5 A rule has implications for federalism regulation adjustment for 180 days in U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule under Executive Order 13132, conjunction with this notice of would not have a significant economic Federalism, if it has a substantial direct

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52604 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

effect on State or local governments and Distribution, or Use. We have Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; would either preempt State law or determined that it is not a ‘‘significant Department of Homeland Security Delegation impose a substantial direct cost of energy action’’ under that order because No. 0170.1. compliance on them. We have analyzed it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 2. Revise § 117.253(b)(1) to read as this proposed rule under that Order and under Executive Order 12866 and is not follows: have determined that it does not have likely to have a significant adverse effect implications for federalism. on the supply, distribution, or use of § 117.253 Anacostia River. energy. The Administrator of the Office * * * * * Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Information and Regulatory Affairs (b)(1) * * * The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act has not designated it as a significant (iv) At all other times, if at least 48 of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires energy action. Therefore, it does not hours of notice is given to the controller Federal agencies to assess the effects of require a Statement of Energy Effects at the Benning Yard Office. their discretionary regulatory actions. In under Executive Order 13211. * * * * * particular, the Act addresses actions Technical Standards that may result in the expenditure by a Dated: July 22, 2011. State, local, or tribal government, in the The National Technology Transfer William D. Lee, aggregate, or by the private sector of and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use Fifth Coast Guard District. more in any one year. Though this voluntary consensus standards in their [FR Doc. 2011–21457 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] proposed rule will not result in such an regulatory activities unless the agency BILLING CODE 9110–04–P expenditure, we do discuss the effects of provides Congress, through the Office of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these Taking of Private Property ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION standards would be inconsistent with AGENCY This proposed rule would not cause a applicable law or otherwise impractical. taking of private property or otherwise Voluntary consensus standards are 40 CFR Part 52 have taking implications under technical standards (e.g., specifications Executive Order 12630, Governmental of materials, performance, design, or [EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0675, FRL–9455–7] Actions and Interference with operation; test methods; sampling Approval and Promulgation of Constitutionally Protected Property procedures; and related management Implementation Plans; State of Kansas Rights. systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus Regional Haze State Implementation Civil Justice Reform standards bodies. Plan This proposed rule does not use This proposed rule meets applicable AGENCY: Environmental Protection technical standards. Therefore, we did standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Agency (EPA). Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice not consider the use of voluntary ACTION: Proposed rule. Reform, to minimize litigation, consensus standards. eliminate ambiguity, and reduce Environment SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve burden. We have analyzed this proposed rule a State Implementation Plan (SIP) Protection of Children under Department of Homeland revision submitted by the State of Kansas on November 9, 2009, that We have analyzed this proposed rule Security Management Directive 023–01, and Commandant Instruction addresses Regional Haze for the first under Executive Order 13045, implementation period. In so doing, Protection of Children from M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National EPA is proposing to determine that the Environmental Health Risks and Safety plan submitted by Kansas satisfies the Risks. This rule is not an economically Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA significant rule and would not create an or Act), for states to prevent any future environmental risk to health or risk to have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of and remedy any existing anthropogenic safety that might disproportionately impairment of visibility in mandatory affect children. actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on Class I areas caused by emissions of air Indian Tribal Governments the human environment because it pollutants located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the This proposed rule does not have simply promulgates the operating ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are tribal implications under Executive regulations or procedures for required to assure reasonable progress Order 13175, Consultation and drawbridges. We seek any comments or toward the national goal of achieving Coordination with Indian Tribal information that may lead to the natural visibility conditions in Class I Governments, because it would not have discovery of a significant environmental areas. EPA is taking this action pursuant a substantial direct effect on one or impact from this proposed rule. to those provisions of the CAA that more Indian tribes, on the relationship List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 obligate the Agency to take action on between the Federal Government and submittals of SIPs. You may submit Indian tribes, or on the distribution of Bridges. written comments on this proposed rule power and responsibilities between the For the reasons discussed in the as per the instructions given under the Federal Government and Indian tribes. preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: section Instructions for Comment Energy Effects Submittal. PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE DATES: We have analyzed this proposed rule OPERATION REGULATIONS Written comments must be under Executive Order 13211, Actions received via the methods given in the Concerning Regulations That 1. The authority citation for part 117 Instructions for Comment section on or Significantly Affect Energy Supply, continues to read as follows: before September 22, 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52605

ADDRESSES: Instructions for Comment Docket Center homepage at http:// D. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Submittal: Submit your comments, www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Current Visibility Conditions which must be identified by Docket ID Docket: All documents in the docket E. Monitoring Strategy and Other No. EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0675, by one are listed in the http://www.regulations. Implementation Plan Requirements gov index. Although listed in the index, 1. Monitoring Strategy of the following methods: 2. Emissions Inventory 1. Federal eRulemaking portal: some information is not publicly 3. Reporting Requirements http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the available, e.g., CBI or other information 4. SIP Revision Schedule on-line instructions for submitting whose disclosure is restricted by statute. F. Determination of Reasonable Progress comments. Certain other material, such as Goals 2. E-mail: copyrighted material, will be publicly G. Best Available Retrofit Technology [email protected]. available only in hard copy form. 1. BART Eligible Sources 3. Fax: (913) 551–7844 (please alert Publicly available docket materials are 2. BART Subject Sources the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER available either electronically at http:// 3. BART Determinations INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at H. Long Term Strategy comments). 1. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing the Air Planning and Development Air Pollution Programs 4. Mail: Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Planning and Development Branch, U.S. 2. Measures to Mitigate Construction Agency, Region 7 Office, 901 N. 5th Activities Environmental Protection Agency, Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA 3. Emissions Limitations and Schedules for Region 7, 901 N 5th Street, Kansas City, requests that if at all possible, you Compliance to Achieve the Reasonable Kansas 66101. contact the individual listed in the FOR Progress Goal 5. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 4. Source Retirement and Replacement Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th view the hard copy of the docket. You Schedules Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; may view the hard copy of the docket 5. Smoke Management attention: Chrissy Wolfersberger. Such 6. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. deliveries are only accepted Monday Resulting From Projected Changes to excluding Federal holidays. through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Emissions excluding Federal holidays. Special FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: V. What action is EPA proposing? arrangements should be made for Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory deliveries of boxed information. Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Planning and Review EPA’s policy is that all comments B. Paperwork Reduction Act received will be included in the public Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101 or by telephone at (913) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) docket without change and may be D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act made available online at http://www. 551–7864. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism regulations.gov, including any personal SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination information provided, unless the Throughout this document, wherever With Indian Tribal Governments comment includes information claimed ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of to be Confidential Business Information EPA. Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (CBI) or other information whose Table of Contents disclosure is restricted by statute. Do H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, not submit information that you I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed action? Distribution, or Use consider to be CBI or otherwise I. National Technology Transfer and protected through http://www. A. The Regional Haze Problem B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s Advancement Act (NTTAA) regulations.gov or e-mail. The http:// Regional Haze Rule I. What is the background for EPA’s www.regulations.gov web site is an C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which Regional Haze proposed action? means EPA will not know your identity II. What are the requirements for regional A. The Regional Haze Problem or contact information unless you haze SIPs? Regional Haze is visibility impairment provide it in the body of your comment. A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze that is produced by a multitude of If you send an e-mail comment directly Rule B. Consultation With States and Federal sources and activities which are located to EPA, without going through http:// Land Managers (FLMs) across a wide geographic area and emit www.regulations.gov, your e-mail C. Determination of Baseline, Natural and fine particles (PM ) (e.g., sulfates, address will be automatically captured 2.5 Current Visibility Conditions nitrates, organic carbon, elemental and included as part of the comment D. Monitoring Strategy and Other carbon, and soil dust), and their that is placed in the public docket and Implementation Plan Requirements precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO ), made available on the Internet. If you E. Reasonable Progress Goals 2 nitrogen oxides (NO ), and in some submit an electronic comment, EPA F. Best Available Retrofit Technology X cases, ammonia (NH ) and volatile recommends that you include your (BART) 3 G. Long Term Strategy (LTS) organic compounds (VOC)). Fine name and other contact information in III. What is the relationship of the Clean Air particle precursors react in the the body of your comment and with any Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the regional atmosphere to form fine particulate disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA haze requirements? matter which impairs visibility by cannot read your comment due to A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR scattering and absorbing light. PM can technical difficulties and cannot contact B. Remand of the CAIR 2.5 also cause serious health effects and you for clarification, EPA may not be C. CAIR in Relation to the State of Kansas’s mortality in humans, and contributes to able to consider your comment. Submittal environmental effects such as acid Electronic files should avoid the use of IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State of Kansas’ submittal? deposition and eutrophication.1 special characters, any form of A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Haze encryption, and be free of any defects or Rule 1 Eutrophication is defined as excessive richness viruses. For additional information B. Affected Class I Areas of nutrients in a lake or other body of water, about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA C. Consultation With States and FLMs Continued

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52606 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Data from the existing visibility results from manmade air pollution.’’ EPA has encouraged the states and monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated tribes across the United States to Monitoring of Protected Visual regulations to address visibility address visibility impairment from a Environments’’, or IMPROVE impairment in Class I areas that is regional perspective. Five regional monitoring network, show that visibility ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single planning organizations (RPOs) were impairment caused by air pollution source or small group of sources, i.e. developed to address regional haze and occurs virtually all the time at most ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility related issues. The RPOs first evaluated national park and wilderness areas. The impairment’’ (45 FR 80084). These technical information to better average visual range in many Class I regulations represented the first phase understand how their states and tribes areas (e.g., national parks and memorial in addressing visibility impairment. impact Class I areas across the country, parks, wilderness areas, and EPA deferred action on regional haze and then pursued the development of international parks meeting certain size that emanates from a variety of sources regional strategies to reduce emissions criteria) in the Western United States is until monitoring, modeling and of particulate matter and other 100–150 kilometers (13.6–9.6 deciviews scientific knowledge about the pollutants leading to regional haze. The (dv)) 23, or about one-half to two-thirds relationships between pollutants and State of Kansas participated in the of the visual range that would exist visibility impairment improved. planning efforts of the Central Regional without anthropogenic air pollution. In Congress added section 169B to the Air Planning Association (CENRAP) most of the eastern Class I areas of the CAA in 1990 to address Regional Haze which is affiliated with the Central United States, the average visual range issues. EPA promulgated a rule to States Air Resource Agencies is less than 30 kilometers (25 dv or address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (CENSARA). This RPO includes nine more), or about one-fifth of the visual (64 FR 35713) (Regional Haze Rule or states—Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, range that would exist under estimated Rule). The Regional Haze Rule revised Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 the existing visibility regulations to Arkansas, and Louisiana. (July 1, 1999). integrate into the regulation provisions States were also required (40 CFR addressing regional haze impairment 51.308(i)) to coordinate with FLMs B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s and established a comprehensive Regional Haze Rule during the development of the state’s visibility protection program for Class I strategies to address Regional Haze. In section 169A of the 1977 areas. The requirements for regional FLMs include the US Fish and Wildlife Amendments CAA, Congress created a haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the program for protecting visibility in the 51.309, are included in the Federal National Park Service. nation’s national parks and wilderness visibility protection regulations at 40 areas. This section of the CAA CFR 51.300–309. Some of the main II. What are the requirements for establishes as a national goal the elements of the regional haze regional haze SIPs? ‘‘prevention of any future, and the requirements are summarized below in A. CAA Provisions and the Regional remedying of any existing, impairment section II. The requirement to submit a Haze Rule of visibility in mandatory Class I regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, Federal areas 4 which impairment the District of Columbia and the Virgin CAA sections 110(l) and 110(a)(2) Islands. States are required by 40 CFR require revisions to a SIP to be adopted frequently due to runoff from the land, which 51.308(b) to submit the first by a state after reasonable notice and causes a dense growth of plant life and death of implementation plan addressing public hearing. EPA has promulgated animal life from lack of oxygen. regional haze visibility impairment no specific procedural requirements for SIP 2 Visibility refers to the clarity with which distant revisions in 40 CFR Part 51, subpart F. objects can be viewed. Visual range is the distance later than December 17, 2007. at which an object is just discernible from the These requirements include publication background. This could be considered how far one C. Roles Agencies in Addressing of notices by prominent advertisement can see in a given direction. Visual range is Regional Haze in the relevant geographic area of a primarily affected by the scattering and absorption of light by particles in the atmosphere. Scattering Successful implementation of the public hearing on proposed revisions, at by gaseous molecules also reduces the transmission Regional Haze program will require least a 30-day public comment period, of light. The diminished intensity of light caused long-term regional coordination among and the opportunity for a public by this scattering and absorption is called light states, tribal governments and various hearing, and that the state, in extinction. accordance with its laws, submit the 3 Deciview means a measurement of visibility Federal agencies. As noted above, impairment. A deciview is a haze index derived pollution affecting the air quality in revision to the EPA for approval. from calculated light extinction, such that uniform Class I areas can be transported over Specific information on Kansas’ changes in haziness correspond to uniform long distances, even hundreds of rulemaking, Regional Haze SIP incremental changes in perception across the entire development and public information range of conditions, from pristine to highly kilometers. Therefore, to effectively impaired. address the problem of visibility process is included in Chapter 2, and 4 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal impairment in Class I areas, states need Appendix 2.1, of the State of Kansas areas are those national parks exceeding 6000 acres, to develop strategies in coordination Regional Haze SIP, which is included in wilderness areas and national memorial parks with one another, taking into account the docket of this proposed rulemaking. exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. the effect of emissions from one Regional Haze SIPs must assure 7472(a). Section 169A of the CAA requires EPA to jurisdiction on air quality in another. reasonable progress toward the national promulgate a list of such areas where visibility is Because the pollutants that lead to goal of achieving natural visibility an important value. 42 U.S.C. 7491. In 1979, EPA regional haze can originate from sources conditions in Class I areas. Section identified visibility as an important value in 156 of these areas. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979); see located across broad geographic areas, 169A, and EPA’s implementing 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. The extent of a regulations (40 CFR 51.300–51.309), mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the require states to establish long-term in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. responsibility of a ‘‘Federal land manager’’ (FLM), strategies for making reasonable 7472(a). Although States and tribes may designate the Secretary of the department with authority over additional areas as Class I, the requirements of the such lands. 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the progress toward meeting this goal. visibility program under section 169A of the CAA term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this notice, we mean a Implementation plans also must give apply only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ specific attention to certain stationary

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52607

sources that were in existence on people can detect a change in visibility to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress August 7, 1977 but were not in at one deciview.6 Guidance’’). operation before August 7, 1962 and The deciview is used in expressing For the first regional haze SIPs that require, where appropriate, that these reasonable progress goals (which are were due by December 17, 2007, sources install BART for the purpose of interim visibility goals toward meeting ‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the eliminating or reducing visibility the national visibility goal), defining starting point for assessing current impairment. The specific regional haze baseline, current, and natural visibility impairment. Baseline visibility SIP requirements are discussed in conditions, and tracking changes in conditions represent the degree of further detail below. visibility. The Regional Haze SIPs must visibility impairment for the 20 percent contain measures that make ‘‘reasonable least impaired days and 20 percent most B. Consultation With States and Federal impaired days for each calendar year Land Managers (FLMs) progress’’ toward the national goal of preventing and remedying visibility from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring The Regional Haze Rule requires that impairment in Class I areas caused by data for 2000 through 2004, states are states consult with other states and anthropogenic air pollution by reducing required to calculate the average degree FLMs before adopting and submitting anthropogenic emissions that cause of visibility impairment for each Class I their SIPs (40 CFR 51.308(i)). States regional haze. The national goal is a area, based on the average of annual must provide FLMs an opportunity for return to natural conditions, i.e., values over the five year period. The consultation, in person and at least 60 anthropogenic sources of air pollution comparison of initial baseline visibility days prior to holding any public hearing would no longer impair visibility in conditions to natural visibility on the SIP. This consultation must Class I areas. conditions indicates the amount of include the opportunity for the FLMs to To track changes in visibility over improvement necessary to attain natural discuss their assessment of impairment time at each of the 156 Class I areas visibility, while the future comparison of visibility in any Class I area and to covered by the visibility program, and of baseline conditions to then current offer recommendations on the as part of the process for determining conditions will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000– development of reasonable progress reasonable progress, states must 2004 baseline period is considered the goals (RPGs) 5 and on the development calculate the degree of existing visibility time from which improvement in and implementation of strategies to impairment at each Class I area at the visibility is measured. address visibility impairment. Further, a time of each Regional Haze SIP state must include in its SIP a submittal and periodically review D. Monitoring Strategy and Other description of how it addressed any progress every five years midway Implementation Plan Requirements through each 10-year implementation comments provided by the FLMs. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional period. To do this, the Regional Haze Finally, a SIP must provide procedures Haze Rule includes the requirement for Rule requires states to determine the for continuing consultation between the a monitoring strategy for measuring, degree of impairment (in deciviews) for state and FLMs regarding the state’s characterizing, and reporting of regional the average of the 20 percent least visibility protection program, including haze visibility impairment that is impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most development and review of SIP representative of all mandatory Class I impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over revisions, five-year progress reports, and Federal areas within the state. a specified time period at each of their the implementation of other programs Compliance with this requirement may Class I areas. In addition, states must having the potential to contribute to be met through participation in the develop an estimate of natural visibility impairment of visibility in Class I areas. Interagency Monitoring of Protected conditions for purpose of comparing Vital Environments (IMPROVE) C. Determination of Baseline, Natural progress toward the national goal. network, i.e. review and use of and Current Visibility Conditions Natural visibility is determined by monitoring data from the network. The estimating the natural concentrations of The Regional Haze Rule establishes monitoring strategy is due with the first pollutants that cause visibility the deciview as the principle metric or regional haze SIP, and it must be impairment and then calculating total unit for expressing visibility. This reviewed every five years. light extinction based on those visibility metric expresses uniform The monitoring strategy must also changes in haziness in terms of common estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate provide for additional monitoring sites increments across the entire range of if the IMPROVE network is not visibility conditions, from pristine to baseline, natural and current visibility conditions in documents titled, EPA’s sufficient to determine whether extremely hazy conditions. Visibility reasonable progress goals will be met. expressed in deciviews is determined by Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility conditions under the Regional The SIP must also provide for the using air quality measurements to following: estimate light extinction and then Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA–454/ • B–03–005 located at http:// Procedures for using monitoring transforming the value of light data and other information in a state extinction using a logarithm function. www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter with mandatory Class I areas to The deciview is a more useful measure determine the contribution of emissions for tracking progress in improving referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance’’), and Guidance for from within the state to regional haze visibility than light extinction itself visibility impairment at Class I areas because each deciview change is an Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 both within and outside the state; equal incremental change in visibility • For a state with no mandatory Class perceived by the human eye. Most September 2003, located at http:// www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ I areas, procedures for using monitoring rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred data and other information to determine 5 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)—for each mandatory Class the contribution of emissions from I area located within the State, the State must within the state to regional haze establish goals (expressed in deciviews) that 6 The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule provide for reasonable progress towards achieving provides additional details about the deciview. See visibility impairment at Class I areas in natural visibility conditions. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999). other states;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52608 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

• Reporting of all visibility (1) the costs of compliance; (2) the time uncontrolled, older stationary sources in monitoring data to the Administrator at necessary for compliance; (3) the energy order to address visibility impacts from least annually for each Class I area in and non-air quality environmental these sources. Specifically, section the state, and where possible, in impacts of compliance; and (4) the 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that electronic format; remaining useful life of any potentially certain categories of existing stationary • Developing a statewide inventory of affected sources. States must sources built between 1962 and 1977 emissions of pollutants that are demonstrate in their SIPs how these procure, install, and operate the ‘‘best reasonably anticipated to cause or factors are considered when selecting available retrofit technology’’ as contribute to visibility impairment in the reasonable progress goal for the best determined by the state.7 Under the any Class I area. The inventory must and worst days for each applicable Class Regional Haze Rule, states are directed include emissions for a baseline year, I area in the state (40 CFR to conduct BART determinations for the most recent year for which data are 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). States have such ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may available, and estimates of future considerable flexibility in how they take be anticipated to cause or contribute to projected emissions, along with a these factors into consideration, as any visibility impairment in a Class I commitment to update the inventory noted in EPA’s Guidance for Setting area. Rather than requiring source periodically; and Reasonable Progress Goals under the specific BART controls, states also have • Other elements, including Regional Haze Program, (‘‘EPA’s the flexibility to adopt an emissions reporting, recordkeeping, and other Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), July 1, trading program or other alternative measures necessary to assess and report 2007, memorandum from William L. program as long as the alternative on visibility. Wehrum, Acting Assistant provides greater reasonable progress The Regional Haze Rule requires Administrator for Air and Radiation, to toward improving visibility than BART. control strategies to cover an initial EPA Regional Administrators, EPA This is discussed in more detail in implementation period extending to the Regions 1–10 (pp. 4–2, 5–1). In setting section III. of this proposal. year 2018, with a comprehensive the reasonable progress goals, states On July 6, 2005, EPA published the reassessment and revision of those must also consider the rate of progress Guidelines for BART Determinations strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years needed to reach natural visibility Under the Regional Haze Rule 8 at thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must conditions by 2064 (referred to as the Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 meet the core requirements of section ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. ‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission reduction Guidelines’’) to assist states in The requirement to evaluate BART measures needed to achieve that rate of determining which of their sources applies only to the first Regional Haze progress over the ten year period of the should be subject to the BART SIP. Facilities subject to BART must SIP. Uniform progress toward requirements and in determining continue to comply with the BART achievement of natural visibility appropriate emissions limits for each provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted conditions by 2064 represents a rate of applicable source. In making a BART above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure progress which states are to use for determination for a fossil fuel-fired that the statutory requirement of analytical comparison to the amount of generating plant with a total generating reasonable progress will be continue to progress they expect to achieve. In capacity in excess of 750 megawatts be met. setting reasonable progress goals, each (MW), a state must use the approach set E. Reasonable Progress Goals state with one or more Class I areas forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is (‘‘Class I state’’) must also consult with The vehicle for ensuring continuing potentially ‘‘contributing states’’, i.e. 7 progress toward achieving the national The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially other nearby states with emission subject to BART are listed in CAA section visibility goal is the submission of a sources that may be affecting visibility 169A(g)(7). The 26 source categories are: (1) Fossil- series of regional haze SIPs that impairment at the Class I state’s areas fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 establish two reasonable progress goals (51.308(d)(1)(iv)). million British thermal units per hour heat input, (i.e., two distinct goals, one for the (2) Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers), (3) Kraft States without Class I areas are pulp mills, (4) Portland cement plants, (5) Primary ‘‘best’’ and one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for required to submit Regional Haze SIPs zinc smelters, (6) Iron and steel mill plants, (7) every Class I area for each to address their contribution to visibility Primary aluminum ore reduction plants, (8) Primary (approximately) 10-year implementation impairment. As per the previous copper smelters, (9) Municipal incinerators capable period. The Regional Haze Rule does of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day, discussion in this proposed rulemaking, (10) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants, not mandate specific milestones or rates the ability of the long range transport of (11) Petroleum refineries, (12) Lime plants, (13) of progress, but instead calls for states pollutants to affect visibility conditions Phosphate rock processing plants, (14) Coke oven to establish goals that provide for areas makes it imperative that each state batteries, (15) Sulfur recovery plants, (16) Carbon ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving black plants (furnace process), (17) Primary lead evaluate how emissions from within its smelters, (18) Fuel conversion plants, (19) Sintering natural (i.e. ‘‘background’’) visibility borders affect visibility impairment in plants, (20) Secondary metal production facilities, conditions. In setting reasonable Class I areas in other states. However, (21) Chemical process plants, (22) Fossil-fuel progress goals, states must provide for states without Class I areas, such as boilers of more than 250 million British thermal an improvement in visibility for the units per hour heat input, (23) Petroleum storage Kansas, are not required to (a) establish and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding most impaired days over the reasonable progress goals, (b) calculate 300,000 barrels, (24) Taconite ore processing (approximately) 10-year period of the baseline and natural visibility facilities, (25) Glass fiber processing plants, and (26) SIP, and ensure no degradation in conditions at Class I areas, or (c) Charcoal production facilities. visibility for the least impaired days 8 Appendix Y to part 51—F.1. The guidelines monitor and report visibility data for provide a process for making BART determinations over the same period. each Class I area within the state. that states can use in implementing the regional States have significant discretion in haze BART requirements on a source-by-source establishing reasonable progress goals, F. Best Available Retrofit Technology basis, as provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). States but are required to consider the (BART) must follow the guidelines in making BART determinations on a source-by-source basis for 750 following factors established in section Section 169A of the CAA directs megawatt (MW) power plants but are not required 169A of the CAA and in EPA’s Regional states to evaluate the use of retrofit to use the process in the guidelines when making Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): controls at certain larger, often BART determinations for other types of sources.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52609

encouraged, but not required to follow also include all regulatory requirements interstate visibility issues. This is the BART Guidelines in making BART related to monitoring, recordkeeping, especially true where two states belong determinations for other types of and reporting for the BART controls on to different RPOs. sources. the source. States should consider all types of States must address all visibility As noted above, the Regional Haze anthropogenic sources of visibility impairing pollutants emitted by a source Rule allows states to implement an impairment in developing their LTS, in the BART determination process. The alternative program in lieu of BART so including stationary, minor, mobile, and most significant visibility impairing long as the alternative program can be area sources. At a minimum, states must pollutants are SO2, NOx, and PM. EPA demonstrated to achieve greater describe how each of the following has stated that states should use their reasonable progress toward the national seven factors are taken into account in best judgment in determining whether visibility goal than would BART. Under developing their LTS (40 CFR VOCs or ammonia compounds impair regulations issued in 2005 revising the 51.308(d)(3)(v)): visibility in Class I areas. regional haze program, EPA made just • Emission reductions due to ongoing Under the BART Guidelines, states such a demonstration for CAIR. 70 FR air pollution control programs, may select an exemption threshold 39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations • Measures to mitigate the impacts of value for their BART modeling, below provide that states participating in the construction activities; which a BART-eligible source would CAIR cap-and trade program under 40 • Emissions limitations and not be expected to cause or contribute CFR part 96 or which remain subject to schedules for compliance to achieve the to visibility impairment in any Class I the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan reasonable progress goal; area. The state must document this (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not require • Source retirement and replacement exemption threshold value in the SIP affected BART-eligible electricity schedules; and must state the basis for its selection generating units (EGUs) to install, • Smoke management techniques for of that value. Any source with operate, and maintain BART for agricultural and forestry management emissions that model above the emissions of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR purposes including plans as currently threshold value would be subject to a 51.308(e)(4). Since CAIR is not exist within the state for these purposes; BART determination review. The BART applicable to emissions of PM, states • Enforceability of emissions Guidelines acknowledge varying were still required to conduct a BART limitations and control measures; and circumstances affecting different Class I analysis for PM emissions from EGUs • The anticipated net effect on areas. States should consider the subject to BART for that pollutant. visibility due to projected changes in number of emissions sources affecting G. Long Term Strategy (LTS) point, area, and mobile source the Class I areas at issue and the emissions over the period addressed by Consistent with the requirement in magnitude of the individual sources’ the LTS. impacts. As a general matter, any section 169A of the CAA that states exemption threshold set by the state include in their regional haze SIP a 10- III. What is the relationship of the should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews to 15-year strategy for making Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the (70 FR 39161). reasonable progress, 40 CFR regional haze requirements? In their SIPs, states must identify 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule A. Overview of EPA’s CAIR potential BART sources, described as requires that states include a LTS in ‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the Regional their SIPs. The LTS is the compilation CAIR, as originally promulgated, Haze Rule and document their BART of all control measures a state will use requires 28 states and the District of control determination analyses. In during the implementation period of the Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 making BART determinations, section specific SIP submittal to meet and NOX that significantly contribute to, 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that reasonable progress goals. The LTS must or interfere with maintenance of, the states consider the following five include ‘‘enforceable emissions NAAQS for fine particulates and/or factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) limitations, compliance schedules, and ozone in any downwind state. See 70 FR the energy and non-air quality other measures as necessary to achieve 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR establishes environmental impacts of compliance, the reasonable progress goals’’ for all emission budgets or caps for SO2 and (3) any existing pollution control Class I areas within, or affected by NOX for states that contribute technology in use at the source, (4) the emissions from, the state. See 40 CFR significantly to nonattainment in remaining useful life of the source, and 51.308(d)(3). downwind states and requires the (5) the degree of improvement in When a state’s emissions are significantly contributing states to visibility which may reasonably be reasonably anticipated to cause or submit SIP revisions that implement anticipated to result from the use of contribute to impairment in a Class I these budgets. States have the flexibility such technology. States are free to area located in another state, the to choose which control measures to determine the weight and significance Regional Haze Rule requires the adopt to achieve the budgets, including to be assigned to each factor. impacted state to coordinate with the participation in EPA-administered cap- A Regional Haze SIP must include contributing states in order to develop and-trade programs addressing SO2, source-specific BART emission limits coordinated emission management NOX-annual, and NOX-ozone season and compliance schedules for each strategies (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)). In emissions. source subject to BART. Once a state has such cases, the contributing state must made its BART determination, controls demonstrate that it has included in its B. Remand of the CAIR must be installed and in operation as SIP all measures necessary to obtain its On July 11, 2008, the DC Circuit expeditiously as practicable, but no later share of the emission reductions needed issued its decision to vacate and remand than 5 years after EPA’s approval of the to meet the reasonable progress goal for both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs regional haze SIP. See CAA section the Class I area. The RPOs have in their entirety. See North Carolina v. 169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In provided forums for significant EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008). addition to what is required by the interstate consultation, but additional However, in response to EPA’s petition Regional Haze Rule, general SIP consultations between states may be for rehearing, the Court issued an order requirements mandate that the SIP must required to sufficiently address remanding CAIR to EPA without

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52610 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. reduction expected in neighboring states hosted by the State of Kansas. States, The Court thereby left CAIR in place in that participate in the CAIR program. such as Kansas, that do not host Class order to ‘‘temporarily preserve the Modeling used by the CENRAP states I areas are not required to identify environmental values covered by CAIR’’ included assumptions based on reasonable progress goals or calculate until EPA could replace it with a rule reductions from CENRAP states that baseline and natural visibility consistent with the court’s opinion. 550 relied on CAIR. As more fully discussed conditions at Class I areas. However, F.3d at 1178. The Court directed EPA to in section IV. F. of this proposal, and states without Class I areas are still ‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ consistent with page 30 of the SIP, the State committed required to submit SIPs that address the its July 11, 2008, opinion but declined to report on its progress towards apportionment of visibility impact from to impose a schedule on EPA for meeting the reasonable progress goals the emissions generated by sources completing that action. Because CAIR established for the Class I areas in other within the state’s borders at Class I areas accordingly has been remanded to the states within five years of submittal of hosted by other states. The following are Agency without vacatur, CAIR and the the SIP, and if the State determines that the Class I areas nearest to the State of CAIR FIPs are currently in effect in the implementation plan is inadequate Kansas in all directions around the subject states. to ensure the reasonable progress goals State’s border: Many states relied on CAIR as an are met, to submit necessary revisions to • Caney Creek Wilderness Area, alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX for EPA. Kansas has committed to review Arkansas (CACR) subject EGUs, as allowed under the emissions changes and potential new • Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, BART provisions at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). technology developments that may Arkansas (UPBU) Additionally, several states established apply to the sources identified above as • Great Sands Dunes Wilderness RPGs that reflect the improvement in part of the five-year progress report. As Area, Colorado (GRSA) visibility expected to result from described on page 74 of the SIP, if a • Rocky Mountain National Park, controls planned for or already installed determination is made that controls are on sources within the state to meet the Colorado (ROMO) feasible, cost-effective, and needed for • CAIR provisions for this visibility improvements, the State will Hercules Glades Wilderness Area, implementation period for specified explore additional controls at that time. Missouri (HEGL) pollutants. Many states relied upon • Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri their own CAIR SIPs or the CAIR FIPs IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State (MING) for their states to provide the legal of Kansas’ submittal? • Wichita Mountains Wilderness requirements which leads to these A. CAA Provisions and the Regional Area, Oklahoma (WIMO) planned controls, and did not include Haze Rule • Badlands National Park, South enforceable measures in the LTS in the EPA is proposing to find that that the Dakota (BADL) • regional haze SIP submission to ensure State of Kansas has met the Wind Cave National Park, Texas these reductions. States also submitted requirements of the CAA which require (WICA) demonstrations showing that no that the State adopt a SIP after • Big Bend National Park, Texas additional controls on EGUs beyond reasonable notice and public hearing. (BIBE) CAIR would be reasonable for this EPA also believes that the State has met • Guadalupe Mountains National implementation period. the requirements of the specific Park, Texas (GUMO) On July 6, 2011, EPA finalized the procedural requirements for SIP The 20 percent worst day estimated Cross-State Air Pollution Rule revisions promulgated at 40 CFR part percent light extinction (for the base (CSAPR).9 This rule responds to the 51, subpart F and appendix V. These year 2002 and projection year 2018), at court ruling remanding the 2005 CAIR, requirements include publication of these eleven Class I areas, attributed to and achieves emission reductions notices by prominent advertisement in emissions from sources in Kansas beyond those originally required by the relevant geographic area of a public (shown by pollutant species and source CAIR through additional air pollution hearing on proposed revisions, at least category), are provided in the Technical reductions from power plants beginning a 30-day public comment period, and Support Document (TSD) to this in 2012. On July 11, 2011, in the opportunity for a public hearing, proposed rulemaking. The CENRAP conjunction with EPA’s finalization of and that the State, in accordance with computed these data using IMPROVE CSAPR, EPA issued a supplemental its laws, submit the revision to EPA for data for 2000 to 2004 to define baseline, proposal requesting comment on approval. Specific information on natural and 2018 conditions for each of inclusion of additional states in the Kansas’ rulemaking, Regional Haze SIP the affected Class I areas. All CENRAP CSAPR ozone season program. (76 FR development and public information states relied upon the regional modeling 40662) EPA intends to finalize the process is included in Chapter 2, and work performed by CENRAP 11 (and its supplemental proposal by October 31, Appendix 2.1, of the State of Kansas contractors) for determining the impact 2011. Regional Haze SIP, which is included in that sources within a state might have C. CAIR in Relation to the State of the docket of this proposed rule making. on Class I areas in the region. The Kansas’ Submittal B. Affected Class I Areas modeling was based on PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) The State of Kansas is not in the CAIR EPA is proposing to find that the State program and did not rely on CAIR for with the Comprehensive Air Quality of Kansas has adequately established Model with extensions (CAMx) reductions of SO2 or NOX in place of which Class I areas are impacted by photochemical model. For Kansas, the BART at its BART-subject EGUs. EPA emissions from the State, as required by acknowledges that the CAIR program CENRAP modeling indicated that 40 CFR 51.308(d) and as described in Kansas sources were most likely to have was a major component in the the Agency’s ‘‘Visibility Monitoring underlying assumptions used by the Guidance’’ 10 . There are no Class I areas State to determine source 11 A contractor to CENRAP, ENVIRON, completed the data analysis. This analysis can be reviewed in apportionment based on the modeled 10 Visibility Monitoring Guidance: http:// Chapter 4 of the Technical Support Document www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/visible/r-99- developed by ENVIRON and can be found at 9 76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011. 003.pdf. http://www.kdheks.gov/bar/index.html.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52611

the highest visibility impact at the provided on page 14 of the Kansas from within the State to regional haze WIMO. Regional Haze SIP. In addition to the impairment at Class I areas outside of EPA is proposing to find that the State FLMs having the opportunity to the State and to document the technical of Kansas adequately identified the participate in or comment on (as non- basis on which it is relying to determine Class I areas impacted by sources of air voting members of CENRAP) the its apportionment of emission pollution within the State and the State development of technical and non- reductions necessary for achieving adequately determined the technical documents used by the State reasonable progress in each Class I area apportionment of those pollutants from to develop its Regional Haze SIP, the it affects, as required by 40 CFR sources located within the State and as FLMs were given the opportunity to 51.308(d)(3)(iii), (d)(4)(ii) and (iii). such has met the requirements of 40 comment on the State’s draft SIP dated Kansas is also required to develop a CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii). November 1, 2007 as required by 40 statewide emissions inventory of C. Consultation With States and FLMs CFR 51.308(i)(2), participate in a public pollutants that are reasonably hearing held on August 20, 2008, the anticipated to cause or contribute to EPA is proposing to find that that the opportunity to comment on a revised visibility impairment in any Class I area, State of Kansas participated in sufficient draft SIP dated July 16, 2009, and as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) consultation with other states where participate in a second public hearing and (d)(4)(v). This inventory must emissions from sources in Kansas are held on August 27, 2009. The FLMs include baseline year emissions, reasonably anticipated to cause or submitted comments to the State of emissions for the most recent year that contribute to visibility impairment in Kansas on December 14, 2007. The State data is available, and estimates of future Class I areas hosted by other states and addressed comments received from the year emissions. A commitment to to coordinate emission management FLMs as shown in Appendix 4.1 of the update the inventory as well as a strategies for such Class I areas, as State’s Regional Haze SIP in accordance commitment to maintain reporting, required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) and with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3). To address the recording keeping and other measures (d)(3)(i). The State of Kansas was an requirement for continuing consultation necessary to assess and report on active member of the CENRAP. The with the FLMs under 40 CFR visibility improvements are required by governing body (voting members) of 51.308(i)(4), the State of Kansas has 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) and (vi). EPA is CENRAP was considered the Policy committed in its SIP to ongoing proposing to find that the State has met Oversight Group (POG). The POG was consultation with the FLMs on Regional these requirements, as explained below. made up of 18 voting members Haze issues throughout the 1. Monitoring Strategy representing states and tribes in the implementation period by coordinating CENRAP region and nonvoting member and consulting with the FLMs during There are three IMPROVE protocol representing local air agencies, the development of five-year progress sites (sites that are not managed directly FLMs and other stakeholders. CENRAP reports and plan revisions. by IMPROVE (a Federal program) but by members also developed a workgroup EPA is proposing to find the State of the operating agency) which are structure to address technical and non- Kansas provided sufficient evidence operated in the State of Kansas. One is technical issues related to regional haze. that it engaged in adequate consultation located at Cedar Bluff State Park in There were five workgroups: with other states and the FLMs and Trego County in the western part of the Monitoring; Emissions Inventory; therefore has met the requirements of 40 State, a second at the Tallgrass Prairie Modeling; Communications; and CFR 51.308(i) and (d)(3)(i) and of the National Preserve in the eastern part of Implementation and Control Strategies. Regional Haze Rule. the State (each operated by the State of Any interested party to CENRAP was Kansas), and the third is located in D. Determination of Baseline, Natural invited to participate on any or all of the Reserve, Kansas in the northeastern part and Current Visibility Conditions workgroups. Policy issues were decided of the State and it is operated by the Sac by the POG. The Kansas Regional Haze States that host Class I areas are and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas SIP was developed utilizing data required to estimate the baseline, and Nebraska. Descriptions of these analysis, modeling results and other natural and current visibility conditions monitoring sites and methods for data technical support documents prepared of those Class I areas. As Kansas does validation can be found in Chapter 6 of for CENRAP members by the not host a Class I area, it is not required the State’s Regional Haze SIP. The State workgroups, or parties contracted by to estimate these metrics. However, as has provided a commitment in Chapter CENRAP.12 The Kansas SIP (at page 85) previously discussed in section IV. B. of 6, section 6.3, of the State’s Regional indicates that in addition to this document, the State must still Haze SIP to maintain the three participation in the regional planning develop a SIP that estimates the IMPROVE protocol monitoring sites, or process, Kansas consulted directly with apportionment of visibility impact any other EPA approved network the States of Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma related to pollutant emissions from configuration, contingent upon and Arkansas to determine if controls sources within the State on Class I areas continued national funding. beyond presumptive BART hosted by other States. The filter samples from the three (presumptive BART is discussed in IMPROVE-protocol sites are sent for E. Monitoring Strategy and Other analysis to the Crocker Nuclear greater detail below) would be required Implementation Plan Requirements of emission sources in Kansas. Laboratory at the University of EPA is proposing to find that the State As it does not host a Class I area, California in Davis, and the resultant of Kansas engaged in adequate Kansas is not required to develop a data are subjected to preliminary review consultation with the FLMs as required monitoring strategy for measuring, and quality assurance/quality control by 40 CFR 51.308(i). The State provided characterizing, and reporting regional (QA/QC) procedures. Nephelometer the FLMs with state contacts for haze impairment that is representative data from the Cedar Bluff site are submission of recommendations in of Class I areas within the State. validated by the CENRAP contractor. accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(i)(1), as However, Kansas is required to establish Other visibility-related data collected by procedures by which monitoring data the State of Kansas (PM2.5, SO2, NO2, 12 This information was provided on the CENRAP and other information is used to and NH3) are subjected to review and Web site, http://cenrap.org or CENRAP’s FTP site. determine the contribution of emissions QA/QC procedures prior to reporting.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52612 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

After validation, data from the three and follows the guidance provided by CENRAP and its contractors as part of IMPROVE-protocol sites are sent by the the Agency in its ‘‘Emissions Inventory the development of a baseline inventory Crocker Nuclear Laboratory at the Guidance for the Implementation of for the 2002 modeling inventory.15 The University of California in Davis for Ozone and Particulate Matter National TSD to this proposal discusses the posting to the IMPROVE Web site and Ambient Air Quality Standards improvements to the inventory that the Visibility Information Exchange (NAAQS) and Regional Haze were prepared by the contractor 13 Web System (VIEWS) Web site http:// Regulations’’ and its ‘‘2002 Base Year retained to develop and improve three vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/. Emissions Inventory SIP Planning: 8- inventory categories of the baseline Nephelometer data from the Cedar Bluff hour Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze 2002 inventory: planned burning, site are reported to the VIEWS database Programs’’ memo.14 Kansas is required ammonia, mobile source and fugitive by the CENRAP contractor. Other to develop a statewide emissions dust. The complete 2002 baseline visibility-related data collected by the inventory of pollutants that are emissions inventory can be found in State of Kansas are reported to EPA’s reasonably anticipated to cause or Air Quality System (AQS) database on contribute to visibility impairment in Appendix 7.1 of the SIP. Methodologies a quarterly basis. any Class I area. This inventory must for the development of the 2002 EPA is proposing to find that the include baseline year emissions, emissions inventories can be found in State’s commitment to provide and emissions for the most recent year that Appendix 7.3 of the SIP. utilize data from these sites, or any data is available, and estimates of future To estimate the 2018 future year other EPA approved monitoring year emissions. The State provided an emissions the State grew the 2002 network location, to characterize and inventory of emissions of pollutants that emissions using the Economic Growth monitor model conditions within the may reasonably be anticipated to cause Analysis System (EGAS), MOBILE 6.2 State and to compare visibility or contribute to visibility impairment in vehicle emissions software, and the conditions in the State to visibility any Class I area: VOCs, NOX, SO2, PM2.5, Integrated Planning Model (IPM) impairment at Class I areas hosted by PM10 and NH3. As required, the version 2.93 for EGUs. other states meets the requirements of inventory includes emissions for a 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(ii) and (iii) of the baseline year (2002), the most recent EPA is proposing to find that the 2002 Regional Haze Rule. year for which data are available, and and 2018 statewide emissions estimates of future year (2018) projected inventories and the State’s method for 2. Emissions Inventory emissions along with a commitment to developing the 2018 emissions EPA has reviewed the emissions update the inventory periodically. inventory meets the requirements of 40 inventory provided by the State of The 2002 emissions inventory and its CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) of the Regional Kansas and believes that it is sufficient improvements were developed by Haze Rule.

TABLE 1—2002 KANSAS EMISSIONS SUMMARY, BY SOURCE CATEGORY AND POLLUTANT

Tons/yr Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ...... 40,278 165,224 16,321 38,366 59,750 143,367 Nonpoint (except fires) ...... 87,327 13,851 10,024 10,533 796 3,100 On-road mobile ...... 74,519 100,152 1,607 2,179 2,816 3,097 Nonroad mobile...... 28,138 82,697 5,993 6,549 115 8,101 Nonpoint fire ...... 35,046 29,322 117,597 129,187 19 11,051 Biogenic ...... 575,073 49,616 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Totals ...... 840,381 440,862 151,542 186,814 63,496 168,716

TABLE 2—2018 KANSAS PROJECTED EMISSIONS SUMMARY, BY SOURCE CATEGORY AND POLLUTANT

Tons/yr Source category VOC NOX PM2.5 PM10 NH3 SO2

Point ...... 54,007 145,647 23,669 50,165 71,623 81,664 Nonpoint (except fires) ...... 104,983 15,822 9,143 9,534 1,247 3,860 On-road mobile ...... 32,724 28,779 655 655 3,892 369 Nonroad mobile ...... 15,156 38,044 2,696 2,954 52 126 Nonpoint fire ...... 35,046 29,322 117,597 129,187 19 11,051 Biogenic ...... 575,073 49,616 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Totals ...... 816,989 307,230 153,760 192,495 76,833 97,070

13 Emissions Inventory Guidance for the www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/ Programs memo-http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter eiguidfinal_nov2005.pdf. eidocs/2002baseinven_102502new.pdf. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 14 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory SIP 15 http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php. and Regional Haze Regulations: http:// Planning: 8-hour Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52613

3. Reporting Requirements on Class I areas hosted by other states. control technologies; Step 4: Evaluate EPA has reviewed and believes the As discussed in section IV.G. of this impacts and document the results; Step State’s reporting strategy meets the proposal the State is required to develop 5: Evaluate visibility impact. a control strategy to reduce those requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. 16 1. BART Eligible Sources The State is required to maintain impacts. A discussion of the State’s The first phase of a BART evaluation reporting, recordkeeping and other control strategy to reduce visibility impacts at Class I areas around the State is to identify all the BART-eligible measures necessary to assess and report is included in section IV.H. of this sources within the State’s boundaries. on visibility improvements. In its proposal. The State utilized the methodology in Regional Haze SIP, Kansas asserts that the BART Guidelines and EPA’s by complying with EPA’s Air Emissions G. Best Available Retrofit Technology regulations at 40 CFR 51.301, for Reporting Rule, in addition to the EPA has reviewed and proposes that determining which sources were BART- State’s commitment (as given in Chapter the State’s process to identify BART- eligible. For an emission source to be 7, section 7.7, of the State’s Regional eligible sources, BART-subject sources identified as BART-eligible, the State Haze SIP) to periodically update the and the emission rates it has determined used these criteria from the BART emissions inventory through use of the to be BART for five BART-subject units Guidelines: latest available emissions data (expected at three sources in Kansas meets the • One or more emissions units at the to be the 2011 National Emissions requirements of the Regional Haze Rule facility fit within one of the 26 Inventory, source inventory data such as at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and is consistent categories listed in the BART Continuous Emissions Monitoring with the Guidelines for BART Guidelines; Systems (CEMS) data for EGUs, or EGAS Determinations under the Regional • The emission unit was in existence growth rates for other sources in Haze Rule. The TSD to this proposal on August 7, 1977 and began operation comparison to actual emissions) when provides a detailed analysis of the at some point on or after August 7, 1962; completing the State’s mandatory five- State’s BART determinations. and year progress reports, it has met the As previously mentioned in this • The limited potential emissions requirement of the Rule. EPA is proposal, on July 6, 2005, EPA from all emission units identified in the proposing to find that the State’s published the Guidelines for BART previous two bullets were 250 tons or methods of reporting and recordkeeping Determinations Under the Regional more per year of any of these visibility- of emissions meets the requirement of Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part impairing pollutants: SO , NO , or 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) and (vi) of the 2 X 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART PM . Regional Haze Rule. 10 Guidelines’’) to assist states in In the BART determination process, 4. SIP Revision Schedule determining which of their sources states must address all significant should be subject to the BART Section 51.308(f) of the Regional Haze visibility impairing pollutants. The most requirements and determining significant visibility impairing Rule requires control strategies to cover appropriate emissions limits for each an initial implementation period pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. As BART-subject source. The BART indicated by the BART Guidelines, a extending to the year 2018, with a evaluation process consists of three comprehensive reassessment and state should use its best judgment in components: (a) Identification of all the determining whether VOCs, ammonia or revision of those strategies and the SIP, BART-eligible sources; (b) assessment of as appropriate, by July 31, 2018, and ammonia compounds impair visibility whether the BART-eligible sources are in particular Class I areas. Kansas every ten years thereafter. EPA is subject to BART; and (c) determination proposing to find that the State of determined that it did not need to of the BART controls. The components, evaluate VOC or ammonia emissions as Kansas met this requirement by as addressed by the State’s findings, are 17 committing to reassess and revise the part of its BART analyses. The TSD to discussed below, and further discussed this proposal includes EPA’s analysis Regional Haze SIP on this schedule, as in the TSD for this proposed necessary, in Chapter 7, section 7.7 of and confirmation of the state’s rulemaking. conclusion that neither VOC nor the SIP. In addition, the State In making a BART determination for ammonia needed to be evaluated as part committed to submit its five-year SIP a fossil fuel-fired generating plant with of the State’s BART determinations. report by November 9, 2014, and along a total generating capacity in excess of with the five-year report, submit a 750 megawatts, a state must use the 17 Appendix Y of Part 51—States should exercise determination of the adequacy of its approach set forth in the BART judgment in deciding whether the following existing Regional Haze SIP revisions. Guidelines. A state is not required to pollutants impair visibility in an area: (4) VOCs and EPA is proposing to find that the State’s follow the BART Guidelines in making (5) Ammonia and ammonia compounds. A State commitment to meet these schedules should use its best judgment in deciding whether BART determinations for other types of VOC or ammonia emissions from a source are likely meets the requirements of 40 CFR sources. The BART Guidelines provide to have an impact on visibility in an area. Certain 51.308(f), (g), and (h) of the Regional five steps toward identifying BART types of VOC emissions, for example, are more Haze Rule. control for these very large EGUs. Step likely to form secondary organic aerosols than others. Similarly, controlling ammonia emissions in F. Determination of Reasonable Progress 1: Identify all available retrofit control some areas may not have a significant impact on Goals technologies; Step 2: Eliminate visibility. A State need not provide a formal technically infeasible control showing of an individual decision that a source of Since the State of Kansas does not technologies; Step 3: Evaluate the VOC or ammonia emissions is not subject to BART host Class I areas, it is not required to review. Because air quality modeling may not be control effectiveness of remaining feasible for individual sources of VOC or ammonia, establish RPGs for a Class I area. a state should also exercise its judgment in However, as discussed in sections IV.B. 16 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii)—Where other States assessing the degree of visibility impacts due to and IV.D. of this proposed rulemaking, cause or contribute to impairment of visibility in a emissions of VOC and emissions of ammonia or the State must still develop a SIP that mandatory Class 1 Federal area, the State must ammonia compounds. A state should fully demonstrate that it has included in its document the basis for judging that a VOC or estimates the apportionment of visibility implementation plan all measures necessary to ammonia source merits BART review, including its impact, related to pollutant emissions obtain reductions needed to meet the progress goal assessment of the source’s contribution to visibility from sources within the State of Kansas, for the area. impairment.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52614 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

EPA is proposing to find that the State’s BART guidelines and in accordance survey of the limited number of use of air quality data provided by with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii). facilities in the database that met the CENRAP, in evaluating whether To identify the sources that met the source category criteria. This process is potential BART sources could be criteria above, Kansas performed a outlined in detail in Appendix 9.1 of the reasonably expected to cause or multi-step search and analysis including SIP and is discussed in the TSD to this contribute to visibility impairment in a a database query of the permitted air proposal. The nineteen facilities Class I area is in accordance with the sources in its point source emissions identified are listed in Table 3. inventory database, and a more detailed

TABLE 3—FACILITIES WITH BART-ELIGIBLE UNITS IN THE STATE OF KANSAS

BART Source category name Facility ID Facility name BART-Eligible emission units

Fossil-Fuel Fired Electric 0090002 Aquila (now Sunflower Unit 3 (Stacks 1 and 2). Generating Units. Electric)—Arthur Mullergren. 1750001 Aquila (now Sunflower Unit 1. Electric)—Cimarron River. 0570001 Aquila (now Sunflower Unit 4. Electric)—Judson Large. 2090008 Kansas City BPU— Unit 1. Nearman. 2090048 Kansas City BPU— Unit 1 Quindaro. Unit 2. 1070005 KCP&L—La Cygne ...... Unit 1 Unit 2. 1130014 McPherson Municipal Unit 1. Power Plan #2. 0550026 Sunflower Electric—Gar- Unit S2. den City. 1730012 Westar Energy—Gordon Unit 2 (Stacks 2 and 3). Evans. 1550033 Westar Energy—Hutch- Unit 4 (Stacks A and B). inson. 1490001 Westar Energy—Jeffrey Unit 1 Unit 2. 0450014 Westar Energy—Law- Unit 5. rence. 0350012 Winfield Municipal Unit 4. Power Plant #2. Portland Cement Plants 0010009 Monarch Cement Co ..... No. 4 Kiln Stack, No. 4 Kiln Clinker Cooler, No. 5 Kiln Stack, No. 5 Kiln Clinker Cooler, Raw Material Unloading, Clinker Grinding and Cement Handling, Stone Quarry Processing. Petroleum Refineries ..... 0150004 Frontier El Dorado Re- Boiler B–105, Boiler B–107, Plant Process Heaters, Refinery Flare Sys- fining Co. tem B–1303, Plant Cooling Towers, Storage Tanks, Gas Oil Hydrotreater. 1130003 National Cooperative Alky Heater HA–002, No. 9 Boiler SB–009, No.12 Boiler SB–012, Coker Refinery Assoc. IR Comp. CR–003, Plat Stab Boil Htr HP–003, Plat Charge Htr HP– (NCRA). 006, Fugitive Emissions. Chemical Processing 1730070 Basic Chemicals (now Boiler 1; Boiler 2; Boiler 3; Chloromethanes. Plants. OxyChem—Wichita). 0570003 Koch Nitrogen ...... Ammonia plant—primary reformer; Ammonia plant—other; Nitric acid plant—absorber tail gas; Ammonium nitrate plant—neutralizer. Glass Fiber Processing 2090010 Owens Corning...... 70 furnace—N exhaust; 70 furnace—S exhaust; 70 riser/channel/ Plants. forehearth; 70 A forming; 70 B forming; 70 C forming; 70 D forming; 70 curing oven charge end; 70 curing oven discharge end; J5 furnace; J5 riser/channel/forehearth; J6 A forming; J6 B forming; J6 C forming; J6 curing oven charge end; J6 curing oven discharge end; J6 smoke strip- per; J6 north cooling (A); J6 south cooling (B); J6 asphalt coating; Raw material processing.

EPA is proposing to find that the State 2. BART Subject Sources states to consider exempting some of Kansas appropriately identified its BART-eligible sources from further The second phase of the BART BART-eligible sources in accordance BART review because they may not evaluation is to identify those BART- with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(i) of the reasonably be anticipated to cause or eligible sources that may reasonably be Regional Haze Rule and the BART anticipated to cause or contribute to contribute to any visibility impairment Guidelines. visibility impairment at any Class I area, in a Class I area. Consistent with the i.e. those sources that are ‘‘subject to BART Guidelines, and using air quality BART.’’ The BART Guidelines allow data provided by CENRAP, Kansas

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52615

completed a modeling analysis of all As set forth in Appendix 9.2 of the • Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, nineteen sources determined to be SIP, the State utilized a contribution Arkansas (UPBU) BART-eligible, using CALPUFF.18 The threshold of 0.5 dv. The State selected • Great Sand Dunes Wilderness Area, BART guidelines indicate that this contribution threshold in Colorado (GRSA) CALPUFF, or other appropriate models, accordance with the BART Guidelines, • Rocky Mountain National Park, can be used to determine if an section III.A.1., based upon the Colorado (ROMO) • individual source is anticipated to cause relatively large distances between the Hercules-Glades Wilderness Area, or contribute to impairment of visibility State’s BART-eligible sources, and the Missouri (HEGL) • in Class I areas. Class I areas outside the State. Use of Mingo Wilderness Area, Missouri the screening threshold of 0.5 dv is (MING) To assess contribution to visibility • further justified because the visibility Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area, impairment at a Class I area, the states Oklahoma (WIMO) must establish a contribution threshold. impacts of sources excluded at this • screening stage of the analysis are well Badlands National Park, South Dakota The BART Guidelines state that a single (BADL) source that is responsible for a 1.0 dv below 0.5 dv. If the modeling results • showed that a source had at least a 0.5 Wind Cave National Park, South change or more should be considered to Dakota (WICA) dv or greater visibility impact on at least ‘cause’ visibility impairment at a Class This preliminary modeling was I area and that a source that is one day in a three year period (2001– 2003), then further BART-subject completed using general assumptions responsible for a 0.5 dv change should made by the State. The modeling be considered to ‘contribute’ to visibility analysis was required. The nine Class I areas that were determined to be showed that eight of the nineteen impairment at a Class I area. The significant for determining impacts from BART-eligible sources exceeded the Guidelines state that a lower threshold contribution screening threshold of 0.5 potential BART-subject sources were: can be chosen under certain dv or greater visibility impact on at least circumstances (e.g., many contributing • Caney Creek Wilderness Area, one day in a three year period. Those emission sources close to a Class I area). Arkansas (CACR) sources are identified in Table 4.

TABLE 4—KANSAS BART-ELIGIBLE EMISSION UNITS WITH AT LEAST ONE > 0.5 DV VISIBILITY IMPACT DAY ON SELECTED CLASS I AREAS DURING 2001–2003

Number of days during 2001–2003 with visibility impact > 0.5 dv Source CACR UPBU GRSA ROMO HEGL MING WIMO BADL WICA

Kansas City BPU—Nearman Unit 1 ...... 23 21 3 1 30 16 15 3 2 Kansas City BPU—Quindaro Units 1 & 2 ...... 13 13 1 1 18 6 9 0 0 KCP&L—La Cygne Units 1 & 2 ...... 204 249 17 21 278 233 142 46 38 Monarch Cement Kilns 4 & 5 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Westar Energy—Gordon Evans Unit 2 ...... 33 30 11 13 28 17 102 32 24 Westar Energy—Hutchinson Unit 4 ...... 14 7 6 5 6 3 17 9 4 Westar Energy—Jeffrey Units 1 & 2 ...... 150 161 27 28 182 158 165 82 55 Westar Energy—Lawrence Unit 5 ...... 14 14 1 1 17 7 9 2 1

The State required each of those eight • Unit 1 at Westar Energy, Jeffrey consider the following factors: (1) The sources to submit refined modeling for Energy Center, Facility ID 1490001 costs of compliance, (2) the energy and further review. The refined modeling • Unit 2 at Westar Energy, Jeffrey non-air quality environmental impacts analysis for each source is given in Energy Center, Facility ID 1490001 of compliance, (3) any existing pollution Appendix 9.8 of the State’s Regional • Unit 2 at Westar Energy, Gordon control technology in use at the source, Haze SIP and was used by the State to Evans Energy Center, Facility ID (4) the remaining useful life of the assess each of the eight sources’ 1730012 source, and (5) the degree of potential visibility impacts in more After review of the State’s method for improvement in visibility which may accurate detail (e.g. revised emission determining BART-subject sources and reasonably be anticipated to result from rates, stack parameters, etc., as provided the refined analysis of those sources, the the use of such technology. This five by each source). Based on the refined EPA is proposing to find that the State step analysis is commonly referred to as modeling results, the State determined appropriately identified all of the units a ‘‘five factor analysis’’. that five units at three sources were in the State that are BART-subject in As discussed in the TSD to this BART-subject and required BART accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii) notice, Kansas found the most determinations as outlined in CAA the Regional Haze Rule and the BART significant visibility impairment section 169A(g)(2) for each of those Guidelines. attributable to the units identified as units. Those five units are given below: subject to BART is dominated by 3. BART Determinations • Unit 1 at Kansas City Power and contributions from NOX and SO2 Light, La Cygne, Facility ID 1070005 In making BART determinations, CAA emissions. PM visibility impairment • Unit 2 at Kansas City Power and section 169A(g)(2) and 40 CFR attribution from these units is not Light, La Cygne, Facility ID 1070005 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) require that states significant. Because visibility

18 CALPUFF is a multi-layer, multi-species non- applied on scales of tens to hundreds of kilometers. transformation, and visibility effects of particulate steady-state puff dispersion model that simulates It includes algorithms for subgrid scale effects (such matter concentrations). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ the effects of time- and space-varying as terrain impingement), as well as longer range scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff. meteorological conditions on pollution transport, effects (such as pollutant removal due to wet transformation and removal. CALPUFF can be scavenging and dry deposition, chemical

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52616 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

impairment from PM is insignificant, (described in more detail below and average (through the use of scrubbing the remainder of this notice will focus beginning on page 47 of the TSD to this technology) is SO2 BART for these units. the State’s NOX and SO2 BART rulemaking). The average must remain The State has determined that Westar determinations. below 0.13 lb/MMBtu. In the event Unit Energy must meet the presumptive Each of the five units listed above is 2 suffers an outage in excess of 10 BART NOX emission rates for the Jeffrey a ‘‘presumptive unit’’ 19 20. For EGUs weeks, the State has determined that the Energy Center’s Units 1 and 2 of 0.15 lb/ greater than 200 MW in capacity and facility shall meet the 0.10 lb/MMBtu MMBtu. As determined through its five located at power plants with a total limit for NOX at Unit 1. factor analysis, and explained in greater capacity greater than 750 MW, EPA EPA has previously stated that most detail in the TSD to this rulemaking, established presumptive BART emission EGUs can meet the presumptive NOX these emission rates will be met through limits.21 Each of the units that Kansas limits through the use of current the use of LNB systems for each unit. As concluded was subject to BART falls combustion control technology, i.e. low part of the five factor analysis, the State 22 within this category of sources. As NOx burners (LNB). States must also considered the costs and benefits of presumptive units, each of the five units consider advanced combustion control deployment of SCR at Jeffrey Units 1 must as a general matter at least meet technology (SCR) in their BART and 2. Given the high cost and relatively the presumptive emission limits as analyses. Even though the presumptive low visibility improvements resulting described in the BART Guidelines. As NOx emission rate could be met through from use of SCR as compared to LNB at explained in the BART Guidelines, use of LNB, through its five factor Jeffrey, the State determined, and EPA regardless of fuel type, for SO2 control, analysis, the State considered the costs agrees, that LNB operated at the each unit must at least meet a specific and benefits of SCR deployment on presumptive rate satisfy NOX BART for control level of 95 percent or an Kansas City Power and Light’s Unit 2. Jeffrey Units 1 and 2. For Gordon Evans emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu unless The State determined that the NOX Unit 2, which is an oil-burning unit an alternative control was determined to BART presumptive emission rates of (that can burn natural gas) that meets be justified through the five factor 0.10 lb/MMBtu and 0.23 lb/MMBtu for the presumptive plant and unit size analysis. The presumptive control for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively (or 0.16 threshold, there is no prescribed NOX is expressed as either an emission lb/MMBtu as a weighted average), presumptive limit for NOX but limit, or the installation of current resulted in a combined (SO2 and NOX) reductions should be gained through the combustion control technology. The modeled visibility improvement of 78– deployment of ‘‘current combustion decision to assign either a presumptive 81% at Class I areas (98th percentile control technology’’ 24 which has NOX emission limit or a combustion visibility impact) and a reduction of the already been defined by EPA as the control strategy is determined by the number of days with a visibility impact implementation of LNB or LNB with type of fuel combusted at the EGU. greater than 0.5 dv from a range of 57– overfire air. A five factor analysis The State’s BART determination 138 days to 3–14 days at Class I areas. resulted in identification of a low NOX resulted in a limit which is more During the course of negotiating an burner system as BART for the unit. restrictive than the presumptive BART enforceable BART agreement, Kansas However, since the concurrent analysis NOX emission rates for Kansas City City Power and Light proposed limits for SO2 reduction (discussed below) Power and Light’s Units 1 and 2 of 0.10 that were more restrictive than the demonstrated that control through fuel lb/MMBtu and 0.23 lb/MMBtu, presumptive BART limits. As provided switching to natural gas resulted in both respectively (and 0.16 lb/MMBtu above, these limits consist of an SO2 and NOX emission reductions, and weighted average), to 0.13 lb/MMBtu on emission rate of 0.13 lb/MMBtu on a 30- in visibility improvements beyond those a 30-day rolling weighted average using day rolling weighted average between gained by presumptive BART, Kansas the already permitted selective catalytic the two units.23 At the 0.13 lb/MMBtu has determined and EPA agrees that the reduction (SCR) control for Unit 1 and weighted average rate for both units, fuel switch to natural gas meets the NOX BART requirements. combustion control for Unit 2 which is beyond the presumptive NOX rate of 0.23 lb/MMBtu, EPA would not The State has determined that Westar 19 Appendix Y to Part 51–E.1.2.3.4—States must anticipate additional significant Energy must meet the presumptive SO2 require 750 MW power plants to meet specific visibility improvement for the BART emission rate at the Jeffrey Energy control levels for SO2 of either 95 percent control additional significant cost of installing Center’s Units 1 and 2 of 0.15 lb/ or 0.15 lbs/MMBtu, for each EGU greater than 200 MMBtu. These emission rates will be MW that is currently uncontrolled unless the State SCR on Unit 2. determines that an alternative control level is The State’s BART determination for met by rebuilding the wet scrubber on justified based on a careful consideration of the Kansas City Power and Light’s Units 1 each unit. For Gordon Evans, use of low statutory factors. sulfur fuel was originally determined to 20 Appendix Y to Part 51–E.1.2.3.5.—For power and 2 also resulted in a more restrictive limit than the presumptive BART SO be BART, however, analysis of fuel plants with a generating capacity in excess of 750 2 switching to natural gas revealed MW currently using selective catalytic reduction emission rates. The State has (SCR) or selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) determined that an emission rate of 0.10 greater, cost effective emission for part of the year, the State should presume that lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling weighted reductions, and greater visibility use of those same controls year-round is BART. For improvement. Therefore, the State other sources currently using SCR or SNCR to 22 determined that switching fuel to reduce NOX emissions during part of the year, the Appendix Y to Part 51–E.5.—Most EGUs can State should carefully consider requiring the use of meet these presumptive NOX limits through the use natural gas, with 1 percent sulfur fuel these controls year-round as the additional costs of of current combustion control technology, i.e. the oil available for emergency backup use operating the equipment throughout the year would careful control of combustion air and low-NOX only, meets the SO2 BART. Westar be relatively modest. For coal-fired EGUs greater burners. For units that cannot meet these limits currently has an existing supply of No.6 than 200 MW located at greater than 750 MW power using such technologies, you should consider plants and operating without post-combustion whether advanced combustion control technologies fuel oil on site and will be allowed to controls (i.e. SCR or SNCR), the EPA has provided such as rotating opposed fire air should be used to exhaust this emergency backup supply, presumptive NOX limits, differentiated by boiler meet these limits. with any future fuel oil purchases being design and type of coal burned. The State may 23 The weighted average limit is to be met by 1 percent sulfur content or less by determine that an alternative control level is utilizing the already permitted SCR control for Unit appropriate based on a careful consideration of the 1 and pre- or post-combustion control (e.g., low weight. Kansas has determined that this statutory factors. NOX burner, low NOX burner with overfire air, or 21 Appendix Y to Part 51–E.4. and 5. SCR) for Unit 2. 24 Appendix Y to Part 51 section IV.E.5.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52617

‘‘alternative BART control for SO2’’ when fuel oil would be allowed only for natural gas provides less visibility would virtually eliminate SO2 emissions the duration of the emergency. The State impairment than presumptive BART for from Gordon Evans Energy Center’s Unit has demonstrated, and EPA agrees, as Unit 2 for both SO2 and NOX. 2, the exception being an emergency shown in Table 5, that a switch to

TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF PRESUMPTIVE BART VISIBILITY IMPACT AND FUEL SWITCH VISIBILITY IMPACT

Presumptive Presumptive case 1 percent S case 1 percent S Alternative BART oil, LNB at 0.8 lb/ oil, LNB at 0.2 lb/ case natural gas MMBtu MMBtu (deciview) (deciview) (deciview)

Maximum visibility impact ...... 1.575 1.02 0.774 98 percent visibility impact ...... 0.804 0.474 0.334 NOX (lb/hr) ...... 3,288 822 2136 SO2 (lb/hr) ...... 3,844 3.844 1.7 PM10 (lb/hr) ...... 325 326 30.6

Based on the above analysis, in which EPA is proposing to find that the State 40 CFR 51.308(e)(ii)(A) and (B) and (iii) the State carefully considered the five of Kansas appropriately determined of the Regional Haze Rule, and the factors, and which is fully detailed in BART for each BART-subject unit in BART Guidelines. the TSD to this proposed rulemaking, accordance with the CAA section 169A,

TABLE 6—TOTAL 2018 REDUCTIONS IN NOX AND SO2 FROM KANSAS BART-SUBJECT UNITS

tons/yr Subject-to-BART unit 1 1 2 2 NOX SO2 2002 NOX 2002 SO2 2018 NOX 2018 SO2 reduction reduction

KCP&L—La Cygne 1 ...... 30,058 6,648 2,576 3,948 27,482 2,700 KCP&L—La Cygne 2 ...... 8,362 19,355 6,229 3,993 2,133 15,362 Westar—Gordon Evans 2 ...... 2,023 3,211 138 0.0 1,886 3,211 Westar—Jeffrey 1...... 9,602 20,459 4,268 3,532 5,334 16,927 Westar—Jeffrey 2 ...... 10,892 23,715 4,040 3,465 6,852 20,251

Total BART reductions ...... 43,687 58,451

To incorporate the emission rates, 2. the facilities must monitor via the Units 1 and 2, except during periods of compliance schedule, monitoring, use of CEMS or stack test (with the startup, shutdown and malfunction. In recordkeeping, reporting, and exception of Unit 2 at Gordon Evans the Regional Haze SIP, the State also enforceability requirements, as defined Energy Center) committed, on page 52, to assess the by the CAA and Federal regulations 3. the facilities must keep continuous visibility impacts of emissions from promulgated at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv) record of monitoring data in accordance these BART-subject units during periods and (v) as well as the BART Guidelines, with 40 CFR Part 75, and of startup, shutdown, and malfunction the State entered into Consent 4. the facilities must report emissions as part of its five-year review. Should Agreements with Kansas City Power and data to the State in accordance with 40 the actual emission rates, including Light and Westar Energy on November CFR Parts 60 or 75. Westar Energy is during startup, shutdown, and 19, 2007 (amended February 18, 2009) required to report to the State fuel oil malfunction periods, exceed the agreed and August 30, 2007 (amended February usage at Gordon Evans Unit 2 in upon emission limits, and be found to negatively impact visibility at a Class I 20, 2009) respectively. These Consent accordance with K.A.R. 28–19–512. area, the State commits to address these Agreements were submitted to EPA for Therefore, EPA is proposing to find issues with a SIP revision. SIP approval as part of the State’s RH that the State of Kansas has met the SIP submittal, which we are proposing requirements for compliance schedules, In the preamble to the BART rule, to approve in this notice. The monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, EPA offered guidance suggesting that Agreements are enforceable by the State, and enforceability in accordance with states should exclude emissions 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv) and (v) and the and upon approval into the State’s SIP, attributable to startup, shutdown, and BART Guidelines. are enforceable by EPA as well. The malfunction periods in modeling to In its Consent Agreement, Kansas City determine which sources should apply emission rates, or work practices, Power and Light, is required to meet BART controls. EPA did not, however, included in those agreements are NO and SO rates based on a 30-day suggest that emission limitations for summarized below. The Agreements X 2 rolling average of both subject-to-BART sources subsequently determined to be require the facilities to meet these rates, La Cygne Units 1 and 2, except during subject to BART should be applicable or work practices, within 3 to 5 years periods of startup and shutdown. In the only during steady-state operations. Our after EPA approves the State’s RH SIP): second Consent Agreement, Westar review of the Kansas submittal indicates 1. The facilities must meet the Energy is required to meet NOX and SO2 that the startup, shutdown, malfunction emission rates on a 30-day rolling rates based on a 30-day rolling average language in the Agreements appears to average at subject-to-BART Jeffrey Energy Center be inconsistent with EPA’s September

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52618 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

20, 1999, guidance, ‘‘State provisions as exemptions from the result in visibility impairing pollutant Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding BART emission rates are not required reductions as follows: On Board Vapor Excess Emissions during Malfunctions, elements of the Regional Haze SIPs to be Recovery (a 1994 Federal standard); On- Startup and Shutdown,’’ because the developed and submitted by States board Diagnostics (a 1988 Federal Agreements provide an automatic pursuant to section 169 of the CAA. standard and revised with the 1990 exemption for startup, shutdown and EPA is proposing to approve all CAA amendments); Federal on-road and malfunction emissions, and the required elements of Kansas’ Regional nonroad emissions standards such as exemptions for startup and shutdown Haze SIP, including, in particular, the Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur are not narrowly defined.25 Because the BART emission rates, compliance Program (a 1999 Federal standard), the Consent Agreements exempt periods of schedules, monitoring, recordkeeping Clean Air On-Road Diesel Rule (a 2007 startup and shutdown for both facilities and reporting as required by 40 CFR Federal standard), the Clean Air from compliance with applicable 51.308(e) and the BART Guidelines, for Nonroad Diesel Rule (a 2004 Federal emission limits and exempt periods of Kansas City Power and Light and Westar standard), the Locomotive Emission malfunction at Westar Energy, they raise Energy. Therefore, because EPA is Standards (a 2007 Federal standard), the approvability issues. In this action, EPA proposing to find that all required Large Spark-Ignition and Recreational is proposing to approve the NOX and Regional Haze SIP elements have been Vehicle Rule (a 2002 Federal standard); SO2 BART emission rates, compliance met, including BART for subject to the Kansas City Ozone Maintenance schedules, monitoring, recordkeeping, BART units, and is proposing to Plan (required under CAA section and reporting requirements for the approve those elements, EPA has met its 110(a)(1) and Federal regulations Kansas City Power and Light and Westar obligation to take action on Kansas’s promulgated at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(3) and Energy subject-to-BART units, and to Regional Haze SIP. (4)); CAIR (only as it relates to determination of source disapprove the startup, shutdown, and H. Long Term Strategy malfunction provisions in the respective apportionment—please see discussion Consent Agreements and the State’s As described in section II.G. of this in section III. of this proposed Regional Haze SIP.26 notice, the LTS is a compilation of state- rulemaking); National Emission Based on the above, EPA is proposing specific control measures relied on by Standards for Hazardous Pollutants to find that the State of Kansas has met the state for achieving its reasonable (NESHAP) and Maximum Achievable the requirements for establishing BART progress goals. When a state’s emissions Control Technology (MACT) standards are reasonably anticipated to cause or emission limitations and schedules for (Federal standards); and Visibility contribute to impairment in a Class I compliance with those emission Requirements under the New Source area located in another state, the limitations for each BART-eligible Performance Standards (NSPS) Regional Haze Rule requires the states to source that may reasonably be promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21(o). consult, state to state, in order to anticipated to cause or contribute to any develop coordinated emission 2. Measures To Mitigate Construction impairment of visibility in any Class I management strategies. This is Activities area, in accordance with 40 CFR addressed in section IV.C. above and in EPA is proposing to find that the State 51.308(e) and the BART Guidelines. the TSD to this notice. In such cases, the of Kansas has considered measures to EPA’s disapproval of the startup, State must demonstrate that it has mitigate construction activities as shutdown, and malfunction provisions included in its SIP all measures required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B). from EPA’s approval of the SO and 2 necessary to obtain its share of the The State proposed that it already meets NO BART emission rates in the Kansas X emission reductions needed to meet the this requirement by meeting the City Power and Light and Westar Energy reasonable progress goal for the Class I Visibility Requirements under the NSPS Consent Agreements and Regional Haze area, as required by 40 CFR promulgated at 40 CFR § 52.21(o). SIP does not trigger an obligation on the 51.308(d)(3)(ii). States must consider all Emissions such as windblown dust and part of EPA to issue a FIP pursuant to types of anthropogenic sources of nonroad diesel emissions related to section 110(c) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. visibility impairment in developing commercial and residential construction 7410(c). Kansas’ inclusion of the their LTS, including stationary, minor, activities were also considered by the startup, shutdown, and malfunction mobile, and area sources, as required by State. The SIP explains (on page 81) that 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv). For more rapid growth is not projected for the 25 Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and discussion on the State’s evaluation of State. In fact only minor growth is Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air potential sources of visibility expected for the State, from about 2,700 and Radiation, ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): impairment please see the discussion people to 2,950 people (given in Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During regarding the State’s emissions thousands) from 2005–2020. Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,’’ September Additionally, emissions from diesel 20, 1999; and 52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987). inventory provided in section IV.E.2. 26 The specific startup, shutdown, and and the TSD to this notice. engines (used in construction malfunction provisions in the Kansas Regional Haze The State is also required to consider equipment) are expected to decline with SIP that are being disapproved include: all a number of emission reductions and the Federal standards for both on-road references to ‘‘excluding periods of startup and sources listed in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v): and nonroad engines (please see the shutdown’’ in Paragraph 23 of the Kansas City emission inventory section (IV.E.2.) of Power and Light Company Regional Haze 1. Emissions Reductions Due to Ongoing Agreement; the reference to ‘‘excluding periods of this proposed rulemaking). Because startup, shutdown and malfunction’’ in footnote 1 Air Pollution Programs commercial and residential growth is of Appendix A to the Westar Energy, Inc. Regional EPA is proposing to find that the State not expected to grow significantly in the Haze Agreement; all references to ‘‘excluding periods of startup and shutdown’’ in Chapter 9.3.1 considered emission reductions for coming years, and reductions are of the Kansas Regional Haze SIP; and the sentence ongoing air pollution control programs expected in non-road diesel engines ‘‘The Agreements between KDHE and the affected as required by 40 CFR (commonly used equipment during BART sources currently exclude emissions 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A). In Chapter 10 commercial and residential associated with startup, shutdowns, and malfunctions (SSM) in the agreed upon emission (section 10.4.3.1) of the State’s SIP, the construction) from Federal programs limits.’’ in Chapter 9.5 of the Kansas Regional Haze State outlines ongoing air pollution and because emissions from commercial SIP. control programs that can be expected to and/or residential construction were not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52619

identified as major sources of visibility Step 4: Screen and rank facilities protocol (previously described in impairing pollutants, EPA does not based on cost per ton per deciviews section IV.G.2. of this proposal). expect emissions from commercial or improvement. Modeling was conducted on a facility- residential construction activities taking Step 5: Screen for non-cost regulatory by-facility basis and NOX and SO2 place within the State to have a factors, i.e. time necessary for emissions impacts were calculated in significant impact on visibility compliance, energy and non-air quality combination. The modeling was impairment in Class I areas hosted by environmental impacts of compliance, conducted analyzing pre- and post- other States. and remaining useful life. control’s (controls identified in Step 2 of Step 6: Sort and final list of facilities 3. Emissions Limitations and Schedules the analysis) 98th percentile visibility with the potential to need further impacts. Facilities whose highest pre- for Compliance To Achieve the emissions reductions. Reasonable Progress Goal control 98th percentile impact was less Kansas identified a total of 30 units than 0.100 dv were screened out in this EPA is proposing to find that the State that emitted at least 500 tpy of NOX and step. of Kansas has completed an analysis of 28 units that emitted at least 500 tpy of As a refinement to Step 3, the State re- the emissions reductions needed from SO . Of this set of units, 8 of the NO 2 X ran CALPUFF for the remaining sources sources in the State to obtain its share units and 10 of the SO units were 2 considering the impacts of NO and SO of the emissions reductions needed to removed from further review for the X 2 separately. The State considered the meet the RPGs for Class I areas impacted following reasons: pollutant emissions’ visibility impacts by those emissions as required by 40 • 6 of the NOX units and 6 of the SO2 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). The EPA also units were already identified as BART- separately because potential controls for believes the State has established subject; a facility, to meet reasonable progress goals in a Class I area hosted by another enforceable emissions limitations and • 2 of the NOX units and 2 of the SO2 schedules for compliance to meet the units had installed controls since 2002 State, could be pollutant dependent. RPGs for those Class I areas as required and emitted less than 500 tpy of either In the fourth step the State calculated by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) and (F). pollutant. the cost per ton per unit of dv EPA also believes the Consent • 2 of the SO2 units were determined improvement ($/ton/dv). The State Agreements, discussed in section to have no commercially available estimated that the single value of $/ton/ IV.G.3. of this proposal, incorporate controls. dv combined the cost and visibility those emission limits and establish a The remaining set of 22 NOX units improvement in a way that its schedule for compliance in order to included 11 EGUs, 6 cement kilns, 2 gas numerical value increases: (a) As the meet the RPGs of impacted Class I areas compressor engines, 1 refinery fluid-bed cost of controls increases and (b) as the as required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) catalytic cracking unit (FCCU), 1 visibility improvement decreases. The and (F). ammonia plant, and 1 glass furnace, all State determined that the facility with The State conducted an analysis of located at 15 separate facilities. The 18 the lowest $/ton/dv would be the first emission reductions that could be SO2 units were comprised of 13 EGUs, to be reviewed for possible controls to required of sources not already 4 cement kilns, and 1 refiner FCCU, all meet reasonable progress goals in Class identified as BART-subject. The analysis located at 12 facilities. I areas hosted by other States. was conducted in 6 steps. The TSD to In the second step each of the In the fifth step the State evaluated this proposed rulemaking provides a remaining units, described above, were the energy and non-cost factors for each detailed analysis of the steps used to matched with the emission control of the remaining facilities. Two units identify emission reductions needed technology selected for it by a CENRAP were screened out in this step due to the from sources in Kansas to meet the contractor utilizing the least marginal 27 units’ startup dates, 1950 and 1954, and RPGs of impacted Class I areas in other cost. For units that were not identified the likelihood that they would be retired states. The process is also discussed by the contractor, the units were by 2018. briefly below. The results of each step matched with control technologies, In the sixth step the State ranked all of the process are described in detail on control efficiencies and control cost as of the remaining facilities in increasing the TSD to this proposed rulemaking. determined by EPA’s AirControlNET Step 1: Identify all emission units in version 4.1.28 Units whose cost of order of $/ton/dv. The State used a cost the State that emitted equal to 500 tons control was determined to be $10,000/ of $15,000/ton/dv as an exclusion threshold from further consideration. per year (tpy) of NOX and/or SO2 using ton reduced or greater were screened the 2002 emissions inventory. out in this step. Based on its six step analysis, the Step 2: Identify the most effective In the third step the visibility impacts State determined that the control technologies and screening for at the Class I areas (previously implementation of controls or work excessive costs. identified in section IV.B. of this practices, provided in Table 7, were Step 3: Model visibility impacts and proposal) were evaluated for the required to meet RPGs in Class I areas screening of low-impact facilities. remaining units using the CALPUFF hosted by other states.

TABLE 7—CONTROL OR WORK PRACTICE STRATEGIES FOR WESTAR UNITS TO MEET KANSAS LONG TERM STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS

Facility/unit Emission rate or work practice

Gordon Evans Energy Center—Unit A fuel switch to natural gas at all times, with the exception of a gas curtailment order from the gas sup- 1. plier, in which case the facility will be allowed to utilize backup #6 fuel oil. Hutchinson—Unit 4 ...... A fuel switch to natural gas at all times, with the exception of a gas curtailment order from the gas sup- plier, in which case the facility will be allowed to utilize backup #6 fuel oil.

27 ‘‘Final CENRAP Control Strategy Analysis 28 ‘‘Final CENRAP Control Strategy Analysis Plan—9 May 2006’’ page 36. http:// Plan—9 May 2006’’ page 36. http:// www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php. www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52620 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 7—CONTROL OR WORK PRACTICE STRATEGIES FOR WESTAR UNITS TO MEET KANSAS LONG TERM STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS—Continued

Facility/unit Emission rate or work practice

Murray Gill—Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 ..... A fuel switch to natural gas at all times, with the exception of a gas curtailment order from the gas sup- plier, in which case the facility will be allowed to utilize backup #6 fuel oil. Neosho—Unit 7 ...... A fuel switch to natural gas at all times, with the exception of a gas curtailment order from the gas sup- plier, in which case the facility will be allowed to utilize backup #6 fuel oil. Jeffery Energy Center—Unit 3 ...... An emission limit of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu for both SO2 and NOX. Lawrence—Unit3 ...... An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu for SO2. Lawrence—Unit 4 ...... An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu for SO2; an emission limit of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu for NOX. Lawrence—Unit 5 ...... An emission limit of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu for both SO2 and NOX. Tecumseh—Unit 7/9 ...... An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu for SO2. Tecumseh—Units 8/10 ...... An emission limit of 0.18 lbs/MMBtu for SO2.

As previously discussed in this these determinations and set the 10,409 tpy of NOX and 22,812 tpy of section of this proposal, Consent compliance schedules for these SO2 reductions. Agreements (given in Appendix 9.7 of measures. The controls detailed above the SIP) provide a mechanism to enforce are expected to achieve approximately

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED NOX AND SO2 EMISSION REDUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROLS OR WORK PRACTICES REQUIRED BY KANSAS’ LONG TERM STRATEGY

Post Post NO SO 2002 NOX 2002 SO2 control control X 2 Facility Unit Emissions Emissions Reductions Reductions NOX SO2 (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)

Gordon Evans ...... 1 258.7 617.7 211.9 0.5 46.8 617.2 Hutchinson ...... 4 267.1 734.3 158.5 0.6 108.5 733.7 Jeffrey ...... 3 10,807.4 23,206.0 4,913.1 4,913.1 5,894.3 18,292.9 Lawrence ...... 3 728.4 1,965.4 0.0 1,965.4 728.4 0.0 Lawrence ...... 4 1,986.5 1,430.0 835.4 835.4 984.1 594.7 Lawrence ...... 5 3,546.3 4,546.3 2,564.7 2,564.7 981.6 1,789.0 Gill ...... 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gill ...... 2 4.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Gill ...... 3 181.6 452.1 148.6 0.3 33.0 451.8 Gill ...... 4 103.8 333.3 85.2 0.2 18.7 333.1 Neosho ...... 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tecumseh ...... 7 1,530.6 2,692.7 691.6 2,692.7 839.0 0.0 Tecumseh ...... 8 1,876.9 4,514.9 1,103.1 4,514.9 773.8 0.0

Total ...... 10,408.7 22,812.4

In summary and as further detailed be required. In addition, as previously limitations and schedules for beginning on page 48 of the TSD, the discussed in section IV.C. of this compliance necessary to meet the RPGs State utilized a six-step process to proposed rule, the State of Kansas for those Class I areas as required by 40 determine emission reductions needed consulted with the States of Missouri, CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) and (d)(3)(v)(C) and from sources within the State that are Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, and (F). determined that these states were not necessary to meet PRGs of Class I areas 4. Source Retirement and Replacement relying on additional Kansas controls hosted by other states. In doing so, the Schedules State carefully considered and beyond BART and ‘‘on the books’’ eliminated further controls based upon controls to meet the RPGs for the Class EPA is proposing to find that the State the factors. Balancing these factors, and I areas in those states. In addition, as of Kansas has considered source elimination of controls based described in section IV.E.4. of this retirement and replacement schedules particularly on high cost of control proposed rule, the State will again as required by 40 CFR coupled with minimal contribution to consider whether further controls are 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D). The IPM runs visibility impacts at Class I areas hosted necessary as part of the State’s five year (previously discussed in section IV.E.4. by other states, and remaining useful review of the SIP. of this proposal) projected closure of life, resulted in the list controls required Based on the analysis above, EPA is several gas-fired boilers in the State. to meet RPGs in Class I areas hosted by proposing to find that the State of However, when the State communicated other states, as set forth above. The State Kansas has completed an analysis of the directly with those facilities they found found in particular that for BPU emissions reductions needed for source that this assumption was incorrect. The Nearman Unit 1, although additional in the State in order to obtain its share State is aware of only two coal-fired controls were found to be cost effective, of the emissions reductions needed to EGUs that may be retired within the in light of the source’s relatively minor meet the RPGs for Class I areas impacted next 10 years: Kansas City BPU–KAW, contribution to visibility impacts at by emissions from the State, and has units 1 and 3; and Empire District Class I areas, no further controls would established enforceable emissions Electric-Riverton, units 7 and 8. Kansas

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52621

City BPU–KAW units 1 and 3 have been has included a commitment, on page 83 management techniques for agricultural on cold stand-by since 2001 and 2003 of the State’s Regional Haze SIP, to and forestry management as required by respectively. Units 1 and 3 would be address any other sources that are 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) and that it has subject to Prevention of Significant retired or are replaced in conformance considered emissions control strategies Deterioration (PSD) permitting with existing State SIP requirements as outlined in the Agency’s ‘‘Interim Air requirements if the facility were to pertaining to PSD and NSR permitting, Quality Policy on Wildland and restart them. Empire District Electric- in the next SIP planning period. Prescribed Fires’’.29 Emissions from area Riverton units 7 and 8 have start-up 5. Smoke Management source fires, by burn type and pollutant dates of 1950 and 1954 respectively, and EPA is proposing to find that the State are provided in Table 9. will likely be retired by 2018. The State of Kansas has considered smoke

TABLE 9—2002 KANSAS EMISSIONS BY BURN TYPE AND POLLUTANT

Acres 2002 tons Burn type burned PM10 PM2.5 CO NOX SO2 NH3 VOC

Rangeland ...... 3,625,270 75,943 52,901 652,250 23,185 10,160 7,487 43,483 Cropland ...... 1,390,520 23,227 22,156 153,313 5,909 777 3,950 11,401 Prescribed ...... 38,106 1,450 1,226 14,424 228 114 143 881

Totals ...... 5,053,896 100,620 76,283 819,987 29,322 11,052 11,579 55,765

The impact of planned burning to primary marker of smoke, is a small part projected visibility improvement at the visibility at Class I areas was evaluated of the PM2.5 mass. While elemental nine Class I areas, from emission by a contractor during the development carbon has relatively high extinction reductions in Kansas, result mostly from of both the planned burning emissions efficiency, the mass concentrations are the implementation of NOX and SO2 inventory and the ‘‘Causes of Haze small and do not contribute controls on the five BART–subject Assessment’’ for the CENRAP region.30 significantly to light extinction. The EGUs. The projected visibility The July 30, 2004 31 study conducted as State has committed to continue support improvements from these reductions are part of the planned burning inventory of the Kansas Smoke Management Plan shown in Table 10 and are shown in analyzed ambient speciated PM2.5 data initiative. terms of light extinction. from the IMPROVE network at two Class The impact on the WIMO is expected 6. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility ¥ I areas (Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo to be reduced by 1.03715 Mm 1, which Resulting From Projected Changes to Wilderness Areas) to determine which represents a 23 percent change in Emissions chemical compositions characterize Kansas’ impact on the WIMO between prescribed burning activity. The study EPA is proposing to find that the 2002 and 2018. Further improvement found that levels of elemental carbon States evaluation of the net effects on will come from the control of sources and non-soil potassium were elevated visibility resulting from projected identified in Table 7 above. Discussion on days during or after agricultural emission reduction from Kansas sources of any potential emission increases by burning in the area. However, the meets the requirements of 40 CFR the year 2018 is discussed in detail in contribution of elemental carbon, the 51.308(d)(3)(v)(G). The 2002 to 2018 the TSD to this notice.

TABLE 10—NET 2002 TO 2018 IMPROVEMENT IN VISIBILITY AT SELECTED CLASS I AREAS DUE TO BART CONTROLS IN KANSAS

Net 2002–2018 light extinction difference Class I area (improvement) from Kansas sources (Mm¥1)

Caney Creek (Arkansas) ...... 0.63493 Upper Buffalo (Arkansas) ...... 0.44533 Great Sand Dunes (Colorado) ...... 0.03322 Rocky Mountain (Colorado) ...... 0.06051 Hercules-Glades (Missouri) ...... 0.56911 Mingo (Missouri) ...... 0.58719 Wichita Mountains (Oklahoma) ...... 1.03715 Badlands (South Dakota) ...... 0.12856 Wind Cave (South Dakota) ...... 0.16741

V. What action is EPA proposing? on November 9, 2009, with the as explained in section IV.G.3. of this exception of certain provisions related notice. EPA is proposing to find that the EPA is proposing to approve the State to startup, shutdown, and malfunction, submittal meets all of the applicable of Kansas’ Regional Haze SIP, submitted

29 Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and 30 http://www.cenrap.org/html/projects.php. Inventories for the Central States Regional Air Prescribed Fires—http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/ 31 ‘‘Sonoma Technology, Inc. Research and Planning Association—July 30, 2004’’. memoranda/firefnl.pdf. Development of Planned Burning Emission

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52622 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Regional Haze requirements set forth in into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must process of developing the proposed section 169A and 169B of the Act and prepare a budgetary impact statement to regulation. in the Federal regulations codified at 40 accompany any proposed or final rule This rule will not have substantial CFR § 51.300–308, and the requirements that includes a Federal mandate that direct effects on the States, on the of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart F and may result in estimated costs to State, relationship between the national Appendix V. local, or tribal governments in the government and the States, or on the aggregate; or to the private sector, of VI. Statutory and Executive Order distribution of power and Reviews $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost- responsibilities among the various A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory effective and least burdensome levels of government, as specified in Planning and Review alternative that achieves the objectives Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule The Office of Management and Budget of the rule and is consistent with implementing a Federal standard, and (OMB) has exempted this regulatory statutory requirements. Section 203 action from Executive Order 12866, requires EPA to establish a plan for does not alter the relationship or the entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and informing and advising any small distribution of power and Review.’’ governments that may be significantly responsibilities established in the CAA. or uniquely impacted by the rule. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of B. Paperwork Reduction Act EPA has determined that the approval the Executive Order do not apply to this Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, action proposed does not include a rule. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must Federal mandate that may result in approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination estimated costs of $100 million or more With Indian Tribal Governments by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of to either State, local, or tribal information’’ as a requirement for governments in the aggregate, or to the Executive Order 13175, entitled answers to * * * identical reporting or private sector. This Federal action ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with recordkeeping requirements imposed on proposes to approve pre-existing Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. requirements under State or local law, 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction and imposes no new requirements. Act does not apply to this action. to develop an accountable process to Accordingly, no additional costs to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) State, local, or tribal governments, or to tribal officials in the development of the private sector, result from this The RFA generally requires an agency regulatory policies that have tribal action. to conduct a regulatory flexibility implications.’’ This proposed rule does analysis of any rule subject to notice E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism not have tribal implications, as specified and comment rulemaking requirements in Executive Order 13175. It will not Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, unless the agency certifies that the rule have substantial direct effects on tribal 1999) revokes and replaces Executive will not have a significant economic governments. Thus, Executive Order impact on a substantial number of small Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA entities. Small entities include small specifically solicits additional comment businesses, small not-for-profit Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable on this proposed rule from tribal enterprises, and small governmental officials. jurisdictions. process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and This rule will not have a significant timely input by State and local officials G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of impact on a substantial number of small in the development of regulatory Children From Environmental Health entities because SIP approvals under policies that have federalism Risks and Safety Risks section 110 and subchapter I, part D of implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have the CAA do not create any new federalism implications’’ is defined in Protection of Children from requirements but simply approve the Executive Order to include Environmental Health Risks and Safety requirements that the State is already regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), imposing. Therefore, because the effects on the States, on the relationship applies to any rule that: (1) is Federal SIP approval does not create between the national government and determined to be ‘‘economically any new requirements, I certify that this the States, or on the distribution of significant’’ as defined under Executive action will not have a significant power and responsibilities among the Order 12866, and (2) concerns an economic impact on a substantial various levels of government.’’ Under environmental health or safety risk that number of small entities. Executive Order 13132, EPA may not EPA has reason to believe may have a issue a regulation that has federalism Moreover, due to the nature of the disproportionate effect on children. If implications, that imposes substantial Federal-State relationship under the the regulatory action meets both criteria, direct compliance costs, and that is not CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis the Agency must evaluate the would constitute Federal inquiry into required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds environmental health or safety effects of the economic reasonableness of state the planned rule on children, and action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its necessary to pay the direct compliance explain why the planned regulation is actions concerning SIPs on such costs incurred by State and local preferable to other potentially effective grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. governments, or EPA consults with EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 State and local officials early in the and reasonably feasible alternatives U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). process of developing the proposed considered by the Agency. regulation. EPA also may not issue a This rule is not subject to Executive D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act regulation that has federalism Order 13045 because it does not involve Under sections 202 of the Unfunded implications and that preempts State decisions intended to mitigate Mandates Reform Act of 1995 law unless the Agency consults with environmental health or safety risks. (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed State and local officials early in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52623

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION access’’ system, and EPA will not know Significantly Affect Energy Supply, AGENCY your identity or contact information Distribution, or Use unless you provide it in the body of 40 CFR Part 52 your comment. If you send e-mail This rule is not subject to Executive [EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0601; FRL–9453–1] directly to EPA, your e-mail address Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning will be automatically captured and Regulations That Significantly Affect Revisions to the California State included as part of the public comment. Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 Implementation Plan, San Joaquin If EPA cannot read your comment due FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is Valley Unified Air Pollution Control to technical difficulties and cannot not a significant regulatory action under District contact you for clarification, EPA may Executive Order 12866. not be able to consider your comment. AGENCY: Environmental Protection Docket: Generally, documents in the I. National Technology Transfer and Agency (EPA). docket for this action are available Advancement Act (NTTAA) ACTION: Proposed rule. electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, requires Federal agencies to evaluate revisions to the San Joaquin Valley California. While all documents in the existing technical standards when Unified Air Pollution Control District docket are listed at developing a new regulation. To comply (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California www.regulations.gov, some information with NTTAA, EPA must consider and State Implementation Plan (SIP). These may be publicly available only at the revisions concern volatile organic use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (VCS) if available and applicable when material, large maps), and some may not (NO ), and particulate matter (PM) developing programs and policies x be publicly available in either location emissions from flares. We are approving unless doing so would be inconsistent (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy a local rule that regulates these emission with applicable law or otherwise materials, please schedule an sources under the Clean Air Act as impractical. EPA believes that VCS are appointment during normal business amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We inapplicable to this action. Today’s hours with the contact listed in the FOR are taking comments on this proposal action does not require the public to FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. and plan to follow with a final action. perform activities conducive to the use FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: of VCS. DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 22, 2011. Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 4126, [email protected]. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Air pollution control, Environmental OAR–2011–0601, by one of the Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ protection, Intergovernmental relations, following methods: and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Table of Contents Reporting and recordkeeping www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile instructions. I. The State’s Submittal organic compounds. 2. E-mail: [email protected]. A. What rule did the State submit? 3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel B. Are there other versions of this rule? Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. C. What is the purpose of the submitted (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Dated: August 15, 2011. rule revisions? Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action Karl Brooks, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? Regional Administrator, Region 7. Instructions: All comments will be B. Does the rule meet the evaluation [FR Doc. 2011–21567 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] included in the public docket without criteria? C. EPA Recommendations To Further BILLING CODE 6560–50–P change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, Improve the Rule including any personal information D. Public Comment and Final Action provided, unless the comment includes III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Confidential Business Information (CBI) I. The State’s Submittal or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that A. What rule did the State submit? you consider CBI or otherwise protected Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this should be clearly identified as such and proposal with the date that it was should not be submitted through amended by the local air agency and www.regulations.gov or e-mail. submitted by the California Air www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous Resources Board.

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted

SJVUAPCD ...... 4311 Flares ...... 06/18/09 01/10/10

On February 4, 2010, EPA determined CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be B. Are there other versions of this rule? that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule met before formal EPA review. 4311 met the completeness criteria in 40 We approved an earlier version of Rule 4311 into the SIP on February 26,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52624 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

2003 (68 FR 8835). The SJVUAPCD Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, of Management and Budget under amended revisions to the SIP-approved 2001 (the Little Bluebook). Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, version on June 15, 2006 and June 18, 3. Portions of the proposed post-1987 October 4, 1993); 2009 and CARB submitted them to us ozone and carbon monoxide policy that • Does not impose an information on December 29, 2006 and January 10, concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November collection burden under the provisions 2010. While we can act on only the most 24, 1987. of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 recently submitted version, we have 4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans, U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); General Preamble for the reviewed materials provided with • Is certified as not having a Implementation of Title I of the Clean previous submittals. significant economic impact on a Air Amendments of 1990’’ 57 FR 13498, substantial number of small entities C. What is the purpose of the submitted April 16, 1992. rule revisions? 5. ‘‘Preamble, Final Rule to under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); VOCs and NO help produce ground- Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National X • level ozone and smog, which harm Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ 70 FR Does not contain any unfunded human health and the environment. PM 71612; Nov. 29, 2005. mandate or significantly or uniquely contributes to effects that are harmful to 6. Letter from William T. Hartnett to affect small governments, as described human health and the environment, Regional Air Division Directors, ‘‘RACT in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act including premature mortality, Qs & As—Reasonable Available Control of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); aggravation of respiratory and Technology (RACT) Questions and • Does not have Federalism cardiovascular disease, decreased lung Answers,’’ May 18, 2006. implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, function, visibility impairment, and B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 1999); damage to vegetation and ecosystems. criteria? Section 110(a) of the CAA requires • Is not an economically significant States to submit regulations that control We believe this rule is consistent with regulatory action based on health or the relevant policy and guidance VOC, NOX, and PM emissions. safety risks subject to Executive Order SJVUAPCD Rule 4311 minimizes flaring regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); events by requiring flare minimization relaxations. The TSD has more • information on our evaluation. Is not a significant regulatory action plans (FMPs), monitoring of flare subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR activity and emissions, and related C. EPA Recommendations To Further 28355, May 22, 2001); recordkeeping. EPA’s technical support Improve the Rule • document (TSD) has more information Is not subject to requirements of about this rule. The TSD describes additional rule Section 12(d) of the National revisions that we recommend for the Technology Transfer and Advancement II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action next time the local agency modifies the Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? rule but are not currently the basis for application of those requirements would rule disapproval. be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; Generally, SIP rules must be and D. Public Comment and Final Action enforceable (see section 110(a) of the • Does not provide EPA with the Act), must require Reasonably Available Because EPA believes the submitted discretionary authority to address Control Technology (RACT) for each rule fulfills all relevant requirements, disproportionate human health or category of sources covered by a Control we are proposing to fully approve it as environmental effects with practical, Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. appropriate, and legally permissible as well as each major source in We will accept comments from the methods under Executive Order 12898 nonattainment areas (see sections public on this proposal for the next 30 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), must not interfere days. Unless we receive convincing new with any applicable requirements information during the comment period, In addition, this rule does not have concerning attainment and reasonable we intend to publish a final approval tribal implications as specified by further progress (RFP), and must not action that will incorporate this rule Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, relax existing requirements (see sections into the federally enforceable SIP. November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 110(l) and 193). Section 172(c)(1) of the not approved to apply in Indian country Act also requires implementation of all III. Statutory and Executive Order located in the State, and EPA notes that reasonably available control measures Reviews it will not impose substantial direct (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable Under the Clean Air Act, the costs on tribal governments or preempt in nonattainment areas. The SJVUAPCD Administrator is required to approve a tribal law. regulates an ozone nonattainment area SIP submission that complies with the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4311 must provisions of the Act and applicable fulfill RACT. Additionally, the RACM Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); Environmental protection, Air requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1) 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP pollution control, Intergovernmental applies to this area. submissions, EPA’s role is to approve relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Guidance and policy documents that State choices, provided that they meet Particulate matter, Reporting and we use to evaluate enforceability and the criteria of the Clean Air Act. recordkeeping requirements, Volatile RACT and RACM requirements Accordingly, this action merely organic compounds. consistently include the following: approves State law as meeting Federal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation requirements and does not impose Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and additional requirements beyond those Dated: August 8, 2011. Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the imposed by State law. For that reason, Jared Blumenfeld, Bluebook). this action: Regional Administrator, Region IX. 2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory [FR Doc. 2011–21368 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Common VOC & Other Rule action’’ subject to review by the Office BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52625

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS information on the rulemaking process, arguments made during the COMMISSION see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION presentation. If the presentation section of this document. consisted in whole or in part of the 47 CFR Part 64 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John presentation of data or arguments [CG Docket Nos. 11–116 and 09–158; CC B. Adams, Consumer and Governmental already reflected in the presenter’s Docket No. 98–170; FCC 11–106] Affairs Bureau, Policy Division, at (202) written comments, memoranda or other 418–2854 (voice), or e-mail filings in the proceeding, the presenter Empowering Consumers To Prevent [email protected]. may provide citations to such data or and Detect Billing for Unauthorized For additional information concerning arguments in his or her prior comments, Charges (‘‘Cramming’’); Consumer the potential new or revised information memoranda, or other filings (specifying Information and Disclosure; Truth-in- collection requirements contained in the relevant page and/or paragraph Billing and Billing Format document FCC 11–106, contact Cathy numbers where such data or arguments Williams, Federal Communications can be found) in lieu of summarizing AGENCY: Federal Communications them in the memorandum. Documents Commission. Commission, at (202) 418–2918, or via e-mail [email protected]. shown or given to Commission staff ACTION: Proposed rule. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and SUMMARY: The purpose of this document summary of the Commission’s Notice of must be filed consistent with section is to seek comment on proposed Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’), FCC 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules. In amendments to the Commission’s 11–106, adopted and released on July proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) Truth-in-Billing rules that would 12, 2011, in CG Docket Nos. 11–116 and or for which the Commission has made require wireline telephone companies 09–158, and CC Docket No. 98–170. The available a method of electronic filing, (i.e. wireline telecommunications full text of this document and copies of written ex parte presentations and common carriers) to notify subscribers any subsequently filed documents in memoranda summarizing oral ex parte clearly and conspicuously, at the point this matter will be available for public presentations, and all attachments of sale, on each bill, and on their Web inspection and copying via ECFS, and thereto, must be filed through the sites, of the option to block third-party during regular business hours at the electronic comment filing system FCC Reference Information Center, charges from their telephone bills, if the available for that proceeding, and must Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room company offers that option, and place be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. They charges from non-telephone company .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants third-parties in a bill section separate may also be purchased from the in this proceeding should familiarize from telephone company charges, and Commission’s duplicating contractor, themselves with the Commission’s ex would require both wireline and Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, parte rules. wireless (i.e. Commercial Mobile Radio 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Service (‘‘CMRS’’) common carriers) Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202) Synopsis telephone companies to notify 488–5300, fax: (202) 488–5563, or In the NPRM, the Commission subscribers on all telephone bills and on Internet: http://www.bcpiweb.com. This proposes rules to require wireline and their Web sites that subscribers may file document can also be downloaded in wireless telephone companies to complaints with the Commission, Word or Portable Document Format provide to subscribers information that provide the Commission’s contact (‘‘PDF’’) at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/ will enable subscribers to detect, rectify, information for the submission of cramming-unauthorized-misleading-or- and prevent cramming. Cramming is the complaints, and include on Web sites a deceptive-charges-placed-your- placement of unauthorized charges on link to the Commission’s complaint telephone-bill. To request materials in subscribers’ telephone bills. Web page. This action will enable accessible formats for people with Specifically, the Commission proposes subscribers to detect, rectify, and disabilities (Braille, large print, that wireline telephone companies prevent placement of unauthorized electronic files, audio format), send an disclose to subscribers information charges on their telephone bills; a e-mail to [email protected] or call the about blocking of third-party charges practice known as ‘‘cramming.’’ Consumer and Governmental Affairs and place third-party charges in a DATES: Comments are due on or before Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– separate bill section from all telephone October 24, 2011. Reply comments are 418–0432 (TTY). company charges. The Commission due on or before November 21, 2011. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq., this further proposes that wireline and ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, matter shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-but- wireless telephone companies, on their identified by CG Docket No. 11–116 by disclose’’ proceeding in accordance bills and on their Web sites, notify any of the following methods: with the Commission’s ex parte rules. subscribers that they can file complaints • Federal Communications Persons making ex parte presentations with the Commission, provide the Commission’s Web site: Follow the must file a copy of any written Commission’s contact information for instructions for submitting comments. presentation or a memorandum filing complaints, and provide a link to • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// summarizing any oral presentation the Commission’s complaint Web site www.regulations.gov. Follow the within two business days after the on their Web sites. instructions for submitting comments. presentation (unless a different deadline • People with Disabilities: Contact the applicable to the Sunshine period Disclosure of Blocking of Third-Party FCC to request reasonable applies). Persons making oral ex parte Charges accommodations (accessible format presentations are reminded that The Commission proposes that documents, sign language interpreters, memoranda summarizing the wireline telephone companies that offer CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] presentation must: (1) List all persons subscribers the option to block third- or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– attending or otherwise participating in party charges from their telephone bills 418–0432. the meeting at which the ex parte must clearly and conspicuously notify For detailed instructions for presentation was made; and (2) subscribers of this option at the point of submitting comments and additional summarize all data presented and sale, on each bill, and on their Web

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52626 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

sites. The Commission seeks comment conspicuously notify subscribers that third party’s name and toll-free on specific details about how this they can file complaints with the customer service telephone number? disclosure should be implemented. The Commission, provide the Commission’s The Commission’s Truth-in-Billing rules proposed rules amend the Commission’s contact information for filing permit, but do not require, telephone Truth-in-Billing rules (codified at 47 complaints, and provide a link on their companies to provide contact CFR 64.2400–64.2401), which mandate Web sites to the Commission’s information for third parties if the third ‘‘clear and conspicuous’’ disclosure (i.e. complaint Web site. The disclosure party possesses sufficient information to notice that would be apparent to the should include the Commission’s answer questions concerning the reasonable consumer) of certain telephone number and Web site address. subscriber’s account and is fully information on telephone bills. The How much will it cost telephone authorized to resolve subscriber Commission seeks comment on the companies to comply with this complaints. Implicit in this proviso is a wording, placement, font size, and other requirement, and how long will it take requirement for the telephone company relevant factors, at the point of sale, on them to comply? to verify the contact information. To bills, and on Web sites, that would be Wireless and Internet Telephone Service what extent do telephone companies necessary for this notification, as well as already verify third-party contact any notification about fees for blocking, The Commission seeks comment on information? What would be the to satisfy this standard. Can existing whether all of the rules proposed for incremental burden on telephone practices of telephone companies that wireline telephone service also should companies to do so? How and to what already offer blocking be improved apply to wireless and Internet telephone extent would imposing a verification other than by the proposed disclosures, service. Complaint data from the requirement benefit subscribers, such as by better training of customer Commission and the Federal Trade telephone companies, or both? Should service representatives? Commission indicate that any particular form of verification be approximately 80% to 90% of cramming required? At what intervals should Separate Bill Section for Third-Party complaints relate to wireline telephone Charges telephone companies be required to re- service. What is the nature and verify third-party contact information? The Commission proposes that magnitude of cramming for wireless Requiring Wireline Telephone wireline telephone companies place telephone service? What percentage of Companies to Offer Blocking: Should charges from non-telephone company unauthorized charges is from wireless wireline telephone companies be third parties in a distinct section of the telephone companies, and what telephone bill separate from telephone percentage is from third parties? Do required to block third-party charges company charges. The Commission’s unauthorized charges occur more upon subscriber request? If so, should Truth-in-Billing rules already require frequently with particular types of they be prohibited from charging a fee charges from different telephone wireless service plans or features? Does for doing so? Many wireline telephone companies on a single telephone bill to cramming affect wireless telephone companies already offer blocking at no be separated. Those rules also permit subscribers differently than wireline additional fee, which suggests that there service bundles to be listed as a single telephone subscribers? How? Are there is no technical or cost barrier to making service offering of the telephone differences between wireline and blocking available, or that the cost of company, even if the bundle includes wireless telephone industry practices or doing so is not sufficiently high to third-party services. No change is billing platforms that are relevant in warrant additional fees beyond the proposed as to the manner in which assessing the propriety and effectiveness monthly recurring charge for wireline bundles may be billed under our rules. of potential regulatory solutions? What telephone service. What technical or Are more specific requirements needed? are the differences? The Commission cost barriers exist? Which telephone Should third-party charges be listed seeks current and updated data from companies offer blocking? What specific separately on the first page of telephone states regarding wireless cramming and types or categories of charges are bills or further highlighted in some how differences in state authority over blocked? Is an additional fee is assessed other fashion? Is there any need to wireless telephone service impact the for blocking, and what is the amount of require identification of the third-party need for federal oversight. Can industry the fee? How was the amount of the fee vendor associated with each charge practices or voluntary guidelines determined? What kinds or types of beyond the requirements already successfully address cramming for charges should be subject to blocking if contained in the Truth-in-Billing rules? wireless telephone service? To what wireline telephone companies were What changes will telephone companies extent are industry guidelines and required to block them, such as charges need to make to billing systems to practices evolving to address cramming, from long distance telephone comply with this proposed rule? How such as in-application marketing? Are companies, Internet service providers much will these changes cost and how options to block third-party charges, if and other providers affiliated with the long will they take? Are there ways to any, clearly and conspicuously telephone company, and non-telephone minimize burdens on telephone disclosed to subscribers? company third parties? Should bundles, companies, especially smaller ones? which may contain services provided by Additional Questions for Comment third parties, be treated differently? Disclosure of Commission Contact The Commission seeks comment on Prohibiting All Third-Party Charges Information other possible requirements that may on Wireline Telephone Bills: The Information available to the help subscribers to detect, rectify, and Commission seeks comment on the Commission, including a report from prevent cramming. impact, both positive and negative, that the General Accountability Office, Disclosure of Third-Party Contact prohibiting third-party charges on indicates that many telephone Information: Should telephone wireline telephone bills, unless the subscribers do not know how to file companies clearly and conspicuously subscriber opts in, may have on wireline complaints about telephone service. The provide contact information for each telephone companies, subscribers, and Commission proposes that wireline and third party in association with its third parties. What is the scope of the wireless telephone companies, on their charges? Should specific contact Commission’s authority to impose such bills and on their Web sites, clearly and information be provided, such as the a ban? What kinds or types of charges

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52627

should be subject to such a prohibition actions have states taken to address while taking into consideration the on third-party charges? cramming? burden of compliance to carriers. These Due Diligence: The Commission seeks Accessibility: How will the costs and benefits can have many comment on whether it should require Commission’s proposed rules affect, and dimensions, including cost and revenue carriers, before contracting or agreeing could they be improved to better assist, implications for industry, financial with a third party to place its charges on people with disabilities, people living in benefits to consumers, and other, less telephone bills, to screen each third Native Nations on Tribal Lands in tangible benefits, such as the value of party to ensure that it has operated and Native communities, and people with increasing consumer choice or will continue to operate in compliance limited English proficiency. What preventing fraud. with all relevant state and federal laws. measures should telephone companies To address the first criterion in the What is the nature and adequacy of take to ensure that the information they case of cramming, the Commission current industry practices in this provide to subscribers is accessible to seeks comment on the best ways to regard? How are telephone companies such individuals. ensure that the proposed disclosures monitoring and tracking subscriber Internet Telephone Service: The will actually benefit consumers. To complaints with respect to cramming? Commission seeks comment on whether what extent may consumers be expected What thresholds exist with respect to any of the proposed rules, any of the to utilize the additional information? cramming complaints before a other requirements discussed, or similar Are there ways to implement the telephone company takes adverse action requirements should apply to providers disclosures that would increase the against a third party? Should such of Internet telephone service (i.e. number of consumers who will benefit thresholds be required and what should interconnected VoIP service). Do bills and the nature of the benefits? What are they be? What annual percentage of for Internet telephone service raise the the best ways to ensure that disclosure same risks of cramming as wireline or charges from third parties is refunded, of third-party charges on bills is clear wireless telephone service? Are there uncollectible, or unbillable? To what and conspicuous; that third-party differences that necessitate a different extent do telephone companies attempt blocking options are clearly disclosed; regulatory approach? What kinds of to identify affiliated companies after one and that FCC contact information is safeguards are needed to protect and affiliate has been identified as engaging provided in ways that consumers will would be effective in protecting Internet in cramming, attempt to track whether see it and know how to use it? What, if telephone service subscribers from a company continues under a different any, are the best practices of consumer cramming? disclosure in other areas and of name, or attempt to track whether the Definition of Service Provider or assessing the effectiveness of same persons engage in cramming via a Service: The Commission seeks disclosures? Are there other examples, new company? How successful have comment on the need to define ‘‘service research, and recommendations that telephone companies been in doing so? provider’’ or ‘‘service,’’ as those terms would be applicable here? What penalties or other measures are are used in the Truth-in-Billing rules, to To address the second criterion in the employed to deter cramming? Are there better address charges that arguably may case of cramming, the Commission improvements that could be made or do not be for a service. What specific seeks comment on the nature and better deterrents exist? How many third definitions would be effective? Are magnitude of the costs and benefits of parties submit charges to telephone there alternatives, such as changing the the proposed rules to consumers and companies for placement on telephone Truth-in-Billing rules to refer to more carriers. How, if at all, do these vary by bills? What are their lines of business or than services and service providers? telephone company and by type (e.g., types of products? How many real What specific rules would need to be wireline, wireless) and size of telephone parties in interest are there owning or changed and what specific changes company? What, if any, specific operating these companies? How could would be needed? concerns exist for telephone companies third parties change or improve their serving rural areas, Native Nations on Effective Consumer Information efforts to monitor and track cramming Tribal lands and Native communities, Disclosure complaints? and their customers. The Commission Federal-State Coordination: To In proposing rules to improve seeks specific information about address potential subscriber confusion transparency on cramming or any other whether, how, and by how much such about to which state and federal consumer issue, the Commission carriers and their customers may be agencies they can complain about intends to look at the many factors impacted differently in terms of the cramming and recognizing that involved in effective consumer costs and benefits of the proposed rules. coordinated state and federal efforts is a information disclosure. This will ensure What is the most cost-effective approach critical component to protecting that the rules serve their intended for modifying existing policies and subscribers, the Commission seeks purpose without posing an undue practices to achieve the goals of the comment on how to better coordinate burden on industry. There are two key proposed rules? sharing of cramming complaints and criteria for the success of such an The Commission seeks comment on information. Are there ways to share approach. First, acknowledging the the extent of cramming, including totals information, such as through the shared potential difficulty of quantifying for all charges and unauthorized charges complaint database maintained by the benefits and burdens, the Commission from third parties, total annual Federal Trade Commission? Should needs to determine whether the unauthorized charges to wireline and wireline and wireless telephone proposed disclosure rules will CMRS consumers, amounts credited companies report trends or spikes in significantly benefit consumers and, in annually to consumers for unauthorized complaints they receive about specific fact, clarify important issues for them— charges, total uncollectible charges, how third parties? What is the nature and for example, by helping them detect much the proposed rules will reduce extent of the cramming problem in each hidden charges, making contractual these amounts, and methods to quantify state? What is the number of wireline terms more transparent, or clarifying unauthorized charges accurately. The and wireless cramming complaints? rates and fees. Second, the Commission Commission also seeks comment on the What are the trends in the last few seeks to maximize the benefits to costs to consumers to block third-party years? What enforcement or legislative consumers from our proposed rules charges, to monitor bills to guard against

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52628 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

cramming, and to resolve disputes over figures for each specific cost or benefit I [of the Communications Act] covers unauthorized charges, including addressed, including a description of the regulated subject and (2) the intangible costs like time. The how the data or information was regulations are reasonably ancillary to Commission invites comment regarding calculated or obtained and any the Commission’s effective performance consumers’ experiences with supporting documentation or other of its statutorily mandated unauthorized charges. evidentiary support. Vague or responsibilities.’’ Comcast Corp. v. FCC, How and how much has cramming unsupported assertions generally can be 600 F.3d 642, 646 (DC Cir. 2010) affected consumer confidence and expected to be less persuasive than (quoting American Library Ass’n v. FCC, decisions of whether to purchase more specific and supported statements. 406 F.3d 689, 691–92 (DC Cir. 2005)). particular kinds of goods or services? An exercise of such authority under Legal Issues Will the proposed rules lead to Title I may be necessary here because increased consumer purchasing, and Communications Act: What is the entities that are not classified as how much? What are potential costs of nature and scope of the Commission’s common carriers nonetheless may, like cramming to third-party vendors that do authority under the Communications common carriers, provide billing-and- not engage in cramming, such as costs Act of 1934, as amended, to adopt the collection services for third parties or associated with reduced demand for proposed rules and regarding the submit charges for inclusion on a their products due to a loss of consumer additional issues for comment? The telephone bill. confidence in the marketplace, and Commission believes that it has The Commission has previously reduced innovation and investment due authority under Section 201(b) of the asserted ancillary jurisdiction over VoIP to lower demand for their products? Communications Act to adopt the providers in other contexts. See, e.g., IP- What are the potential costs that the proposed rules. The bill format and Enabled Services; E911 Requirements proposed rules and other potential labeling requirements in the Truth-in- for IP-Enabled Service Providers, 20 requirements may impose on third-party Billing rules are based, in whole or part, FCC Rcd 10245, 10261–66, paragraphs vendors, such as lost revenue from on the Commission’s authority under 26–35 (2005) (rules requiring VoIP legitimate transactions? Are there any Section 201(b) of the Communications providers to supply enhanced 911 other potential costs and/or benefits to Act to enact rules to implement the capabilities to their customers), aff’d third-party vendors from the proposed requirement that all charges, practices, sub nom. Nuvio Corp. v. FCC, 473 F.3d rules? classifications, and regulations for and 302 (DC Cir. 2007). Can and should the What are the specific kinds and in connection with interstate Commission exercise Title I authority to amounts of compliance costs that communications service be just and apply the proposed rules to any non- carriers may incur? If billing or other reasonable. The problem of crammed carriers? Are there particular entities, system modifications are required, what third-party charges depends on and including but not limited to is the exact nature of those arises from the relationship between the interconnected VoIP providers, that modifications, the time required to telephone company and its customer; should be subject to the proposed rules? implement them, and their cost? What telephone bills are an integral part of Further, the Commission has previously is the amount of annual revenue that this relationship. Unauthorized third- asserted that its Title I authority extends carriers receive from providing billing- party charges appear on telephone bills to a common carrier’s provision of and-collection services to third parties only because the telephone company billing-and-collection services to third and the anticipated reduction, if any, permits them to be there. Further, if it parties that are not carriers. See that would result from adoption of the is not clear on a telephone bill what a Detariffing of Billing and Collection proposed rules or other requirements? charge is for and who the service Services, Report and Order, 102 FCC 2d Will these figures differ depending upon provider is, a consumer may 1150, paragraphs 35–38 (1986). It seeks which third-party charges are blocked? erroneously believe that the charge is comment on whether that authority What are telephone companies’ costs to related to a service provided by the would extend to the proposals in the offer the ability to block all third-party telephone company. NPRM. charges? Section 332(c)(1)(A) of the First Amendment: A regulation of The Commission seeks comment on Communications Act states that wireless commercial speech will be found the nature and magnitude of costs that telephone companies are subject to compatible with the First Amendment carriers might avoid or reduce by Section 201(b) authority for their if: (1) There is a substantial government complying with the proposed rules. common carrier services. They largely interest; (2) the regulation directly Some possible cost savings might be are subject to the Truth-in-Billing rules advances the substantial government reductions in the number of calls to promulgated under Section 201(b) to the interest; and (3) the proposed regulation customer service, reduced costs to same extent as wireline telephone is not more extensive than necessary to process refunds, reduced costs to companies for common carrier services. serve that interest. Central Hudson Gas investigate disputed charges, reduced Thus, the Commission believes that its and Electric Corp. v. Public Service uncollectible charges, reduced costs to authority to extend the proposed rules Commission, 447 U.S. 557, 566 (1980). monitor billing activities by third and other requirements to wireless Moreover, ‘‘regulations that compel parties, and reduced costs to audit third telephone companies is co-extensive ‘purely factual and uncontroversial’ parties or to develop and monitor with its authority to promulgate them commercial speech are subject to more performance improvement plans for wireline telephone companies. The lenient review than regulations that imposed upon third parties. Commission seeks comment on this restrict accurate commercial speech.’’ The Commission seeks comment on analysis. See, e.g., New York State Restaurant and quantification of any other costs Does the Commission need to invoke Association v. New York City Board of and benefits that it should consider, and its ancillary Title I authority to adopt Health, 556 F.3d 114, 132 (2nd Cir. information that will enable it to weigh requirements to address cramming? The 2009) (upholding New York City health the costs and benefits associated with Commission ‘‘may exercise ancillary code requiring restaurants to post the proposed rules. Commenters should jurisdiction only when two conditions calorie content information on their provide specific data and information, are satisfied: (1) the Commission’s menus and menu boards) (citing such as actual or estimated dollar general jurisdictional grant under Title Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52629

Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985)); must send one copy to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis National Elec. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, 272 Commission’s duplicating contractor, F.3d 104, 113 (2nd Cir. 2001) Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th As required by the Regulatory (upholding Vermont statute prescribing Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, labeling requirements on mercury- via e-mail to [email protected]. Filings (‘‘RFA’’), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility containing lamps). can be sent by hand or messenger Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) of the possible The Commission’s statutory delivery, by commercial overnight significant economic impact on a obligations include protecting courier, or by first-class or overnight substantial number of small entities by consumers from unjust or unreasonable U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings the policies and rules proposed in the charges and practices. The record in this must be addressed to the Commission’s proceeding suggests that consumers NPRM. Written public comments are Secretary, Office of the Secretary, requested on the IRFA. Comments must continue to incur substantial costs each Federal Communications Commission. year from the inclusion of unauthorized be identified as responses to the IRFA • charges on their telephone bills. The All hand-delivered or messenger- and must be filed by the deadlines for proposed rules are designed to advance delivered paper filings for the comments on the NPRM provided on the government’s interest by providing Commission’s Secretary must be the first page of this document. The consumers with basic tools necessary to delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 Commission will send a copy of the protect themselves from these 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief unauthorized charges. The Commission Washington, DC 20554. All hand Counsel for Advocacy of the Small seeks comment on whether the deliveries must be held together with Business Administration. rubber bands or fasteners. Any proposed rules and other issues for Need for, and Objectives of, the comment are consistent with these and envelopes must be disposed of before Proposed Rules any other First Amendment entering the building. The filing hours considerations. are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. In document FCC 11–106, the Procedural Matters Commercial overnight mail (other Commission summarized the record than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail compiled in this proceeding and the Ex Parte Presentations: This is a Commission’s own complaint data. The permit-but-disclose notice and comment and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, record confirms that cramming is a rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte significant and ongoing problem that presentations are permitted in MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first- class, Express, and Priority mail must be has affected wireline consumers for over accordance with the Commission’s a decade, and drawn the notice of rules. addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554. Congress, states, and other federal Filing of Comments and Reply agencies. The substantial volume of Comments: Pursuant to sections 1.415 The comments and reply comments wireline cramming complaints that the and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, filed in response to this NPRM will be Commission, FTC, and states continue interested parties may submit available via ECFS at: http:// to receive underscores the comments, identified by CG Docket No. fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. You may search ineffectiveness of voluntary industry 11–116 by any of the following by docket number (Docket No. CG–11– practices and highlights the need for methods: 116). Comments are also available for • additional safeguards. Recent evidence, Electronic Filers: Comments may be public inspection and copying during such as the volume of wireless filed electronically using the Internet by business hours in the FCC Reference cramming complaints and wireless accessing the Commission’s Electronic Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th carriers’’ settlement of litigation Comment Filing System (ECFS) http:// Street, SW., Room CY–A257, regarding unauthorized charges, raises a fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should Washington, DC 20554. Copies may also similar concern with unauthorized follow the instructions provided on the be purchased from Best Copy and charges on Commercial Mobile Radio Web site for submitting comments and Printing, Inc., telephone (800) 378– Service (‘‘CMRS’’) bills, such as those of transmit one electronic copy of the 3160, facsimile (301) 816–0169, e-mail providers of wireless voice telephone filing to each docket number referenced [email protected]. service. in the caption, which in this case is CG Docket No. 11–116. For ECFS filers, in Accessibility Information: To request Although the Commission has completing the transmittal screen, filers materials in accessible formats for addressed cramming as an unreasonable should include their full name, U.S. people with disabilities (Braille, large practice under Section 201(b) of the Postal Service mailing address, and the print, electronic files, audio format), Communications Act, there are applicable docket number. send an e-mail to [email protected] or call currently no rules that specifically • Parties may also submit an the Consumer & Governmental Affairs address unauthorized charges on electronic comment by Internet e-mail. Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice) or 202– wireline telephone bills. The To get filing instructions, filers should 418–0432 (TTY). This Notice of Commission believes that adopting such send an e-mail to [email protected], and Proposed Rulemaking also can be requirements will provide consumers include the following words in the body downloaded in Word and Portable with the safeguards they need to protect of the message, ‘‘get form .’’ A sample form and www.fcc.gov/guides/cramming- Legal Basis directions will be sent in response. unauthorized-misleading-or-deceptive- • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to charges-placed-your-telephone-bill. The legal basis for any action that may file by paper must file an original and Contact the FCC to request reasonable be taken pursuant to the NPRM is four copies of each filing. Because three accommodations for filing comments contained in Sections 1–2, 4, 201, 301, docket numbers appears in the caption (accessible format documents, sign 303, 332, and 403 of the of this proceeding, filers must submit language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e- Communications Act of 1934, as four additional copies for the additional mail at: [email protected]; phone: 202– amended, 47 U.S.C. 151–152, 154, 201, docket numbers. In addition, parties 418–0530 or TTY: 202–418–0432. 301, 303, 332, and 403.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52630 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Description and Estimate of the Number Access Providers (‘‘CAPs’’), Shared- the majority of these Interexchange of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Tenant Service Providers, and Other carriers can be considered small Rules Will Apply Local Service Providers. Neither the entities. According to Commission data, The RFA directs agencies to provide Commission nor the SBA has developed 359 companies reported that their a description of, and where feasible, an a small business size standard primary telecommunications service estimate of the number of small entities specifically for these service providers. activity was the provision of that will be affected by the proposed The appropriate size standard under interexchange services. Of these 359 rules, if adopted. The RFA generally SBA rules is for the category Wired companies, an estimated 317 have 1,500 defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as Telecommunications Carriers. Under or fewer employees and 42 have more having the same meaning as the terms that size standard, such a business is than 1,500 employees. Consequently, ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange service and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ Census Bureau data for 2007, which providers are small entities that may be In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ now supersede data from the 2002 affected by rules adopted pursuant to has the same meaning as the term Census, show that there were 3,188 the NPRM. ‘‘small business concern’’ under the firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had Wireless Telecommunications Small Business Act. Under the Small Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, Business Act, a ‘‘small business employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 the Census Bureau has placed wireless concern’’ is one that: (1) Is firms within this new, broad, economic independently owned and operated; (2) employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated small census category. Prior to that time, such is not dominant in its field of operation; firms were within the now-superseded and (3) meets any additional criteria business size standard, the majority of these Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared- categories of ‘‘Paging’’ and ‘‘Cellular and established by the Small Business Other Wireless Telecommunications.’’ Administration (‘‘SBA’’). Nationwide, Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers can be Under the present and prior categories, there are a total of approximately 29.6 the SBA has deemed a wireless business million small businesses, according to considered small entities. According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer the SBA. The NPRM seeks comment employees. For the category of Wireless generally on wireline and wireless reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local Telecommunications Carriers (except telecommunications common carriers. Satellite), Census data for 2007 show However, as noted in Section IV of the exchange services or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 that there were 1,383 firms that operated NPRM, the Commission seeks comment that year. Of those, 1,368 firms had on how to reduce burdens on small carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms entities. had more than 100 employees. Thus, Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are under this category and the associated (‘‘Incumbent LECs’’). Neither the small business size standard, the Commission nor the SBA has developed Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or majority of firms can be considered a small business size standard small. Similarly, according to specifically for incumbent local fewer employees. In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they are Commission data, 413 carriers reported exchange services. The appropriate size that they were engaged in the provision Other Local Service Providers. Of the standard under SBA rules is for the of wireless telephony, including cellular 72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer category Wired Telecommunications service, Personal Communications employees and two have more than Carriers. Under that size standard, such Service (‘‘PCS’’), and Specialized 1,500 employees. Consequently, the a business is small if it has 1,500 or Mobile Radio (‘‘SMR’’) telephony Commission estimates that most fewer employees. Census Bureau data services. An estimated 261 of these providers of competitive local exchange for 2007, which now supersede data firms have 1,500 or fewer employees service, competitive access providers, from the 2002 Census, show that there and 152 firms have more than 1,500 Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and were 3,188 firms in this category that employees. Consequently, the Other Local Service Providers are small operated for the entire year. Of this Commission estimates that total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or entities that may be affected by rules approximately half or more of these fewer, and 44 firms had had adopted pursuant to the NPRM. firms can be considered small. Thus, employment of 1000 or more. According Interexchange Carriers. Neither the using available data, it estimates that the to Commission data, 1,307 carriers Commission nor the SBA has developed majority of wireless firms are small. reported that they were incumbent local a small business size standard Wireless Telephony. Wireless exchange service providers. Of these specifically for providers of telephony includes cellular, personal 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have interexchange services. The appropriate communications services, and 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have size standard under SBA rules is for the specialized mobile radio telephony more than 1,500 employees. category Wired Telecommunications carriers. As noted, the SBA has Consequently, the Commission Carriers. Under that size standard, such developed a small business size estimates that most providers of local a business is small if it has 1,500 or standard for Wireless exchange service are small entities that fewer employees. Census Bureau data Telecommunications Carriers (except may be affected by the rules and for 2007, which now supersede data Satellite). Under the SBA small business policies proposed in the NPRM. Thus, from the 2002 Census, show that there size standard, a business is small if it under this category and the associated were 3,188 firms in this category that has 1,500 or fewer employees. small business size standard, the operated for the entire year. Of this According to Commission data, 434 majority of these incumbent local total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or carriers report that they are engaged in exchange service providers can be fewer, and 44 firms had had wireless telephony. Of these, an considered small. employment of 1,000 employees or estimated 222 have 1,500 or fewer Competitive Local Exchange Carriers more. Thus under this category and the employees, and 212 have more than (‘‘Competitive LECs’’), Competitive associated small business size standard, 1,500 employees. Therefore, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52631

Commission estimates that 222 of these necessary changes to comply with any Commission proposes to amend Part 64 entities can be considered small. rules adopted in a cost efficient manner. as follows: The Commission also seeks comment on Description of Projected Reporting, how to alleviate burdens on small PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance carriers. It seeks guidance on whether RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS Requirements the proposed rules should be limited to In the NPRM, the Commission 1. The authority citation for part 64 wireline service or whether there are continues to read as follows: proposes requirements that: (1) Require justifications to extend those safeguards wireline carriers to notify subscribers to wireless service. Finally, it seeks Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 254(k); secs. clearly and conspicuously at the point comment on an extensive cost and 403(b)(2)(B), (c), Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, of sale, on each bill, and on their Web benefit analysis to determine the overall sites, of the option to block third-party 225, 226, 228, 254(k), and 620 unless impact on consumers and industry of otherwise noted. charges from their telephone bills, if the the proposed rules. carrier offers that option; (2) require 2. Section 64.2400 is amended by wireline carriers to place charges from Federal Rules That May Duplicate, revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: non-carrier third-parties in a bill section Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed separate from carrier charges; and (3) Rules § 64.2400 Purpose and scope. (a) * * * require wireline and CMRS carriers to None. include on all telephone bills and on (b) These rules shall apply to all their Web sites the Commission’s Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of telecommunications common carriers, contact information for the submission 1995 except that §§ 64.2401(a)(2), 64.2401(c), of complaints. The record reflects that and 64.2401(f) shall not apply to The NPRM seeks comment on a cramming primarily has been an issue providers of Commercial Mobile Radio potential new or revised information for wireline telephone customers. Service as defined in § 20.9 of this collection requirement or may result in However, there is evidence of a concern chapter, or to other providers of mobile a new or revised information collection with unauthorized charges on wireless service as defined in § 20.7 of this requirement. If the Commission adopts bills. Therefore, the Commission also chapter, unless the Commission any new or revised information seeks comment on whether it should determines otherwise in a future collection requirements, the extend any similar protections to rulemaking. Commission will publish another notice wireless consumers. 3. Section 64.2401 is amended by These proposed rules may necessitate in the Federal Register inviting the revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (d) and by that some common carriers make public to comment on the requirements, adding new paragraph (f) to read as changes to their existing billing formats as required by the Paperwork Reduction follows: and/or disclosure materials. For Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 § 64.2401 Truth-in-Billing Requirements. example, to provide the required contact U.S.C. 3501–3520). In addition, information on their bills may pursuant to the Small Business (a) * * * necessitate changes to billing formats. Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public (2) Where charges for two or more However, some carriers may be in Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), carriers appear on the same telephone compliance with many of these the Commission seeks-comment-on how bill, the charges must be separated by requirements and require no additional it might ‘‘further reduce the information service provider. Where charges for one compliance efforts. collection burden for small business or more service providers that are not concerns with fewer than 25 carriers appear on a telephone bill, the Steps Taken To Minimize Significant employees.’’ charges must be placed in a distinct Economic Impact on Small Entities, and section separate from all carrier charges. Ordering Clauses Significant Alternatives Considered * * * * * The RFA requires an agency to Pursuant to the authority contained in (d) Clear and conspicuous disclosure describe any significant alternatives that sections 1–2, 4, 201, 301, 303, 332, and of inquiry and complaint contacts. it has considered in reaching its 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, (1) Telephone bills must contain clear proposed approach, which may include as amended 47 U.S.C. 151–152, 154, and conspicuous disclosure of any the following four alternatives (among 201, 301, 303, 332, and 403, the Notice information that the subscriber may others): (1) The establishment of of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted. need to make inquiries about or contest differing compliance or reporting The Commission’s Consumer and charges on the bill. Common carriers requirements or timetables that take into Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference must prominently display on each bill account the resources available to small Information Center, SHALL SEND a a toll-free number or numbers by which entities; (2) the clarification, copy of the NPRM, including the Initial subscribers may inquire or dispute any consolidation, or simplification of Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the charges on the bill. A carrier may list a compliance or reporting requirements Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small toll-free number for a billing agent, under the rule for small entities; (3) the Business Administration. clearinghouse, or other third party, use of performance, rather than design, provided such party possesses sufficient List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64 standards; and (4) an exemption from information to answer questions coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, Reporting and recordkeeping concerning the subscriber’s account and for small entities. requirements, Telecommunications, is fully authorized to resolve the In the NPRM, the Commission seeks Telephone. consumer’s complaints on the carrier’s comment on ways to minimize the Federal Communications Commission. behalf. economic impact on carriers to comply (2) Where the subscriber does not Marlene H. Dortch, with the proposed rules. For example, it receive a paper copy of his or her seeks comment on establishing Secretary. telephone bill, but instead accesses that timeframes that will allow carriers For the reasons discussed in the bill only by e-mail or the Internet, the sufficient opportunity to make any preamble, the Federal Communications common carrier may comply with these

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52632 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

billing disclosure requirements by best solution to resolve the majority of 13. In addition, therefore, it does not providing on the bill an e-mail or Web viewers reception problems is to move contain any proposed information site address. Each carrier must make a to a UHF channel, which serves the collection burden ‘‘for small business business address available upon request public interest by resolving over-the-air concerns with fewer than 25 from a consumer. reception problems in certain areas of employees,’’ pursuant to the Small (3) Telephone bills and carrier Web WJHG’s predicted service areas. Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, sites must clearly and conspicuously DATES: Comments must be filed on or Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. state that the subscriber may submit before September 22, 2011, and reply 3506(c)(4). inquiries and complaints to the Federal comments on or before October 7, 2011. Provisions of the Regulatory Communications Commission, and ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to provide the telephone number, Web site Commission, Office of the Secretary, this proceeding. Members of the public address, and, on the carrier’s Web site, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC should note that from the time a Notice a direct link to the webpage for filing 20554. In addition to filing comments of Proposed Rule Making is issued until such complaints. That information must with the FCC, interested parties should the matter is no longer subject to be updated as necessary to ensure that serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Commission consideration or court it remains current and accurate. Joan Stewart, Esq., Wiley Rein, LLP, review, all ex parte contacts (other than * * * * * 1776 K Street, NW., Washington, DC ex parte presentations exempt under 47 (f) Blocking of third-party charges. 20006. CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in Common carriers that offer subscribers FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commission proceedings, such as this the option to block third-party charges Joyce L. Bernstein, one, which involve channel allotments. from appearing on telephone bills must [email protected], Media Bureau, See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing clearly and conspicuously notify (202) 418–1647. restricted proceedings. subscribers of this option at the point of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a For information regarding proper sale, on each telephone bill, and on each synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of filing procedures for comments, see 47 carrier’s Web site. Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. CFR 1.415 and 1.420. [FR Doc. 2011–21547 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 11–140, adopted August 15, 2011, and List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 BILLING CODE 6712–01–P released August 17, 2011. The full text of this document is available for public Television, Television broadcasting. inspection and copying during normal Federal Communications Commission. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS business hours in the FCC’s Reference Barbara A. Kreisman, COMMISSION Information Center at Portals II, CY– Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau. A257, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, 47 CFR Part 73 DC, 20554. This document will also be Proposed Rules [MB Docket No. 11–140, RM–11638; DA 11– available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/ For the reasons discussed in the 1413] cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available preamble, the Federal Communications electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Television Broadcasting Services; or Adobe Acrobat.) This document may Part 73 as follows: Panama City, FL be purchased from the Commission’s AGENCY: Federal Communications duplicating contractor, Best Copy and PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST Commission. Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., SERVICES ACTION: Proposed rule. Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–800–478–3160 or via e-mail 1. The authority citation for Part 73 SUMMARY: The Commission has before it http://www.BCPIWEB.com. To request continues to read as follows: a petition for rulemaking filed by Gray this document in accessible formats Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, Television Licensee, LLC (‘‘Gray’’), the (computer diskettes, large print, audio and 339. licensee of station WJHG–TV, channel 7, recording, and Braille), send an e-mail § 73.622(i) [Amended] Panama City, Florida, requesting the to [email protected] or call the substitution of channel 18 for channel 7 Commission’s Consumer and 2. Section 73.622(i), the Post- at Panama City. WJHG’s viewers Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) Transition Table of DTV Allotments continue to experience problems 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 under Florida is amended by removing receiving the station’s VHF channel 7 (TTY). This document does not contain channel 7 and adding channel 18 at digital broadcasts despite two power proposed information collection Panama City. increases since it began operations on requirements subject to the Paperwork [FR Doc. 2011–21544 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] digital channel 7. Gray states that the Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:06 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUP1.SGM 23AUP1 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 52633

Notices Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 163

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER the collection of information unless it DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE contains documents other than rules or displays a currently valid OMB control proposed rules that are applicable to the number. Animal and Plant Health Inspection public. Notices of hearings and investigations, Service committee meetings, agency decisions and Rural Utilities Service rulings, delegations of authority, filing of [Docket No. APHIS–2011–0084] petitions and applications and agency Title: 7 CFR Part 1738, Rural statements of organization and functions are Broadband Loan and Loan Guarantee. Notice of Request for Reinstatement of examples of documents appearing in this an Information Collection; National section. OMB Control Number: 0572–0130. Animal Health Monitoring System; Summary of Collection: Title VI, Rural Swine 2012 Study Broadband Access, of the Rural AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Electrification Act of 1936, as amended Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. (RE Act), provides loans and loan Submission for OMB Review; guarantees to fund the cost of ACTION: Reinstatement of an information Comment Request construction, improvement, or collection; comment request. August 18, 2011. acquisition of facilities and equipment SUMMARY: In accordance with the The Department of Agriculture has for the provision of broadband service Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this submitted the following information in eligible rural communities in State notice announces the Animal and Plant collection requirement(s) to OMB for and territories of the United States. The Health Inspection Service’s intention to review and clearance under the regulation prescribes the types of loans request a reinstatement of an Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, available, facilities financed and eligible information collection to support the Public Law 104–13. Comments applicants, as well as minimum credit National Animal Health Monitoring regarding (a) Whether the collection of support requirements considered for a System’s Swine 2012 Study. information is necessary for the proper loan. In addition, Title VI of the RE Act DATES: We will consider all comments performance of the functions of the requires that Rural Utilities Service that we receive on or before October 24, agency, including whether the (RUS) make or guarantee a loan only if 2011. information will have practical utility; there is reasonable assurance that the (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate ADDRESSES: You may submit comments loan, together with all outstanding loans by either of the following methods: of burden including the validity of the • methodology and assumptions used; (c) and obligations of the borrower, will be Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to ways to enhance the quality, utility and repaid in full within the time agreed. http://www.regulations.gov/ clarity of the information to be Need and Use of the Information: #!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0084- 0001. collected; (d) ways to minimize the RUS will collect information to • burden of the collection of information determine whether an applicant’s Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: on those who are to respond, including eligibility to borrow from RUS under the Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS–2011–0084, Regulatory Analysis through the use of appropriate terms of the RE Act and that the and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station automated, electronic, mechanical, or applicant complies with statutory, other technological collection 3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, regulatory and administrative eligibility Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. techniques or other forms of information requirements for loan assistance. RUS technology should be addressed to: Desk Supporting documents and any will use the information to determine comments we receive on this docket Officer for Agriculture, Office of that the Government’s security for loans Information and Regulatory Affairs, may be viewed at http://www. made are reasonable, adequate and that Office of Management and Budget regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= the loans will be repaid within the time (OMB), APHIS-2011-0084 or in our reading [email protected] or agreed. room, which is located in Room 1141 of fax (202) 395–5806 and to Departmental Description of Respondents: Business the USDA South Building, 14th Street Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail or other for-profit; Not-for-profit and Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250– institutions. Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 7602. Comments regarding these Number of Respondents: 25. information collections are best assured 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, of having their full effect if received Frequency of Responses: Reporting: except holidays. To be sure someone is within 30 days of this notification. On occasion. there to help you, please call (202) Copies of the submission(s) may be Total Burden Hours: 10,545. 6902817 before coming. obtained by calling (202) 720–8681. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For An agency may not conduct or Charlene Parker, information on the Swine 2012 Study, sponsor a collection of information Departmental Information Collection contact Mr. Chris Quatrano, Industry unless the collection of information Clearance Officer. Analyst, Centers for Epidemiology and displays a currently valid OMB control [FR Doc. 2011–21515 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Animal Health, VS, APHIS, 2150 Centre number and the agency informs BILLING CODE 3410–15–P Avenue, Building B MS 2E6, Fort potential persons who are to respond to Collins, CO 80526; (970) 494–7207. For the collection of information that such copies of more detailed information on persons are not required to respond to the information collection, contact Mrs.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52634 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ Information approve our use of this information in Rapid City, SD. The committee is Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851– collection activity for 2 years. meeting as authorized under the Secure 2908. The purpose of this notice is to solicit Rural Schools and Community Self- SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: comments from the public (as well as Determination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) Title: National Animal Health agencies) concerning our information and in compliance with the Federal Monitoring System; Swine 2012 Study. collection. These comments will help Advisory Committee Act. The purpose OMB Number: 0579–0315. us: of the meeting is to review and make Type of Request: Reinstatement of an (1) Evaluate whether the collection of recommendations for approval of information collection. information is necessary for the proper remaining project proposals. Abstract: Under the Animal Health performance of the functions of the DATES: The meeting will be held Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), Agency, including whether the September 13, 2011, at 5 p.m. the Animal and Plant Health Inspection information will have practical utility; ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Service (APHIS) of the United States (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our the Mystic Ranger District Office at 8221 Department of Agriculture (USDA) is estimate of the burden of the South Highway 16. Written comments authorized, among other things, to information collection, including the should be sent to Robert J. Thompson, protect the health of our Nation’s validity of the methodology and 8221 South Highway 16, Rapid City, SD livestock and poultry populations by assumptions used; 57702. Comments may also be sent via preventing the introduction and (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and e-mail to [email protected], or via interstate spread of serious diseases and clarity of the information to be facsimile to 605–343–7134. pests of livestock and for eradicating collected; and All comments, including names and such diseases from the United States (4) Minimize the burden of the addresses when provided, are placed in when feasible. In connection with this information collection on those who are the record and are available for public mission, APHIS would like to reinstate to respond, through use, as appropriate, inspection and copying. The public may the Swine Study which will be used to: of automated, electronic, mechanical, inspect comments received at the • Describe current U.S. swine and other collection technologies, e.g., Mystic Ranger District office. Visitors production practices including general permitting electronic submission of are encouraged to call ahead at 605– management practices, housing responses. 343–1567 to facilitate entry into the practices, productivity, disease Estimate of burden: The public building. prevention, and mortality for five reporting burden for this collection of phases of production: gestation, information is estimated to average FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: farrowing, nursery, grow/finish, and 0.4104183 hours per response. Robert J. Thompson, District Ranger, wean-to-finish; Respondents: Swine producers. Mystic Ranger District, 605–343–1567. • Describe trends in swine health and Estimated annual number of Individuals who use management practices; respondents: 24,380. telecommunication devices for the deaf • Determine the prevalence and Estimated annual number of (TDD) may call the Federal Information associated risk factors for select responses per respondent: 1. Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 respiratory, neurologic, gastrointestinal, Estimated annual number of between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern systemic, and food-borne pathogens responses: 24,380. Standard Time, Monday through Friday. found in weaned market hogs; Estimated total annual burden on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meetings • Describe antibiotic usage patterns in respondents: 10,006 hours. (Due to are open to the public. The following weaned market hogs to control and treat averaging, the total annual burden hours business will be conducted: review and disease and promote growth; may not equal the product of the annual make recommendations for approval of • Evaluate presence of or exposure to number of responses multiplied by the remaining project proposals. select pathogens and characterize reporting burden per response.) Dated: August 16, 2011. isolated organisms from the collection All responses to this notice will be Dan S. Dallas, of biological specimens; and summarized and included in the request Acting Forest Supervisor. • Estimate the economic cost of a for OMB approval. All comments will selected respiratory, neurologic, also become a matter of public record. [FR Doc. 2011–21478 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] gastrointestinal, systemic, or food-borne BILLING CODE 3410–11–P Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of pathogen found in commercial swine August 2011. herds. Gregory L. Parham, The Swine 2012 Study will consist of DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE a screener questionnaire, several on- Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Natural Resources Conservation farm questionnaires, and biologic Service sampling. All of these activities will be [FR Doc. 2011–21516 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–34–P administered by National Agricultural Notice of Proposed Change to Section Statistics Service, USDA, designated IV of the Virginia State Technical Guide data collectors. The information DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE collected through the Swine 2012 Study AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. will be analyzed and used to: Forest Service • Direct producer education; Department of Agriculture. • Identify research gaps; Pennington County Resource Advisory ACTION: Notice of availability of • Facilitate education of future Committee proposed changes in the Virginia NRCS producers and veterinarians; State Technical Guide for review and • Assess quality assurance programs; AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. comment. and ACTION: Notice of meeting. • Help with policy formation. SUMMARY: It has been determined by the We are asking the Office of SUMMARY: The Pennington County NRCS State Conservationist for Virginia Management and Budget (OMB) to Recource Advisory Committee will meet that changes must be made in the NRCS

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52635

State Technical Guide specifically in the DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE standards’’ in the subject line of the following practice standards: #328, message. Conservation Crop Rotation, #329, Natural Resources Conservation • Mail: Comment Submissions, Residue and Tillage Management No Service Attention: Anetra L. Harbor, Policy Till/Strip Till/Direct Seed, #344, [Docket No. NRCS–2011–0018] Analyst, Resource Economics, Analysis Residue Management, Seasonal, #345, and Policy Division, Department of Residue and Tillage Management Mulch Notice of Proposed Changes to the Agriculture, Natural Resources Till, #346, Residue Management, Ridge National Handbook of Conservation Conservation Service, George Washington Carver Center, 5601 Till, #391, Riparian Forest Buffer, #422, Practices for the Natural Resources Sunnyside Ave, Room 1–1112D, Hedgerow Planting, #472, Access Conservation Service Beltsville, Maryland 20705. Control, #595, Integrated Pest AGENCY: Natural Resources All comments received will become a Management, #612, Tree/Shrub Conservation Service (NRCS). matter of public record and will be Establishment, and #666, Forest Stand ACTION: Notice of availability of posted without change to http:// Improvement. These practices will be proposed changes in the NRCS National www.regulations.gov, including any used to plan and install conservation Handbook of Conservation Practices for personal information provided. practices. public review and comment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Bogovich, National Agricultural DATES: Comments will be received for a SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the Engineer, Conservation Engineering 30-day period commencing with this intention of NRCS to issue a series of Division, Department of Agriculture, date of publication. revised conservation practice standards Natural Resources Conservation Service, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John in the National Handbook of 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room A. Bricker, State Conservationist, Conservation Practices. These standards 6136 South Building, Washington, DC Natural Resources Conservation Service include: Dam or Pond Removal (Code 20250. (NRCS), 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 403), Dry Hydrant (Code 432), Feed Electronic copies of these standards 209, Richmond, Virginia 23229–5014; Management (Code 592), Fishpond can be downloaded or printed from the Management (Code 399), Land Clearing following Web site: ftp://ftp- Telephone number (804) 287–1691; Fax (Code 460), Livestock Pipeline (Code fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practice- number (804) 287–1737. Copies of the 516), Pond Sealing or Lining, Flexible standards/federal-register/. Requests for practice standards will be made Membrane (Code 521A), Fuel Break paper versions or inquiries may be available upon written request to the (Code 383), Stream Crossing (Code 578), directed to Wayne Bogovich, National address shown above or on the Virginia and Subsurface Drain (Code 606). Agricultural Engineer, Conservation NRCS Web site: http:// NRCS State Conservationists who Engineering Division, Department of www.va.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ choose to adopt these practices for use Agriculture, Natural Resources draftstandards.html within their States will incorporate Conservation Service, 1400 them into section IV of their respective Independence Avenue SW., Room 6136 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section electronic Field Office Technical Guide. South Building, Washington, DC 20250. 343 of the Federal Agriculture These practices may be used in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 conservation systems that treat highly amount of the proposed changes varies states that revisions made after erodible land (HEL) or on land considerably for each of the enactment of the law to NRCS State determined to be a wetland. Section 343 Conservation Practice Standards technical guides used to carry out of the Federal Agriculture Improvement addressed in this notice. To fully highly erodible land and wetland and Reform Act of 1996 requires NRCS understand the proposed changes, provisions of the law shall be made to make available for public review and individuals are encouraged to compare available for public review and comment all proposed revisions to these changes with each standard’s comment. For the next 30 days, the conservation practice standards used to current version as shown at: http:// NRCS in Virginia will receive comments carry out HEL and wetland provisions of www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ relative to the proposed changes. the law. Standards/nhcp.html. To aid in this Following that period, a determination DATES: Effective Date: This is effective comparison, following are highlights of will be made by the NRCS in Virginia August 23, 2011. the proposed revisions to each standard: regarding disposition of those comments Comment Date: Submit comments on Dam or Pond Removal (Code 403)— and a final determination of change will or before September 22, 2011. Final This is a new conservation practice be made to the subject standards. versions of these new or revised standard for the purpose of removing existing dams or ponds. Dated: July 21, 2011. conservation practice standards will be adopted after the close of the 30-day Dry Hydrant (Code 432)—The Criteria W. Ray Dorsett, period, and after consideration of all section was clarified, Plans and Specification section added a list of Acting State Conservationist, Natural comments. Resources Conservation Service, Richmond, items to include, and references were Virginia. ADDRESSES: Comments should be added. [FR Doc. 2011–21468 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] submitted, identified by Docket Number Feed Management (Code 592)—The NRCS–2011–0018, using any of the units changed from Animal Units (AUs) BILLING CODE 3410–16–P following methods: or Number to only AUs. The Purpose • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// changed to include pathogen, odor, www.regulations.gov. Follow the particulate matter, and greenhouse gas instructions for submitting comments. mitigation. Additions to Conditions • E-mail: Where Practice Applies, Criteria, [email protected]. Considerations, Operations and Include Docket Number NRCS–2011– Maintenance, and References were 0018 or ‘‘comment on practice made to support the change in Purpose.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52636 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Fishpond Management (Code 399)— Average Hours per Response: DATES: Effective Date: August 23, 2011. The Definition was changed. Two issues Telephone calls, 5 minutes; inspection FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: previously included under meetings, 1 hour. Alexander Montoro or Jennifer Meek, at ‘‘Considerations’’ have been moved to Burden Hours: 70. (202) 482–0238 or (202) 482–2778, the ‘‘Criteria’’ section and additional Needs and Uses: This action would respectively; AD/CVD Operations, action was added to the ‘‘Operation and continue an inspection program for Office 1, Import Administration, Maintenance’’ section. modified pound net leaders in the International Trade Administration, Fuel Break (Code 383)—Only minor Virginia waters of the mainstem U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th edits are being proposed. Chesapeake Bay. The pound net Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Land Clearing (Code 460)—The fishermen must call the National Marine Washington, DC 20230. Fisheries Service (NMFS) to arrange for purpose was rewritten. Criteria was SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: added for soil quality and water quality. a meeting. At the meeting, they must Livestock Pipeline (Code 516)—The allow for the inspection of gear to Background title changed from ‘‘Pipeline’’ to ensure the modified leader meets the On November 1, 2010, the Department ‘‘Livestock Pipeline.’’ Revised Criteria definition of a modified pound net published a notice of opportunity to and removed material specifications; leader, as described in the regulations request an administrative review of the expanded Considerations; revised Plans (50 CFR 222.102). This inspection antidumping duty order on certain and Specifications; and revised program is necessary to provide circular welded non-alloy steel pipe Operation and Maintenance. fishermen with the insurance that their (‘‘circular welded pipe’’) from the Pond Sealing or Lining, Flexible leaders meet the regulatory definition of Republic of Korea (‘‘Korea’’) for the Membrane (Code 521A)—The material a modified pound net leader before period November 1, 2009, through requirements have been revised to setting their gear, provide managers October 31, 2010. See Antidumping or conform to industry-wide practice and with the knowledge that the offshore Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or to the most current versions of accepted leaders in a portion of the Virginia Suspended Investigation; Opportunity generic standards, such as ASTM and Chesapeake Bay are configured in a sea To Request Administrative Review, other industry standards. turtle-safe manner, and aid in 75 FR 67079 (November 1, 2010). Stream Crossing (Code 578)—Criteria enforcement efforts. In accordance with 19 CFR Affected Public: Business or other for- include more details related to passage 351.213(b), on November 30, 2010, of aquatic organisms and hydraulic profit organizations. Frequency: On occasion. Wheatland Tube Company criteria. Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. (‘‘Wheatland’’) and United States Steel Subsurface Drain (Code 606)— OMB Desk Officer: Corporation (‘‘U.S. Steel’’), Revised Purposes; expanded Conditions [email protected]. manufacturers of the domestic like Where Practice Applies; revised Copies of the above information product, timely requested an Criteria; expanded Considerations; collection proposal can be obtained by administrative review. Wheatland added Operation and Maintenance; and calling or writing Diana Hynek, requested that the Department of added References Departmental Paperwork Clearance Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) conduct Signed this 28th day of July, 2011, in Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of an administrative review of the Washington, DC. Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and following producers and/or exporters of Dave White, Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, the subject merchandise: SeAH Steel Chief, Natural Resources Conservation DC 20230 (or via the Internet at Corporation (‘‘SeAH’’); Hyundai HYSCO Service. [email protected]). (‘‘HYSCO’’); Husteel Co., Ltd. [FR Doc. 2011–21467 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Written comments and (‘‘Husteel’’); Nexteel Co., Ltd. (‘‘Nexteel’’); Kumkang Industrial Co., BILLING CODE 3410–16–P recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent Ltd. (‘‘Kumkang’’); and Dongbu Steel within 30 days of publication of this Co., Ltd (‘‘Dongbu’’). U.S. Steel notice to requested the Department conduct an DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE [email protected]. administrative review of the following Dated: August 18, 2011. producers of subject merchandise: SeAH; HYSCO; Husteel; Nexteel; Submission for OMB Review; Gwellnar Banks, Comment Request Kumkang; and A–JU Besteel Co., Ltd. Management Analyst, Office of the Chief (‘‘Besteel’’). On the same day, SeAH and Information Officer. The Department of Commerce will HYSCO both separately requested the submit to the Office of Management and [FR Doc. 2011–21534 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Department conduct an administrative Budget (OMB) for clearance the BILLING CODE 3510–22–P review of their respective companies. following proposal for collection of On December 28, 2010, the information under the provisions of the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Department initiated an administrative Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. review covering the period November 1, chapter 35). International Trade Administration 2009, through October 31, 2010. See Agency: National Oceanic and Initiation of Antidumping and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). [A–580–809] Countervailing Duty Administrative Title: Virginia Modified Pound Net Reviews and Request for Revocation in Leader Inspection Program. Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From the Republic of Korea: Partial Part, 75 FR 81565 (December 28, 2010). OMB Control Number: 0648–0559. Rescission of Antidumping Duty Wheatland withdrew its request for a Form Number(s): NA. Administrative Review review of Husteel, Nexteel, Kumkang, Type of Request: Regular submission and Dongbu on July 13, 2011. U.S. Steel (extension of a current information AGENCY: Import Administration, also withdrew its request for a review of collection). International Trade Administration, Husteel, Nexteel, Kumkang, and Besteel Number of Respondents: 19. Department of Commerce. on July 13, 2011. Wheatland and U.S.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52637

Steel are the only parties to have Notification Regarding Administrative I. Abstract requested reviews of Husteel, Nexteel, Protective Order This request is for extension of a and Kumkang; Wheatland is the only This notice serves as a final reminder currently approved information party to have requested a review of to parties subject to administrative collection. Dongbu, and U.S. Steel is the only party protectiveorder (‘‘APO’’) of their The National Marine Fisheries Service to have requested a review of Besteel. responsibility concerning the (NMFS) Southeast Region manages the Rescission of Review disposition of proprietary information United States fisheries of the exclusive disclosed under APO in accordance economic zone (EEZ) off the South Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(l), the with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico Department will rescind an written notification of the return/ under the Fishery Management Plans administrative review, in whole or in destruction of APO materials or (FMPs) for each Region. The Regional part, if the party that requested a review conversion to judicial protective order is Fishery Management Councils prepared withdraws the request within 90 days of hereby requested. Failure to comply the FMPs pursuant to the Magnuson- the date of publication of the notice of with the regulations and terms of an Stevens Fishery Conservation and initiation of the requested review. The APO is a sanctionable violation. Management Act (MSA). The Department may extend this deadline if This notice is issued and published in regulations implementing the FMPs that it determines that it is reasonable to do accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). have reporting requirements are at 50 CFR part 622. so. Although Wheatland and U.S. Steel Dated: August 16, 2011. The recordkeeping and reporting withdrew their respective requests for Barbara E. Tillman, requirements at 50 CFR part 622 form Husteel, Nexteel, Kumkang, Dongbu, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for the basis for this collection of and Besteel after the 90-day period, the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty information. NMFS Southeast Region Department has not, to date, dedicated Operations. requires that all permitted fishing extensive time and resources to this [FR Doc. 2011–21393 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] vessels must mark their vessel with the review, only having recently issued BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P official identification number or some supplemental questionnaires to SeAH form of identification. A vessel’s official and HYSCO. Therefore, in response to number, under most regulations, is the requests by Wheatland and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE required to be displayed on the port and Steel, the Department hereby rescinds National Oceanic and Atmospheric starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, the administrative review for the period Administration and weather deck. The official number November 1, 2009, through October 31, and color code identifies each vessel 2010, for Husteel, Nexteel, Kumkang, Proposed Information Collection; and should be visible at distances at sea Dongbu, and Besteel. Comment Request; Southeast Region and in the air. These markings provide Vessel Identification Requirements law enforcement personnel with a Assessment means to monitor fishing, at-sea The Department will instruct U.S. AGENCY: National Oceanic and processing, and other related activities, Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to ascertain whether the vessel’s to assess antidumping duties on all Commerce. observed activities are in accordance with those authorized for that vessel. appropriate entries. For the companies ACTION: Notice. The identifying number is used by for which this review is rescinded, the NMFS, the United States Coast Guard antidumping duties shall be assessed at SUMMARY: The Department of (USCG) and other marine agencies in rates equal to the cash deposit of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and issuing violations, prosecutions, and estimated antidumping duties required other enforcement actions. Vessels that at the time of entry, or withdrawal from respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to qualify for particular fisheries are warehouse, for consumption, in take this opportunity to comment on readily identified, gear violations are accordance with 19 CFR proposed and/or continuing information more readily prosecuted, and this 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department collections, as required by the allows for more cost-effective intends to issue appropriate assessment Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. enforcement. instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of this notice of DATES: Written comments must be II. Method of Collection partial rescission of administrative submitted on or before October 24, Numbers are painted directly on the review. 2011. vessels. ADDRESSES: Notification to Importers Direct all written comments III. Data to Diana Hynek, Departmental OMB Control Number: 0648–0358. This notice serves as a reminder to Paperwork Clearance Officer, Form Number: None. importers of their responsibility under Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Type of Review: Regular submission 19 CFR351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate (extension of a currently approved regarding the reimbursement of Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]). collection). antidumping duties prior to liquidation Affected Public: Business or other for- of the relevant entries during this FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: profit organizations. review period. Failure to comply with Requests for additional information or Estimated Number of Respondents: this requirement could result in the copies of the information collection 9,774. Secretary’s presumption that instrument and instructions should be Estimated Total Annual Burden reimbursement of antidumping duties directed to Rich Malinowski, (727) 824– Hours: 7,331 hours. occurred and the subsequent assessment 5305 or [email protected]. Estimated Total Annual Cost to of double antidumping duties. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public: $293,220.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52638 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

IV. Request for Comments copies of the information collection agency’s estimate of the burden Comments are invited on: (a) Whether instrument and instructions should be (including hours and cost) of the the proposed collection of information directed to Carey Morishige, (808) 694– proposed collection of information; is necessary for the proper performance 3936, [email protected]. (c) ways to enhance the quality, of the functions of the agency, including SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize whether the information shall have I. Abstract practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the the burden of the collection of agency’s estimate of the burden This request is for a new information information on respondents, including (including hours and cost) of the collection. through the use of automated collection proposed collection of information; (c) This data collection project will be techniques or other forms of information ways to enhance the quality, utility, and coordinated by James Callahan (private technology. Comments submitted in response to clarity of the information to be citizen) with assistance from the NOAA this notice will be summarized and/or collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Marine Debris Program, recreational included in the request for OMB burden of the collection of information sailors (respondents), non-government approval of this information collection; on respondents, including through the organizations (respondents) as well as they also will become a matter of public use of automated collection techniques numerous experts on marine debris record. or other forms of information observations at sea. The Shipboard technology. Observation Form for Floating Marine Dated: August 18, 2011. Comments submitted in response to Debris was created based on methods Gwellnar Banks, this notice will be summarized and/or used in studies of floating marine debris Management Analyst, Office of the Chief included in the request for OMB by established researchers, previous Information Officer. shipboard observational studies approval of this information collection; [FR Doc. 2011–21533 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] conducted at sea by NOAA, and the they also will become a matter of public BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P record. experience and input of recreational sailors. The goal of this form is to be Dated: August 18, 2011. able to calculate the density of marine DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Gwellnar Banks, debris within an area of a known size. Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Additionally, this form will help collect National Oceanic and Atmospheric Information Officer. data on potential marine debris Administration [FR Doc. 2011–21530 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] resulting from the March 2011 Japan RIN 0648–XA654 BILLING CODE 3510–22–P tsunami in order to better model movement of the debris as well as Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and prepare (as needed) for debris arrival to DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE South Atlantic; Southeast Data, areas around the Pacific. This form may Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); be used to collect data on floating National Oceanic and Atmospheric Review Workshop for Gulf of Mexico marine debris in any water body. Administration Menhaden and Gulf of Mexico and II. Method of Collection South Atlantic Yellowtail Snapper Proposed Information Collection; Respondents have a choice of either AGENCY Comment Request; Shipboard : National Marine Fisheries electronic or paper forms. Methods of Observation Form for Floating Marine Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and submittal include e-mail of electronic Debris Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), forms, and mail and facsimile Commerce. AGENCY: National Oceanic and transmission of paper forms. ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 27 Review Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), III. Data Workshop for Gulf of Mexico menhaden Commerce. and Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic ACTION: Notice. OMB Control Number: None. yellowtail snapper. Form Number: None. SUMMARY: The Department of Type of Review: Regular submission SUMMARY: The technical stock Commerce, as part of its continuing (request for a new information assessments of the Gulf of Mexico stock effort to reduce paperwork and collection). of menhaden and the southeast U.S. respondent burden, invites the general Affected Public: Individuals or stocks of yellowtail snapper will be public and other Federal agencies to households; not-for profit institutions. reviewed during the Review Workshop. take this opportunity to comment on Estimated Number of Respondents: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. proposed and/or continuing information 60. DATES: The Review Workshop will take collections, as required by the Estimated Time per Response: place November 1–4, 2011. See Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 45 minutes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific DATES: Written comments must be Estimated Total Annual Burden dates and times. Hours: 45. submitted on or before October 24, ADDRESSES: The Review Workshop will 2011. Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting be held at Florida Wildlife Research ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments costs. Institute, 100 8th Avenue SE., St. to Diana Hynek, Departmental Petersburg, FL 33701. Paperwork Clearance Officer, IV. Request for Comments FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Department of Commerce, Room 6616, Comments are invited on: (a) Whether Neer, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., the proposed collection of information Place Drive, Suite 201, North Washington, DC 20230 (or via the is necessary for the proper performance Charleston, SC 29405; (843) 571–4366; Internet at [email protected]). of the functions of the agency, including e-mail: [email protected]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: whether the information shall have SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf Requests for additional information or practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the of Mexico, South Atlantic, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52639

Caribbean Fishery Management Workshop Panelists will review the require a turtle deflector dredge for Councils, in conjunction with NOAA assessment and document their scallop dredge vessels; (2) revise the Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf comments and recommendations in a yellowtail flounder accountability States Marine Fisheries Commissions Consensus Summary. measures (AMs) proposed in have implemented the Southeast Data, Special Accommodations Amendment 15; (3) possibly modify Assessment and Review (SEDAR) how catch in state waters is accounted process, a multi-step method for These meetings are physically for in both the limited access general determining the status of fish stocks in accessible to people with disabilities. category management program for the Requests for sign language the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three- Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) area step process including: (1) Data interpretation or other auxiliary aids and the limited access general category Workshop, (2) Assessment Process should be directed to the Council office IFQ fishery; and (4) modify when a utilizing webinars and (3) Review (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business Workshop. The product of the Data days prior to each workshop. scallop vessel declares into the scallop Workshop is a data report which fishery to improve fleet operations. The Dated: August 18, 2011. Panel will also discuss compiles and evaluates potential Tracey L. Thompson, datasets and recommends which recommendations related to potential Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 2012 Council work priorities for the datasets are appropriate for assessment Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. analyses. The product of the Assessment Scallop FMP. Other business may also Process is a stock assessment report [FR Doc. 2011–21542 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] be discussed at this meeting. For which describes the fisheries, evaluates BILLING CODE 3510–22–P example, recent data suggest that the status of the stock, estimates windowpane flounder bycatch in the biological benchmarks, projects future DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE scallop fishery increased dramatically in population conditions, and recommends 2010. The Scallop advisors may discuss research and monitoring needs. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric possible reasons why and brainstorm assessment is independently peer Administration recommendations for potential reviewed at the Review Workshop. The accountability measures if the Council RIN 0648–XA651 product of the Review Workshop is a decides to allocate a sub-ACL of Summary report documenting Panel New England Fishery Management windowpane flounder to the scallop opinions regarding the strengths and Council; Public Meeting fishery in a future action under the weaknesses of the stock assessment and Groundfish FMP. input data. Participants for SEDAR AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Workshops are usually appointed by the Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Although non-emergency issues not Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), contained in this agenda may come Caribbean Fishery Management Commerce. before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Councils, Fisheries Commissions, and ACTION: Notice; public meeting. NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional action during this meeting. Action will Office and Southeast Fisheries Science SUMMARY: The New England Fishery be restricted to those issues specifically Center. Participants include data Management Council (Council) is listed in this notice and any issues collectors and database managers; stock scheduling a public meeting of its arising after publication of this notice assessment scientists, biologists, and Scallop Advisory Panel on September that require emergency action under researchers; constituency 12, 2011 to consider actions affecting section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens representatives including fishermen, New England fisheries in the exclusive Act, provided the public has been environmentalists, and NGO’s; economic zone (EEZ). notified of the Council’s intent to take International experts; and staff of Recommendations from this group will final action to address the emergency. Councils, Commissions, and state and be brought to the full Council for formal federal agencies. Additionally, SEDAR consideration and action, if appropriate. Special Accommodations Cooperators may request a SEDAR DATES: This meeting will be held on This meeting is physically accessible Review of an assessment produced Monday, September 12, 2011 at 9 a.m. outside of the standard SEDAR to people with disabilities. Requests for ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at workshop process. sign language interpretation or other the Courtyard by Marriott, 225 auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul SEDAR 27 Review Workshop Schedule McClellan Highway, East Boston, MA J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) 02128; telephone: (617) 569–5250; fax: November 1–4, 2011; SEDAR 27 Review 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the (617) 569–5159. Workshop, meeting date. November 1, 2011: 9 a.m.–8 p.m.; Council address: New England November 2–3, 2011: 8 a.m.–8 p.m.; Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. November 4, 2011: 8 a.m.–12 p.m. Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. Dated: August 18, 2011. The established times may be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Tracey L. Thompson, adjusted as necessary to accommodate J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; Acting Director, Office of Sustainable the timely completion of discussion Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. telephone: (978) 465–0492. relevant to the assessment process. Such [FR Doc. 2011–21540 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] adjustments may result in the meeting SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The being extended from, or completed prior Advisory Panel will make BILLING CODE 3510–22–P to the time established by this notice. recommendations for the Scallop The Review Workshop is an Committee to consider related to independent peer review of the Framework 23 to the Scallop Fishery assessment developed during the Management Plan (FMP). Framework 23 assessment process, which may include is considering alternatives related to Data and Assessment Workshops. four specific issues: (1) Potentially

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52640 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE auxiliary aids should be directed to discuss potential accountability Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820– measures for bycatch of Southern New National Oceanic and Atmospheric 2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting England (SNE) windowpane flounder in Administration date. the event that the Council decides to RIN 0648–XA655 Dated: August 18, 2011. allocate a sub-ACL of windowpane Tracey L. Thompson, flounder to the scallop fishery in a future action under the Groundfish Pacific Fishery Management Council; Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Public Meeting Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. FMP. Although non-emergency issues not AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries [FR Doc. 2011–21543 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] contained in this agenda may come Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and BILLING CODE 3510–22–P before this group for discussion, those Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), issues may not be the subject of formal Commerce. action during this meeting. Action will DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. be restricted to those issues specifically National Oceanic and Atmospheric listed in this notice and any issues SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery Administration arising after publication of this notice Management Council’s (Pacific Council) that require emergency action under ad hoc groundfish Essential Fish Habitat RIN 0648–XA653 section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Review Committee (EFHRC) will hold a Act, provided the public has been New England Fishery Management conference call to continue the periodic notified of the Council’s intent to take Council; Public Meeting review of groundfish Essential Fish final action to address the emergency. Habitat (EFH). AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Special Accommodations DATES: The conference call will be held Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Friday, September 9, 2011 from 9 a.m. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), This meeting is physically accessible to 11 a.m. Commerce. to people with disabilities. Requests for ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held ACTION: Notice; public meeting. sign language interpretation or other via conference call, with a listening auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul station provided at the Pacific Council SUMMARY: The New England Fishery J. Howard, Executive Director, at (978) Office, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Management Council (Council) is 465–0492, at least 5 days prior to the Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220–1384; scheduling a public meeting of its meeting date. telephone: (503) 820–2280. Scallop Oversight Committee on Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. September 13, 2011 to consider actions Council address: Pacific Fishery Dated: August 18, 2011. Management Council, 7700 NE. affecting New England fisheries in the Tracey L. Thompson, Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, exclusive economic zone (EEZ). OR 97220–1384. Recommendations from this group will Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. be brought to the full Council for formal [FR Doc. 2011–21541 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Chuck Tracy, Staff Officer, Pacific consideration and action, if appropriate. Council; telephone: (503) 820–2280. DATES: This meeting will be held on BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Tuesday, September 13, 2011 at 9 a.m. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at purpose of the work session is to review COMMITTEE FOR THE progress and interim products for the the Courtyard by Marriott, 225 McClellan Highway, East Boston, MA IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE groundfish EFH periodic review. AGREEMENTS Recommendations are tentatively 02128; telephone: (617) 569–5250; fax: scheduled to be presented to the Pacific (617) 569–5159. Council address: New England Determination Under the Textile and Council at the April, 2012 Council Apparel Commercial Availability meeting in Seattle, WA. The EFHRC will Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. Provision of the Dominican Republic- meet again on October 6, 2011, in Central America-United States Free FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Portland, OR. Paul Trade Agreement (‘‘CAFTA–DR Although non-emergency issues not J. Howard, Executive Director, New Agreement’’) contained in the meeting agenda may England Fishery Management Council; come before the EFHRC for discussion, telephone: (978) 465–0492. AGENCY: The Committee for the those issues may not be the subject of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Implementation of Textile Agreements. formal EFHRC action during this Committee will review input from the ACTION: Determination to remove a meeting. EFHRC action will be Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT) product currently on Annex 3.25 of the restricted to those issues specifically and the Scallop Advisory Panel related CAFTA–DR Agreement. listed in this notice and any issues to Framework 23 to the Scallop Fishery arising after publication of this notice Management Plan (FMP). The DATES: Effective Date: February 20, that require emergency action under Committee will identify preferred 2012. section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens alternatives for the full Council to SUMMARY: The Committee for the Fishery Conservation and Management consider at the final meeting for Implementation of Textile Agreements Act, provided the public has been Framework 23 being held on September (‘‘CITA’’) has determined that an notified of the EFHRC’s intent to take 26–29, 2011 in Danvers, MA. The acceptable substitute for certain final action to address the emergency. Committee will also discuss compacted, plied, ring spun cotton recommendations related to potential yarns, as specified below, is available in Special Accommodations 2012 Council work priorities for the the CAFTA–DR countries in commercial This meeting is physically accessible Scallop FMP. Other business may also quantities in a timely manner. The to people with disabilities. Requests for be discussed at this meeting. product, which is currently on the list sign language interpretation or other Specifically, the Scallop Committee may in Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52641

Agreement in unrestricted quantities, On July 20, 2011, the Chairman of DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE will be removed, effective 180 days after CITA received a request from Parkdale publication of this notice. Mills and Buhler Quality Yarns for a Office of the Secretary FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commercial Availability determination to remove or restrict (‘‘Request’’) certain Open Meeting Notice; Advisory Maria Dybczak, Office of Textiles and Council on Dependents’ Education Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, compacted, plied, ring spun cotton (202) 482–3651. yarns, currently on Annex 3.25. AGENCY: Department of Defense For Further Information On-Line: Parkdale Mills and Buhler Quality Education Activity (DoDEA), http://web.ita.doc.gov/tacgi/CaftaReq Yarns offered to supply yarns Department of Defense (DoD). substitutable for the specified yarns and Track.nsf under ‘‘Approved Requests,’’ ACTION: Open meeting notice. Reference number: 156.2011.07.20.Yarn. provided documentation demonstrating ParkdaleMillsandBuhlerQualityYarns. their ability to supply commercial SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the quantities in a timely manner. On July Federal Advisory Committee Act of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 22, 2011, in accordance with CITA’s 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), Authority: The CAFTA–DR Agreement; procedures, CITA notified interested the Government in the Sunshine Act of Section 203(o)(4) of the Dominican Republic- parties of the Request, which was 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and Central America-United States Free Trade posted on the dedicated Web site for 41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of Agreement Implementation Act (‘‘CAFTA– CAFTA–DR Commercial Availability Defense announces that the following DR Implementation Act’’), Public Law 109– proceedings. In its notification, CITA 53; the Statement of Administrative Action, Federal advisory committee meeting of accompanying the CAFTA–DR advised that any Response to the the Advisory Council on Dependents’ Implementation Act; and Presidential Request (‘‘Response’’) must be Education will take place. Proclamations 7987 (February 28, 2006) and submitted by August 3, 2011, and any DATES: Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 7996 (March 31, 2006). Rebuttal Comments to a Response 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., Eastern Standard (‘‘Rebuttal’’) must be submitted by Time. Background August 9, 2011, in accordance with The CAFTA–DR Agreement provides Sections 6, 7 and 9 of CITA’s ADDRESSES: 4040 North Fairfax Drive, a list in Annex 3.25 for fabrics, yarns, procedures. No interested entity Arlington, VA 22203. and fibers that the Parties to the submitted a Response advising CITA of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CAFTA–DR Agreement have its objection to the Request. Dr. Steve Schrankel, 4040 North Fairfax determined are not available in In accordance with section Drive, Arlington, VA 22203, at (703) commercial quantities in a timely 203(o)(4)(C) of the CAFTA–DR 588–3109, or manner in the territory of any Party. The Implementation Act, Section 8(a) and [email protected]. CAFTA–DR Agreement provides that (b), and Section 9(c)(1) of CITA’s SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: this list may be modified pursuant to procedures, as no interested entity Purpose of the Meeting: Recommend Article 3.25(4)-(5), when the President submitted a Response objecting to the to the Director, DoDEA, general policies of the United States determines that a Request, CITA has determined to for the operation of the Department of fabric, yarn, or fiber is not available in remove the subject product from Annex Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS); commercial quantities in a timely 3.25. Pursuant to Section 9(c)(3)(iii)(A), to provide the Director with information manner in the territory of any Party. See textile and apparel articles containing about effective educational programs Annex 3.25 of the CAFTA–DR the subject product are not to be treated and practices that should be considered Agreement; see also section 203(o)(4)(C) as originating in a CAFTA–DR country by DoDDS; and to perform other tasks as of the CAFTA–DR Implementation Act. if the subject product is obtained from may be required by the Secretary of The CAFTA–DR Implementation Act non-CAFTA–DR sources, effective for Defense. requires the President to establish goods entered into the United States on Agenda: The meeting agenda will procedures governing the submission of or after 180 calendar days after the date reflect current DoDDS schools a request and providing opportunity for of publication of this notice. A revised operational status, educational interested entities to submit comments list in Annex 3.25, noting the effective practices, and other educational matters and supporting evidence before a date of the removal of the subject that come before the Council. Public’s commercial availability determination is product, has been posted on the Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to made. In Presidential Proclamations dedicated Web site for CAFTA–DR 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102–3.140 7987 and 7996, the President delegated Commercial Availability proceedings. through 102–3.165 and the availability to CITA the authority under section of space, this meeting is open to the 203(o)(4) of CAFTA–DR Implementation Specifications: Certain Compacted, public. Seating is on a first-come basis. Act for modifying the Annex 3.25 list. Plied, Ring Spun Cotton Yarns Special Accommodations: Individuals Pursuant to this authority, CITA Compacted, plied, ring spun cotton requiring special accommodations to published modified procedures it would yarns, with yarn counts in the range access the public meeting should follow in considering requests to modify from 42 to 102 metric, classified in contact Dr. Schrankel at least five (5) the Annex 3.25 list of products subheadings 5205.42.0020, business days prior to the meeting so determined to be not commercially 5205.43.0020, 5205.44.0020, that appropriate arrangements can be available in the territory of any Party to 5205.46.0020, and 5205.47.0020 of the made. CAFTA–DR (Modifications to Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and Procedures for Considering Requests United States (HTSUS) 102–3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Under the Commercial Availability Federal Advisory Committee Act of Provision of the Dominican Republic– Kim Glas, 1972, the public or interested Central America–United States Free Chairman, Committee for the Implementation organizations may submit written Trade Agreement, 73 FR 53200 of Textile Agreements. statements to the Advisory Council on (September 15, 2008)) (‘‘CITA’s [FR Doc. 2011–21561 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Dependents’ Education about its procedures’’). BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P mission and functions. Written

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52642 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

statements may be submitted at any DATES: November 1, 2011, from 8 a.m. Officer will review all submitted written time or in response to the stated agendas to 5 p.m. and November 2, 2011, from statements and provide copies to all the of the planned meeting of the Advisory 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. committee members. Council on Dependents’ Education. ADDRESSES: Dougherty Conference Dated: August 17, 2011. Center, Building 432, 906 SAC All written statements shall be Aaron Siegel, submitted to the Designated Federal Boulevard, Offutt AFB, Nebraska 68113. Officer (DFO) for the Advisory Council Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Officer, Department of Defense. on Dependents’ Education, Dr. Patrick Bruce Sudduth, Designated Federal [FR Doc. 2011–21521 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] A. Dworakowski, 4040 North Fairfax Officer, (402) 294–4102, 901 SAC Blvd, Drive, Arlington, VA 22203; Suite 1F7, Offutt AFB, NE 68113–6030. BILLING CODE 5001–06–P [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statements being submitted in response to the agendas mentioned in this notice Purpose of the Meeting DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE must be received by the DFO at the The purpose of the meeting is to Office of the Secretary address listed above at least fourteen provide advice on scientific, technical, calendar days prior to the meeting, intelligence, and policy-related issues to Department of Defense Wage which is the subject of this notice. the Commander, U.S. Strategic Committee; Notice of Closed Meetings Written statements received after this Command, during the development of date may not be provided to or the Nation’s strategic war plans. AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, considered by the Advisory Council on Department of Defense (DoD). Dependents’ Education until its next Agenda meeting. Topics include: Policy Issues, Space ACTION: Notice of closed meeting. The DFO will review all timely Operations, Nuclear Weapons Stockpile submissions with the Advisory Council Assessment, Weapons of Mass SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of on Dependents’ Education Chairpersons Destruction, Intelligence Operations, section 10 of Public Law 92–463, the and ensure they are provided to all Cyber Operations, Global Strike, Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice members of the Advisory Council on Command and Control, Science and is hereby given that a closed meeting of Dependents’ Education before the Technology, Missile Defense. the Department of Defense Wage meeting that is the subject of this notice. Meeting Accessibility Committee will be held. Oral Statements by the Public to the DATES: Tuesday, September 20, 2011, at Membership: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102– Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 10 a.m. 3.140(d), time will be allotted for public 102–3.155, the Department of Defense comments to the Advisory Council on has determined that the meeting shall be ADDRESSES: 1400 Key Boulevard, Level Dependents’ Education. Individual closed to the public. Per delegated A, Room A101, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209. comments will be limited to a maximum authority by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of five minutes duration. The total time of Staff, General C. Robert Kehler, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: allotted for public comments will not Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, Additional information concerning the exceed thirty minutes. in consultation with his legal advisor, meetings may be obtained by writing to has determined in writing that the the Chairman, Department of Defense Dated: August 17, 2011. public interest requires that all sessions Wage Committee, 4000 Defense Aaron Siegel, of this meeting be closed to the public Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–4000. Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison because they will be concerned with Officer, Department of Defense. matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the [FR Doc. 2011–21470 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] provisions of section 10(d) of Public BILLING CODE 5001–06–P Written Statements Law 92–463, the Department of Defense Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.105(j) and has determined that the meetings meet 102–3.140, the public or interested the criteria to close meetings to the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE organizations may submit written public because the matters to be statements to the membership of the considered are related to internal rules Notice of Advisory Committee Closed Strategic Advisory Group at any time or and practices of the Department of Meeting; U.S. Strategic Command in response to the stated agenda of a Defense and the detailed wage data to be Strategic Advisory Group planned meeting. Written statements considered were obtained from officials should be submitted to the Strategic AGENCY: Department of Defense. of private establishments with a Advisory Group’s Designated Federal guarantee that the data will be held in ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Officer; the Designated Federal Officer’s confidence. closed meeting. contact information can be obtained However, members of the public who from the GSA’s FACA Database— may wish to do so are invited to submit SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal https://www.fido.gov/facadatabase/ Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 public.asp. Written statements that do material in writing to the chairman U.S.C. App 2, Section 1), the not pertain to a scheduled meeting of concerning matters believed to be Government in the Sunshine Act of the Strategic Advisory Group may be deserving of the Committee’s attention. 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102– submitted at any time. However, if Dated: August 18, 2011. 3.150, the Department of Defense individual comments pertain to a Aaron Siegel, announces the following closed meeting specific topic being discussed at a Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison notice pertaining to the following planned meeting, then these statements Officer, Department of Defense. federal advisory committee: U.S. must be submitted no later than five [FR Doc. 2011–21483 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Strategic Command Strategic Advisory business days prior to the meeting in Group. question. The Designated Federal BILLING CODE 5001–06–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52643

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DATES: Effective Date: November 7, 695–7677; or via e-mail at 2011. [email protected].). Office of the Secretary SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant Bao-Anh Trinh, Department of Defense Wage to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) (1–5), the DAF, Air Force Federal Register Liaison Committee; Notice of Closed Meetings Department of the Air Force (AF) Officer. announces the appointment of members [FR Doc. 2011–21469 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, to the AF’s Senior Executive Service BILLING CODE 5001–10–P Department of Defense (DoD). (SES) Pay Pool and Performance Review ACTION: Notice of closed meeting. Board (PRB). Appointments are made by the authorizing official. Each board SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION member shall review and evaluate section 10 of Public Law 92–463, the performance scores provided by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice Advisory Commission on Accessible is hereby given that a closed meeting of SES’ immediate supervisor. Instructional Materials in the Department of Defense Wage Performance standards must be applied Postsecondary Education for Students Committee will be held. consistently across the U.S. Air Force. With Disabilities The board will make recommendations DATES: Tuesday, September 6, 2011, at to the appointing authority or rating AGENCY: U. S. Department of Education, 10 a.m. official relative to the performance of Office of Special Education and ADDRESSES: 1400 Key Boulevard, Level the executive. The members of the 2011 Rehabilitative Services, Advisory A, Room A101, Rosslyn, Virginia 22209. Performance Review Board for the U.S. Commission on Accessible Instructional FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Air Force are: Materials in Postsecondary Education Additional information concerning the 1. Board President—Gen. Shelton, for Students with Disabilities. meetings may be obtained by writing to Commander, Air Force Space ACTION: Notice of an Open Meeting. the Chairman, Department of Defense Command; Wage Committee, 4000 Defense 2. Lt. Gen. Lord—Chief, Warfighting SUMMARY: The notice sets forth the Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–4000. Integration and Chief Information schedule and agenda of the meeting of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Officer, SECAF; the Advisory Commission on Accessible provisions of section 10(d) of Public 3. Lt. Gen. Helms—Commander, Instructional Materials in Postsecondary Law 92–463, the Department of Defense Fourteenth Air Force; Education for Students with Disabilities. has determined that the meetings meet 4. Mr. Corsi, Assistant Deputy Chief of The notice also describes the functions the criteria to close meetings to the Staff for Manpower and Personnel; of the Commission. Notice of the public because the matters to be 5. Ms. Miller, Assistant Deputy Chief meeting is required by section 10 (a) (2) considered are related to internal rules of Staff G–4 (Army); of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and practices of the Department of and is intended to notify the public of 6. Mr. Williams, Director, Defense Defense and the detailed wage data to be its opportunity to attend. Contract Management Agency; considered were obtained from officials 7. Ms. Roby, Deputy Assistant DATES: Open Meeting: September 8–9, of private establishments with a 2011. guarantee that the data will be held in Secretary of Defense (Resources); 8. Ms. Zardokiewicz, Principal Time: Sept. 8, 2011: The open confidence. meeting will run from 8:30 a.m.–5 However, members of the public who Deputy Assistant Secretary, Financial p.m. may wish to do so are invited to submit Management; Sept. 9, 2011: The open meeting will material in writing to the chairman 9. Mr. McMillin, Deputy Chief of Staff concerning matters believed to be for Warfighting Integration and Deputy run from 8:30 a.m.–4 p.m. deserving of the Committee’s attention. CIO; ADDRESSES: The Madison Building, 10. Ms. Cannon, Deputy General Library of Congress, Room 408, 101 Dated: August 18, 2011. Counsel; Independence Avenue, SE., Aaron Siegel, 11. Ms. Rooney, Director, Intelligence Washington, DC 20599–6000. Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison, Systems Support Office; Department of Defense. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 12. Mr. Peterson, Director, Air Force Elizabeth Shook, Program Specialist, [FR Doc. 2011–21482 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Financial Services Center; Office of Special Education and BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 13. Mr. Dumm, Director, ISR Plans Rehabilitative Services, United States and Resources, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Education, 550 12th DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Intelligence, Surveillance and Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202; Reconnaissance. telephone: (202) 245–7642, fax: 202– Department of the Air Force Additionally, all career status Air 245–7638. Force Tier 3 SES members not included SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Notice Is Given of the Names of in the above list are eligible to serve on Advisory Commission on Accessible Members of a Performance Review the 2011 Performance Review Board and Instructional Materials in Postsecondary Board for the Department of the Air are hereby nominated for inclusion on Education for Students with Disabilities Force an ad hoc basis in the event of (the Commission) is established under absence(s). AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, Section 772 of the Higher Education DOD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Opportunity Act, Public Law 110–315, ACTION: Notice. Please direct any written comments or dated August 14, 2008. The Commission requests for information to Ms. Erin is established to conduct a SUMMARY: Notice is given of the names Moore, Chief, Sustainment Division, comprehensive study, which will—(I) of members of a Performance Review Senior Executive Management, AF/ ‘‘assess the barriers and systemic issues Board for the Department of the Air DPSS, 1040 Air Force Pentagon, that may affect, and technical solutions Force. Washington, DC 20330–1040 (Ph: 703– available that may improve, the timely

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52644 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

delivery and quality of accessible Monday–Friday during the hours of 8 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY instructional materials for a.m. to 4:30 p.m. postsecondary students with print Office of Energy Efficiency and Additional Information disabilities, as well as the effective use Renewable Energy of such materials by faculty and staff; Individuals who will need [Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–NOA–0053] and (II) make recommendations related accommodations for a disability in order to the development of a comprehensive to attend the meeting (e.g., interpreting Faucets, Showerheads, Water Closets approach to improve the opportunities services, assistive listening devices, or and Urinals for postsecondary students with print material in alternative format) should disabilities to access instructional notify Elizabeth Shook at (202) 245– AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and materials in specialized formats in a 7642, no later than September 2, 2011. Renewable Energy, Department of time frame comparable to the We will make every attempt to meet Energy. availability of instructional materials for requests for accommodations after this ACTION: Request for Information (RFI). postsecondary nondisabled students.’’ date, but, cannot guarantee their In making recommendations for the availability. The meeting site is SUMMARY: On December 15, 2010, the study, ‘‘the Commission shall accessible to individuals with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the consider—(I) How students with print disabilities. Department) published a final rule disabilities may obtain instructional Members of the public who would waiving Federal preemption for energy materials in accessible formats within a like to offer comments remotely may conservation standards under 42 U.S.C. time frame comparable to the submit written comments to 6297(c) with respect to any State availability of instructional materials for [email protected] or by mail to regulation concerning the water use or nondisabled students; and to the Advisory Commission on Accessible water efficiency of faucets, maximum extent practicable, at costs Instructional Materials in Postsecondary showerheads, water closets and urinals comparable to the costs of such Education for Students with Disabilities, that is: (1) More stringent than Federal materials for nondisabled students; (II) 550 12th St., SW., Room PCP–5113, regulation concerning the water use or the feasibility and technical parameters Washington, DC 20202. All submissions water efficiency for that same type or of establishing standardized electronic will become part of the public record. class of product; and (2) applicable to file formats, such as the National any sale or installation of all products Members of the public also have the Instructional Materials Accessibility in that particular type or class. In option of participating in the open Standard as defined in Section 674(e)(3) today’s notice, DOE requests meeting and public hearing remotely. of the Individuals with Disabilities information from interested parties Remote access will be provided via an Education Act, to be provided by regarding: State activity with respect to internet webinar service utilizing VoiP publishers of instructional materials to efficiency standards for these products (Voice Over Internet Protocol). For the producers of materials in specialized undertaken as a result of the December September 8, 2011 portion of the formats, institutions of higher 15, 2010 final rule; market data; and any meeting from 8:30 a.m.—5 p.m., the education, and eligible students; (III) the new or emerging water-efficient product URL is https://aimpsc.ilinc.com/join/ feasibility of establishing a national designs or technologies for faucets, yvfbsvw. The login will be available to clearinghouse, repository, or file-sharing showerheads, water closets and urinals. the public starting at 8 a.m. (Eastern). network for electronic files in DOE also requests information regarding On September 9, the URL will be specialized formats and files used in any recent actions taken by the https://aimpsc.ilinc.com/join/ccctxjw producing instructional materials in American Society of Mechanical for the Commission meeting from 8:30 specialized formats, and a list of Engineers (ASME)/American National a.m.—4:00 p.m., and the login will be possible entities qualified to administer Standards Institute (ANSI) toward open to public at 8 a.m. (Eastern). such clearinghouse, repository, or amending its water efficiency standards network; (IV) the feasibility of Login information is also provided via for these products. Additional input and establishing market-based solutions the Commission’s public listserv at suggestions relevant to these products involving collaborations among [email protected] and posted at are also welcome. publishers of instructional materials, the following site: http://www2.ed.gov/ DATES: producers of materials in specialized about/bdscomm/list/aim/index.html. Written comments and information are requested by October formats, and institutions of higher Electronic Access to this Document: 24, 2011. education; (V) solutions utilizing You may view this document, as well as universal design; and (VI) solutions for all other documents of this Department ADDRESSES: Interested persons may low-incidence, high-cost requests for published in the Federal Register, in submit comments in writing, identified instructional materials in specialized text or Adobe Portable Document by docket number EERE–2011–BT– formats.’’ Format (PDF) on the internet at the NOA–0053, by any of the following The Commission will meet in open following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ methods: • session on Thursday and Friday, and fedregister/index.html. To use PDF you Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// will review and discuss the final draft must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, www.regulations.gov. Follow the of the Commission’s report to the which is available free at this site. If you instructions for submitting comments. • Secretary and Congress. have questions about using PDF, call the E-mail: PlumbingProducts-2011- Detailed minutes of the meeting and U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), [email protected]. Include EERE– hearing, will be available to the public toll free at 1–866–512–1800; or in the 2011–BT–NOA–0053 in the subject line within 14 days of the meeting. Records Washington, DC area at 202–512–0000. of the message. are kept of all Commission proceedings • Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. and are available for public inspection Alexa Posny, Department of Energy, Building at the Office of Special Education and Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, Rehabilitative Services, United States Education and Rehabilitative Services. Request for Information for Faucets, Department of Education, 550 12th [FR Doc. 2011–21559 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Showerheads, Water Closets and Street, SW., Washington, DC 20202, BILLING CODE 4000–01–P Urinals, EERE–2011–BT–NOA–0053,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52645

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., faucet, showerhead, water closet or standards for these products. Additional Washington, DC 20585–0121. Phone: urinal standards to improve water input and suggestions relevant to these (202) 586–2945. Please submit one efficiency, DOE must waive preemption products are also welcome. signed paper original. for Federal standards under 42 U.S.C. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 6297(c) with respect to any State Public Participation Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, regulation concerning the water use or A. Submission of Information Building Technologies Program, 6th water efficiency of such type or class of Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., showerhead, faucet, water closet or DOE will accept information and data Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) urinal if such State regulation meets the in response to this Request for 586–2945. Please submit one signed following two conditions. First, the Information as provided in the DATES paper original. State regulation concerning water use or section above. Information submitted to • Instructions: All submissions water efficiency for a particular type or the Department by e-mail should be received must include the agency name class of showerhead, faucet, water closet provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft and docket number. or urinal must be more stringent than Word, PDF, or text file format. Those Docket: For access to the docket to the Federal regulation concerning water responding should avoid the use of read background documents or use or water efficiency for that same special characters or any form of type or class of showerhead, faucet, comments received, visit the U.S. encryption, and wherever possible, water closet or urinal. 42 U.S.C. Department of Energy, Resource Room comments should include the electronic of the Building Technologies Program, 6295(j)(3)(C)(i), 6295(k)(3)(C)(i). Second, the State regulation concerning the signature of the author. Comments 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, submitted to the Department by mail or Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, water use or water efficiency for a hand delivery/courier should include between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday particular type or class of showerhead, one signed original paper copy. No through Friday, except Federal holidays. faucet, water closet or urinal must be Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the applicable to any sale or installation of telefacsimiles will be accepted. above telephone number for additional all products in that particular type or Comments submitted in response to this information regarding visiting the class. 42 U.S.C. 6295(j)(3)(C)(ii), notice will become a matter of public Resource Room. 6295(k)(3)(C)(ii). record and will be made publicly ASME/ANSI last made a substantive available. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. amendment to its standards regarding Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, the water efficiency requirements for B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Office of Energy Efficiency and showerheads and faucets on May 29, Information Renewable Energy, Building 1996 (ASME/ANSI A112.18.1M–1996), DOE is particularly interested in Technologies Program, EE–2J, 950 and for water closets and urinals on receiving comments from interested L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, April 19, 1996 (ASME/ANSI A112.19.6– parties on the following issues: Washington, DC 20585–0121. 1995). Both of these standards were Telephone: (202) 287–1317. E-mail: incorporated by reference into the Code (1) The development or establishment [email protected]. of Federal Regulations in a final rule of water conservation standards for In the Office of the General Counsel, issued by DOE on March 18, 1998. 63 showerheads, faucets, water closets or Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department FR 13308. Because more than five years urinals by States or their political of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, passed since ASME/ANSI last amended subdivisions since DOE published the GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, the water efficiency requirements in December 2010 final rule waiving SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. either of these standards, on December Federal preemption for these products; Telephone: (202) 287–6111. E-mail: 15, 2010, DOE issued a final rule (2) Information regarding available [email protected]. waiving 42 U.S.C. 6297(c) with respect models and sales of showerheads, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: to any State regulation concerning the water use or water efficiency of a faucets, water closets or urinals that Authority and Background particular type or class of showerhead, exceed Federal energy conservation Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy faucet, water closet or urinal that is both standards, and the amounts by which and Conservation Act (EPCA), Public more stringent than the relevant Federal such models exceed the Federal Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as regulation and is applicable to any sale standards; codified), established the Energy or installation or all products in that (3) The existence and availability of Conservation Program for Consumer particular type or class, effective new or emerging designs or technologies Products Other Than Automobiles, December 22, 2010. that (are expected to) improve the water which includes the faucets, In view of the above, DOE welcomes efficiency of showerheads, faucets, showerheads, water closets and urinals information from interested parties water closets or urinals, and whether 1 regarding activity since the issuance of that are the subjects of today’s notice. these designs or technologies (are the December 2010 final rule, and National standards for these products expected to) have any impact on particularly, with respect to any State are based on the ASME/ANSI standards consumer utility and cost; A112.18.1M, for showerheads and efficiency standards that are newly faucets, and A112.19.6, for water closets applicable or under development, (4) Any recent actions that ASME/ and urinals. 42 U.S.C. 6295(j), (k). market data regarding the prevalence of ANSI has taken in furtherance of 42 U.S.C. 6295(j)(3)(C) and models that exceed the current Federal amending its faucet, showerhead, water 6295(k)(3)(C) require that, not later than standards, and new or emerging water- closet or urinal standards in order to six months after the conclusion of a efficient product designs or technologies improve the products’ water efficiency; five-year period during which the for faucets, showerheads, water closets (5) Assistance and resources available and urinals. DOE also requests ASME/ANSI has not amended these from stakeholders, States, local information regarding any recent actions jurisdictions, and others. 1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the taken by the ASME/ANSI in furtherance U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. of amending its water efficiency

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52646 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 16, submission guidelines at: http:// approval to engage in the transportation, 2011. www.ferc.gov/help/submission- sale or exchange of natural gas in Timothy Unruh, guide.asp. eFiling instructions are interstate commerce. However, Section Program Manager, Federal Energy available at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs- 7(c) exempts from certificate Management Program, Energy Efficiency and filing/efiling.asp. First time users must requirements ‘‘temporary acts or Renewable Energy. follow eRegister instructions at: http:// operations for which the issuance of a [FR Doc. 2011–21494 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ certificate will not be required in the BILLING CODE 6450–01–P eregistration.asp, to establish a public interest.’’ The NGPA also username and password before eFiling. provides for non-certificated interstate The Commission will send an automatic transactions involving intrastate DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY acknowledgement to the sender’s e-mail pipelines and local distribution address upon receipt of eFiled companies. Federal Energy Regulatory comments. Commenters making an Commission A temporary operation, or emergency, eFiling should not make a paper filing. is defined as any situation in which an [Docket No. IC11–588–001] Commenters that are not able to file actual or expected shortage of gas electronically must send an original of supply would require an interstate Commision Information Collection their comments to: Federal Energy pipeline company, intrastate pipeline, Activities [FERC–588]; Comment Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the or local distribution company, or Request; Submitted for OMB Review Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Hinshaw pipeline to curtail deliveries of Washington, DC 20426. gas or provide less than the projected AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Users interested in receiving level of service to the customer. The Commission. automatic notification of activity in this natural gas companies which provide ACTION: Notice. docket may do so through eSubscription the temporary assistance to the at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ companies which are having the SUMMARY: In compliance with the esubscription.asp. In addition, all ‘‘emergency’’ must file the necessary requirements of section 3507 of the comments and FERC issuances may be information described in Part 284, Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 viewed, printed or downloaded Subpart I of the Commission’s U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy remotely through FERC’s eLibrary at Regulations with the Commission so Regulatory Commission (Commission or http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ FERC) has submitted the information elibrary.asp, by searching on Docket No. that it may determine if their assisting collection described below to the Office IC11–588. For user assistance, contact transaction/operation qualifies for of Management and Budget (OMB) for FERC Online Support by e-mail at exemption. The assisting company may review of the information collection [email protected], or by phone or may not be under the Commission’s requirements. Any interested person at: (866) 208–3676 (toll-free), or (202) jurisdiction and if their assisting actions may file comments directly with OMB 502–8659 for TTY. qualify for the exemption, they will not become subject to the Commission’s and should address a copy of those FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: jurisdiction for such actions. comments to the Commission as Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail explained below. The Commission at [email protected], telephone A report within forty-eight hours of issued a Notice in the Federal Register at (202) 502–8663, and fax at (202) 273– the commencement of the (76 FR 30928, 05/27/2011) requesting 0873. transportation, sale or exchange, a public comments. FERC received no SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The request to extend the sixty-day term of comments on the FERC–588 and has information collected under the the emergency transportation, if needed, made this notation in its submission to requirements of FERC–588, ‘‘Emergency and a termination report are required. OMB. Natural Gas Transportation, Sale and The data required to be filed for the DATES: Comments in consideration of Exchange Transactions’’ (OMB No. forty-eight hour report is specified by 18 the collection of information are due 1902–0144), is used by the Commission CFR 284.270. September 22, 2011. to implement the statutory provisions of Action: The Commission is requesting ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed Sections 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act a three-year approval of the collection of either electronically (eFiled) or in paper (NGA) (Pub. L. 75–688) (15 USC 717– data. This is a mandatory information format, and should refer to Docket No. 717w) and provisions of the Natural Gas collection requirement. IC11–588–001. Documents must be Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 15 USC Burden Statement: Public reporting prepared in an acceptable filing format 3301–3432. Under the NGA, a natural burden for this collection is estimated as and in compliance with Commission gas company must obtain Commission follows:

Number of respondents annually Number of responses per Average burden hours per Total annual burden hours respondent response × × (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3)

8 1 8 64

The estimated total cost to The above hour and cost estimates are burden hour figure, the Commission respondents is $4,381 (64 hours divided different than what was in the public notes that total annual burden and cost by 2,080 hours per employee per year notice published May 27, 2011. In that are less by 16 hours less and $1,095 as times $142,372 per year average salary notice, the Commission erroneously compared to the numbers in the May, per employee = $4,381 (rounded)). The used an average burden hours per 2011 notice. The corrected estimates are estimated annual cost per respondent is response of 10 hours instead of 8 hours consistent with the burden estimates in $548 (rounded). that is used here. By using the correct the last submission to OMB.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52647

The reporting burden includes the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/ total time, effort, or financial resources docs-filing/efiling.asp), and then follow expended to generate, maintain, retain, Federal Energy Regulatory the instructions for each screen. First disclose, or provide the information Commission time users will have to establish a user including: (1) Reviewing instructions; [Docket No. IC11–583–001] name and password. The Commission (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and will send an automatic utilizing technology and systems for the Commission Information Collection acknowledgement to the sender’s e-mail purposes of collecting, validating, Activities (FERC–583); Comment address upon receipt of comments. verifying, processing, maintaining, Request; Submitted for OMB Review For paper filings, the comments should be submitted to the Federal disclosing and providing information; AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Energy Regulatory Commission, (3) adjusting the existing ways to Commission, DOE. comply with any previously applicable Secretary of the Commission, 888 First ACTION: Notice. instructions and requirements; (4) Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should refer to Docket No. IC11–583– training personnel to respond to a SUMMARY: In compliance with the 001. collection of information; (5) searching requirements of section 3507 of the data sources; (6) completing and Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 Users interested in receiving reviewing the collection of information; U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy automatic notification of activity in and (7) transmitting, or otherwise Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC Docket Number IC11–583 may do disclosing the information. FERC) has submitted the information so through eSubscription at http:// www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ The estimate of cost for respondents collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for esubscription.asp. All comments may be is based upon salaries for professional review of the information collection viewed, printed or downloaded and clerical support, as well as direct requirements. Any interested person remotely via the Internet through and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs may file comments directly with OMB FERC’s homepage using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ include all costs directly attributable to and should address a copy of those link. For user assistance, contact providing this information, such as comments to the Commission as [email protected] or toll-free administrative costs and the cost for explained below. The Commission at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY, contact information technology. Indirect or issued a notice in the Federal Register (202) 502–8659. overhead costs are costs incurred by an (76 FR 34689, 06/14/2011) requesting FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: organization in support of its mission. public comments. FERC received no Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail These costs apply to activities which comments on the FERC–583 and is at [email protected], by benefit the whole organization rather making this notation in its submission telephone at (202) 502–8663, and by fax than any one particular function or to OMB. at (202) 273–0873. activity. DATES: Comments on the collection of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Comments are invited on: (1) Whether information are due by September 22, information collected under the the proposed collection of information 2011. requirements of FERC–583, ‘‘Annual is necessary for the proper performance ADDRESSES: Address comments on the Kilowatt Generating Report (Annual of the functions of the Commission, collection of information to the Office of Charges)’’ (OMB No. 1902–0136), is including whether the information will Management and Budget, Office of used by the Commission to implement have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the statutory provisions of section 10(e) the agency’s estimate of the burden of Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 the proposed collection of information, Commission Desk Officer. Comments to U.S.C. 803(e)), which requires the including the validity of the OMB should be filed electronically, c/o Commission to collect annual charges methodology and assumptions used; (3) [email protected] and from hydropower licensees for, among ways to enhance the quality, utility and include OMB Control Number 1902– other things, the cost of administering clarity of the information to be 0136 for reference. The Desk Officer part I of the FPA and for the use of collected; and (4) ways to minimize the may be reached by telephone at 202– United States dams. In addition, section burden of the collection of information 395–4638. 3401 of the Omnibus Budget on those who are to respond, including A copy of the comments should also Reconciliation Act of 1986 (OBRA) authorizes the Commission to ‘‘assess the use of appropriate automated, be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory and collect fees and annual charges in electronic, mechanical, or other Commission and should refer to Docket any fiscal year in amounts equal to all technological collection techniques or No. IC11–583–001. Comments may be of the costs incurred by the Commission other forms of information technology filed either electronically or in paper format. Those persons filing in that fiscal year.’’ The information is e.g. permitting electronic submission of electronically do not need to make a collected annually and used to responses. paper filing. Documents filed determine the amounts of the annual Dated: August 16, 2011. electronically via the Internet must be charges to be assessed licensees for Kimberly D. Bose, prepared in an acceptable filing format reimbursable government administrative Secretary. and in compliance with the Federal costs and for the use of government dams. The Commission implements [FR Doc. 2011–21453 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Energy Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing theses filing requirements in the Code of BILLING CODE 6717–01–P instructions and acceptable filing Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR formats are available at http:// part 11. www.ferc.gov/help/submission- Action: The Commission is requesting guide.asp. To file the document a three-year extension of the current electronically, access the Commission’s expiration date, with no changes to the Web site and click on Documents & existing collection of data.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52648 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated as:

Average Number of Number of burden Total annual Data collection respondents responses per hours per burden hours annually respondent response (1) × (2) × (3) (1) (2) (3)

FERC–583 ...... 459 1 2 918

Estimated cost burden to respondents other forms of information technology, the Commission is requesting is $62,835 (918 hours/2080 hours per e.g., permitting electronic submission of comments, reply comments, year times $142,372 per year average per responses. recommendations, terms and employee = $62,835). The cost per Dated: August 17, 2011. conditions, and prescriptions. l. Deadline for filing responsive respondent is $137 (rounded). Kimberly D. Bose, The reporting burden includes the documents: Due to the small size of the Secretary. total time, effort, or financial resources proposed project, as well as the resource expended to generate, maintain, retain, [FR Doc. 2011–21498 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] agency consultation letters filed with disclose, or provide the information BILLING CODE 6717–01–P the application, the 60-day timeframe including: (1) Reviewing instructions; specified in 18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing all (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and comments, motions to intervene, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY utilizing technology and systems for the protests, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is purposes of collecting, validating, Federal Energy Regulatory shortened to 30 days from the issuance verifying, processing, maintaining, Commission disclosing and providing information; date of this notice. All reply comments (3) adjusting the existing ways to [Project No. 14069–000] filed in response to comments comply with any previously applicable submitted by any resource agency, Konohiki Hydro Power, Inc.; Notice of instructions and requirements; (4) Indian tribe, or person, must be filed Application Accepted for Filing and training personnel to respond to a with the Commission within 45 days Soliciting Comments, Motions To collection of information; (5) searching from the issuance date of this notice. Intervene, Protests, data sources; (6) completing and Comments, protests, and Recommendations, and Terms and reviewing the collection of information; interventions may be filed electronically Conditions and (7) transmitting, or otherwise via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the disclosing the information. Take notice that the following instructions on the Commission’s Web The estimate of cost for respondents hydroelectric application has been filed site under the http://www.ferc.gov/docs- is based upon salaries for professional with the Commission and is available filing/efiling.asp. The Commission and clerical support, as well as direct for public inspection: and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs strongly encourages electronic filings. a. Type of Application: Conduit The Commission’s Rules of Practice include all costs directly attributable to Exemption. and Procedure require all intervenors providing this information, such as b. Project No.: 14069–000. filing documents with the Commission administrative costs and the cost for c. Date filed: May 9, 2011, and to serve a copy of that document on information technology. Indirect or supplemented August 4, 2011. each person in the official service list overhead costs are costs incurred by an d. Applicant: Konohiki Hydro Power, for the project. Further, if an intervenor organization in support of its mission. Inc. files comments or documents with the These costs apply to activities which e. Name of Project: Puu Lua Commission relating to the merits of an benefit the whole organization rather Hydropower Project. issue that may affect the responsibilities than any one particular function or f. Location: The proposed Puu Lua of a particular resource agency, they activity. Hydropower Project would be located must also serve a copy of the document Comments are invited on: (1) Whether on the Koke’e ditch irrigation system in on that resource agency. the proposed collection of information Kaua’i County, Hawaii. The land on m. Description of Project: The Puu is necessary for the proper performance which all the project structures are Lua Hydropower Project has two of the functions of the Commission, located is owned by the applicant. developments that would consist of: including whether the information will g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of Act 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r. Upper Puu Lua Development the agency’s estimates of the burden of h. Applicant Contact: Mrs. Pamela (1) A proposed powerhouse the proposed collection of information, Miller, Konohiki Hydro Power, Inc., containing one proposed generating unit including the validity of the P.O. Box 261, Anahola, HI 96703, phone with an installed capacity of 2 methodology and assumptions used; (3) (808) 634–8866. megawatts; and (2) appurtenant ways to enhance the quality, utility and i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) facilities. clarity of the information to be 502–6062, [email protected]. collected; and (4) ways to minimize the j. Competing Application: This Lower Puu Lua Development burden of the collection of information application competes with Project No. (1) A proposed powerhouse on those who are to respond, including 13875–000 filed October 22, 2010. containing one proposed generating unit the use of appropriate automated, k. Status of Environmental Analysis: with an installed capacity of 3.3 electronic, mechanical, or other This application is ready for megawatts; and (2) appurtenant technological collection techniques or environmental analysis at this time, and facilities.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52649

The applicant estimates the project application must be accompanied by Commission staff’s issuance of the final would have an average annual proof of service on all persons listed in environmental impact statement (FEIS) generation of 32.49 gigawatt-hours. the service list prepared by the or EA for this proposal. The filing of the n. This filing is available for review Commission in this proceeding, in EA in the Commission’s public record and reproduction at the Commission in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and for this proceeding or the issuance of a the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 385.2010. Notice of Schedule for Environmental 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Dated: August 16, 2011. Review will serve to notify federal and 20426. The filing may also be viewed on state agencies of the timing for the Kimberly D. Bose, the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs- completion of all necessary reviews, and filing/elibrary.asp using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ Secretary. the subsequent need to complete all link. Enter the docket number, P–14069, [FR Doc. 2011–21450 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Federal authorizations within 90 days of in the docket number field to access the BILLING CODE 6717–01–P the date of issuance of the Commission document. For assistance, call toll-free staff’s FEIS or EA. 1–866–208–3676 or e-mail There are two ways to become [email protected]. For TTY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY involved in the Commission’s review of call (202) 502–8659. A copy is also this project. First, any person wishing to Federal Energy Regulatory available for review and reproduction at obtain legal status by becoming a party Commission the address in item h above. to the proceedings for this project o. Protests or Motions to Intervene— [Docket No. CP11–531–000] should, on or before the comment date Anyone may submit a protest or a stated below, file with the Federal motion to intervene in accordance with Golden Triangle Storage, Inc.; Notice Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 the requirements of Rules of Practice of Application First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, a motion to intervene in accordance On August 5, 2011, Golden Triangle 385.211, and 385.214. In determining with the requirements of the Storage, Inc. (Golden Triangle) filed the appropriate action to take, the Commission’s Rules of Practice and with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will consider all protests Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) Commission (Commission) an filed, but only those who file a motion and the Regulations under the NGA (18 application under section 7(c) of the to intervene in accordance with the CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party Commission’s Rules may become a Natural Gas Act and the Rules and status will be placed on the service list party to the proceeding. Any protests or Regulations of the Commission’s maintained by the Secretary of the motions to intervene must be received Regulations for authority to construct Commission and will receive copies of on or before the specified deadline date and operate two new salt dome storage all documents filed by the applicant and for the particular application. caverns at its existing storage site by all other parties. A party must submit p. All filings must (1) Bear in all located in Jefferson County, Texas. seven copies of filings made with the capital letters the title ‘‘PROTEST’’, Golden Triangle also seeks market based Commission and must mail a copy to ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE’’, rates for its proposed expansion the applicant and to every other party in ‘‘COMMENTS’’, ‘‘REPLY COMMENTS,’’ services, all as more fully set forth in the the proceeding. Only parties to the ‘‘RECOMMENDATIONS,’’ ‘‘TERMS application, which is on file with the proceeding can ask for court review of AND CONDITIONS,’’ or Commission and open to public Commission orders in the proceeding. ‘‘PRESCRIPTIONS;’’ (2) set forth in the inspection. The filing may also be However, a person does not have to heading, the name of the applicant and viewed on the web at http:// intervene in order to have comments the project number of the application to www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. considered. The second way to which the filing responds; (3) furnish Enter the docket number excluding the participate is by filing with the the name, address, and telephone last three digits in the docket number Secretary of the Commission, as soon as number of the person protesting or field to access the document. For possible, an original and two copies of intervening; and (4) otherwise comply assistance, contact FERC at comments in support of or in opposition with the requirements of 18 CFR [email protected] or call to this project. The Commission will 385.2001 through 385.2005. All toll-free, (866) 208–3676 or TTY, (202) consider these comments in comments, recommendations, terms and 502–8659. determining the appropriate action to be conditions or prescriptions must set Questions concerning this application taken, but the filing of a comment alone forth their evidentiary basis and may be directed to Kathryn L. McCoy, will not serve to make the filer a party otherwise comply with the requirements Golden Triangle Storage, Inc., 1200 to the proceeding. The Commission’s of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain Smith Street, Suite 900, Houston, TX rules require that persons filing copies of the application directly from 77002, (832) 397–8642 or John F. comments in opposition to the project the applicant. Any of these documents Harrington, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., provide copies of their protests only to must be filed by providing the original 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., the party or parties directly involved in and seven copies to: The Secretary, Washington, DC 20004, (202) 662–4530. the protest. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Persons who wish to comment only 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC Commission’s rules, 18 CFR 157.9, on the environmental review of this 20426. An additional copy must be sent within 90 days of this Notice the project should submit an original and to Director, Division of Hydropower Commission staff will either: complete two copies of their comments to the Administration and Compliance, Office its environmental assessment (EA) and Secretary of the Commission. of Energy Projects, Federal Energy place it into the Commission’s public Environmental commentors will be Regulatory Commission, at the above record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or placed on the Commission’s address. A copy of any protest or motion issue a Notice of Schedule for environmental mailing list, will receive to intervene must be served upon each Environmental Review. If a Notice of copies of the environmental documents, representative of the applicant specified Schedule for Environmental Review is and will be notified of meetings in the particular application. A copy of issued, it will indicate, among other associated with the Commission’s all other filings in reference to this milestones, the anticipated date for the environmental review process.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52650 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Environmental commentors will not be Enter the docket number excluding the However, a person does not have to required to serve copies of filed last three digits in the docket number intervene in order to have comments documents on all other parties. field to access the document. For considered. The second way to However, the non-party commentors assistance, please contact FERC Online participate is by filing with the will not receive copies of all documents Support at Secretary of the Commission, as soon as filed by other parties or issued by the [email protected] or toll- possible, an original and two copies of Commission (except for the mailing of free at (866) 208–3676, or TYY, contact comments in support of or in opposition environmental documents issued by the (202) 502–8659. to this project. The Commission will Commission) and will not have the right National Fuel proposes to reclassify consider these comments in to seek court review of the Compressor Unit 3 at its Beech Hill determining the appropriate action to be Commission’s final order. compressor station 1 from spare taken, but the filing of a comment alone The Commission encourages horsepower to use on a regular basis. will not serve to make the filer a party electronic submission of protests and National Fuel states that Compressor to the proceeding. The Commission’s interventions in lieu of paper using the Unit 3 is a 2,850-horsepower unit that rules require that persons filing ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.fere.gov. was originally installed to allow for comments in opposition to the project Persons unable to file electronically proper scheduling of maintenance and provide copies of their protests only to should submit an original and seven for having spare capacity available in the party or parties directly involved in copies of the protest or intervention to the event of an interruption in service the protest. the Federal Energy Regulatory by either of the two existing 2,750- Persons who wish to comment only Commission, 888 First Street, NE., horsepower units at the station. on the environmental review of this Washington, DC 20426. This filing is National Fuel also states that by using project should submit an original and accessible on-line at http:// Compressor Unit 3 on a regular basis two copies of their comments to the www.ferc.gov.using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link would allow it to spread the wear and Secretary of the Commission. and is available for review in the tear among the three units, and thereby Environmental commenters will be Commission’s Public Reference Room in optimize operating conditions at the placed on the Commission’s Washington, DC. There is an compressor station. National Fuel environmental mailing list, will receive ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Web site further states that there would be no copies of the environmental documents, that enables subscribers to receive e- modification to the existing horsepower, and will be notified of meetings mail notification when a document is no additional horsepower would be associated with the Commission’s added to a subscribed docket(s). For installed, nor would there be any cost to environmental review process. assistance with any FERC Online reclassify Compressor Unit 3 in this Environmental commenters will not be service, please e-mail proposal. required to serve copies of filed [email protected], or call Any questions regarding Natural documents on all other parties. (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call Fuel’s application should be directed to However, the non-party commenters (202) 502–8659. David W. Reityz, Deputy General will not receive copies of all documents Comment Date: September 6, 2011. Counsel, National Fuel Gas Supply filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of Dated: August 16, 2011. Corporation, 6363 Main Street, environmental documents issued by the Kimberly D. Bose, Williamsville, New York 14221, at (716) 857–7949. Commission) and will not have the right Secretary. to seek court review of the [FR Doc. 2011–21452 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] There are two ways to become involved in the Commission’s review of Commission’s final order. BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Comments, protests and interventions this project. First, any person wishing to may be filed electronically via the obtain legal status by becoming a party Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR to the proceedings for this project DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions should, on or before the comment date on the Commission’s Web site under the Federal Energy Regulatory stated below, file with the Federal ‘‘e-Filing’’ link. Commission Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 Comment Date: September 7, 2011. First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, [Docket No. CP11–533–000] a motion to intervene in accordance Dated: August 17, 2011. Kimberly D. Bose, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; with the requirements of the Notice of Application Commission’s Rules of Practice and Secretary. Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) [FR Doc. 2011–21496 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Take notice that on August 15, 2011, and the Regulations under the NGA (18 BILLING CODE 6717–01–P National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, status will be placed on the service list Williamsville, New York 14221, filed an maintained by the Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY application in Docket No. CP11–533– Commission and will receive copies of 000 pursuant to section 7(c) of the all documents filed by the applicant and Federal Energy Regulatory Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the by all other parties. A party must submit Commission Combined Notice of Commission’s Regulations, to reclassify 14 copies of filings made with the Filings #1 an existing compression unit at the Commission and must mail a copy to Take notice that the Commission Beech Hill compressor station in the applicant and to every other party in received the following electric rate Allegany County, New York, all as more the proceeding. Only parties to the filings: fully set forth in the application which proceeding can ask for court review of Docket Numbers: ER11–4281–000. is on file with the Commission and open Commission orders in the proceeding. Applicants: ISO New England Inc. to public inspection. The filing may also Description: ISO New England Inc. be viewed on the Web at http:// 1 See Penn-York Energy Corporation, 38 FERC ¶ Second Quarter 2011 Capital Budget www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 61,135 (1987). Report.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52651

Filed Date: 08/11/2011. Facilities Upgrade Agreement to be Tariff of ANP Blackstone Energy Accession Number: 20110811–5023. effective 10/12/2011. Company, LLC to be effective 8/13/ Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Filed Date: 08/12/2011 2011. on Thursday, September 01, 2011. Accession Number: 20110812–5034 Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Docket Numbers: ER11–4282–000. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Accession Number: 20110812–5121. Applicants: Midwest Independent on Friday, September 02, 2011 Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Transmission System Operator, Inc. Docket Numbers: ER11–4288–000. on Friday, September 02, 2011. Description: Midwest Independent Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC. Docket Numbers: ER11–4294–000. Transmission System Operator, Inc. Description: ITC Midwest LLC Applicants: NV Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Description: NV Energy, Inc. submits G298 Amended GIA to be effective 8/12/ Filing of Joint Pole Use Agreements to tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Service 2011. be effective 10/12/2011. Agreement No. 10–00979 Amended and Filed Date: 08/11/2011. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Restated LGIA to be effective 7/22/2011. Accession Number: 20110811–5038. Accession Number: 20110812–5037. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Accession Number: 20110812–5135. on Thursday, September 01, 2011. on Friday, September 02, 2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Docket Numbers: ER11–4283–000. Docket Numbers: ER11–4289–000. on Friday, September 02, 2011. Applicants: Alabama Power Applicants: Public Service Company Docket Numbers: ER11–4295–000. Company. of New Mexico. Applicants: ANP Bellingham Energy Description: Alabama Power Description: Public Service Company Company, LLC. Company submits tariff filing per of New Mexico submits tariff filing per Description: ANP Bellingham Energy 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Attachment S (APCO and 35: OATT Service Agreement 172 Company, LLC submits tariff filing per SEGCO) Filing to be effective 1/1/2012. (Baseline) to be effective 8/12/2011. 35: Revisions to Market-Based Rate Filed Date: 08/11/2011. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Tariff of ANP Bellingham Energy Accession Number: 20110811–5113. Accession Number: 20110812–5083. Company, LLC to be effective 8/13/ Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 2011. on Thursday, September 01, 2011. on Friday, September 02, 2011. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Docket Numbers: ER11–4284–000. Docket Numbers: ER11–4290–000. Accession Number: 20110812–5136. Applicants: Georgia Power Company. Applicants: Milford Power Limited Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Description: Georgia Power Company Partnership. on Friday, September 02, 2011. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Description: Milford Power Limited Docket Numbers: ER11–4296–000. FP&L Scherer Unit 4 TSA Amendment Partnership submits tariff filing per 35: Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC. Filing (SEGCO Depreciation Rate Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariff of Description: ITC Midwest LLC Update) to be effective 1/1/2012. Milford Power Limited Partnership to be submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Filed Date: 08/11/2011. effective 8/13/2011. Filing of Electric Service Agreement to Accession Number: 20110811–5114. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. be effective 10/12/2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Accession Number: 20110812–5117. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. on Thursday, September 01, 2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Accession Number: 20110812–5143. Docket Numbers: ER11–4285–000. on Friday, September 02, 2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Applicants: Georgia Power Company. Docket Numbers: ER11–4291–000. on Friday, September 02, 2011. Description: Georgia Power Company Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Docket Numbers: ER11–4297–000. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Company. Applicants: Armstrong Energy JEA Scherer Unit 4 TSA Amendment Description: Kentucky Utilities Limited Partnership, L.L.L.P. Filing (SEGCO Depreciation Rate Company submits tariff filing per Description: Armstrong Energy Update) to be effective 1/1/2012. 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 08_12_11 KU ARAs Limited Partnership, L.L.L.P. submits Filed Date: 08/11/2011. Errata to be effective 8/15/2011. tariff filing per 35: Revisions to Market- Accession Number: 20110811–5115. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Based Rate Tariff of Armstrong Energy Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Accession Number: 20110812–5119. Limited Partnership to be effective 8/13/ on Thursday, September 01, 2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 2011. Docket Numbers: ER11–4286–000. on Friday, September 02, 2011. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Applicants: Arizona Public Service Docket Numbers: ER11–4292–000. Accession Number: 20110812–5149. Company. Applicants: ANP Funding I, LLC. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Description: Arizona Public Service Description: ANP Funding I, LLC on Friday, September 02, 2011. Company submits tariff filing per submits tariff filing per 35: Revisions to Docket Numbers: ER11–4298–000. 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Modifications to APS Market-Based Rate Tariff of ANP Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC. Service Agreement Nos. 51741 and 308 Funding I, LLC to be effective 8/13/ Description: ITC Midwest LLC to be effective 7/8/2011. 2011. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Filing of Operation and Maintenance Accession Number: 20110812–5000. Accession Number: 20110812–5120. Agreement to be effective 10/12/2011. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Filed Date: 08/12/2011. on Friday, September 02, 2011. on Friday, September 02, 2011. Accession Number: 20110812–5151. Docket Numbers: ER11–4287–000 Docket Numbers: ER11–4293–000. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Applicants: Michigan Electric Applicants: ANP Blackstone Energy on Friday, September 02, 2011. Transmission Company, LLC Company, LLC. Docket Numbers: ER11–4299–000. Description: Michigan Electric Description: ANP Blackstone Energy Applicants: Pleasants Energy, LLC. Transmission Company, LLC submits Company, LLC submits tariff filing per Description: Pleasants Energy, LLC tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Filing of 35: Revisions to Market-Based Rate submits tariff filing per 35: Revisions to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52652 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Market-Based Rate Tariff of Pleasants DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Energy, LLC to be effective 8/13/2011. Partners. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Federal Energy Regulatory Description: Dauphin Island Accession Number: 20110812–5152. Commission Gathering Partners submits tariff filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rates 2011–08– Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Combined Notice of Filings on Friday, September 02, 2011. 15 to be effective 8/16/2011. Filed Date: 08/15/2011. Docket Numbers: ER11–4300–000. Take notice that the Commission has Accession Number: 20110815–5122. Applicants: Calumet Energy Team, received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time LLC. on Monday, August 29, 2011. Description: Calumet Energy Team, Filings Instituting Proceedings Any person desiring to intervene or LLC submits tariff filing per 35: Docket Numbers: RP11–2376–000. protest in any of the above proceedings Revisions to Market-Based Rate Tariff of Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas must file in accordance with Rules 211 Calumet Energy Team, LLC to be Company. and 214 of the Commission’s effective 8/13/2011. Description: Eastern Shore Natural Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Gas Company submits tariff filing per 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Accession Number: 20110812–5153. 154.204: DPA Definition Changes to be time on the specified comment date. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time effective 9/14/2011. Protests may be considered, but on Friday, September 02, 2011. Filed Date: 08/15/2011. intervention is necessary to become a Docket Numbers: ER11–4301–000. Accession Number: 20110815–5034. party to the proceeding. Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time The filings are accessible in the Description: ITC Midwest LLC on Monday, August 29, 2011. Commission’s eLibrary system by submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Docket Numbers: RP11–2377–000. clicking on the links or querying the Filing of Facilities Agreement to be Applicants: Gas Transmission docket number. effective 10/12/2011. Northwest LLC. eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Description: Gas Transmission information relating to filing Accession Number: 20110812–5154. Northwest LLC submits Petition for requirements, interventions, protests, Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Approval of Stipulation and Agreement and service can be found at: http:// on Friday, September 02, 2011. of Settlement. www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing- Filed Date: 08/12/2011. req.pdf. For other information, call (866) Docket Numbers: ER11–4302–000. Accession Number: 20110812–5208. 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 502–8659. Description: ITC Midwest LLC on Wednesday, August 24, 2011. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Dated: August 16, 2011. Docket Numbers: RP11–2378–000. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Filing of Interconnection Agreement to Applicants: Carolina Gas Deputy Secretary. be effective 10/12/2011. Transmission Corporation. Filed Date: 08/12/2011. Description: Carolina Gas [FR Doc. 2011–21464 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Accession Number: 20110812–5155. Transmission Corporation submits tariff BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time filing per 154.402: 2011 Annual Charge on Friday, September 02, 2011. Adjustment to be effective 10/1/2011. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY The filings are accessible in the Filed Date: 08/15/2011. Commission’s eLibrary system by Accession Number: 20110815–5039. Federal Energy Regulatory clicking on the links or querying the Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Commission docket number. on Monday, August 29, 2011. Docket Numbers: RP11–2379–000. [Docket No. CP11–128–000; Docket No. Any person desiring to intervene or CP11–133–000] protest in any of the above proceedings Applicants: PostRock KPC Pipeline, must file in accordance with Rules 211 LLC. National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Description: PostRock KPC Pipeline, and 214 of the Commission’s Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; LLC submits tariff filing per 154.313: Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Notice of Availability of the KPC Lease Cost Adjustment/Removal of 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Environmental Assessment for the Lease Provisions to be effective 11/1/ time on the specified comment date. Proposed Northern Access and Station 2011. Protests may be considered, but 230C Projects intervention is necessary to become a Filed Date: 08/15/2011. party to the proceeding. Accession Number: 20110815–5088. The staff of the Federal Energy Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time eFiling is encouraged. More detailed Regulatory Commission (FERC or on Monday, August 29, 2011. information relating to filing Commission) has prepared an requirements, interventions, protests, Docket Numbers: RP11–2380–000. environmental assessment (EA) for service, and qualifying facilities filings Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation’s can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/ Company, LLC. (National Fuel) proposed Northern docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For Description: Florida Gas Transmission Access Project and Tennessee Gas other information, call (866) 208–3676 Company, LLC submits tariff filing per Pipeline Company’s (TGP) proposed (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. 154.203: Compliance with CP09–455– Station 230C Project in the above 000 to be effective 9/30/2011. referenced dockets. National Fuel and Dated: August 12, 2011. Filed Date: 08/15/2011. TGP request authorization to construct Kimberly D. Bose, Accession Number: 20110815–5121. facilities in Pennsylvania and New York Secretary. Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time to provide an additional 320,000 [FR Doc. 2011–21455 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] on Monday, August 29, 2011. dekatherms per day of natural gas to BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Docket Numbers: RP11–2381–000. TransCanada Corporation. Because both

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52653

companies would construct their interest groups; Native American tribes; 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the respective proposed facilities to provide potentially affected landowners and right to seek rehearing of the these additional volumes, we analyzed other interested individuals and groups; Commission’s decision. them jointly in one EA. newspapers and libraries in the project Affected landowners and parties with The EA assesses the potential area; and parties to this proceeding. environmental concerns may be granted environmental effects of the Any person wishing to comment on construction and operation of National the EA may do so. Your comments intervenor status upon showing good Fuel’s and TGP’s proposed projects in should focus on the potential cause by stating that they have a clear accordance with the requirements of the environmental effects, reasonable and direct interest in this proceeding National Environmental Policy Act alternatives, and measures to avoid or which would not be adequately (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that lessen environmental impacts. The more represented by any other parties. You do approval of the proposed projects, with specific your comments, the more useful not need intervenor status to have your appropriate mitigating measures, would they will be. To ensure that your comments considered. not constitute a major federal action comments are properly recorded and Additional information about the significantly affecting the quality of the considered prior to a Commission project is available from the human environment. decision on the proposal, it is important Commission’s Office of External Affairs, National Fuel’s project includes the that the FERC receives your comments at (866) 208–FERC or on the FERC Web in Washington, DC on or before following facilities: site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the • September 16, 2011. A new East Aurora Compressor eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, Station, totaling 4,470-horsepower (hp), For your convenience, there are three click on ‘‘General Search’’ and enter the and auxiliary facilities in Erie County, methods you can use to submit your docket number excluding the last three New York; comments to the Commission. In all • Piping modifications at the existing instances, please reference the project digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., Concord Compressor Station in Erie docket number (CP11–128–000 or CP11–128 or CP11–133). Be sure you County, to permit bi-directional flow; CP11–133–000) with your submission. have selected an appropriate date range. • Modifications to underground The Commission encourages electronic For assistance, please contact FERC piping and valves at the existing East filing of comments and has dedicated Online Support at Eden Metering and Regulation facility in eFiling expert staff available to assist [email protected] or toll free Erie County; you at (202) 502–8258 or at (866) 208–3676, or for TTY, contact • Expansion of the Ellisburg [email protected]. (202) 502–8659. The eLibrary link also Compressor Station with two new (1) You may file your comments provides access to the texts of formal compressor units, totaling 9,470-hp, on electronically by using the eComment documents issued by the Commission, an adjacent lot in Potter County, feature, which is located on the such as orders, notices, and Pennsylvania; and Commission’s Web site at http:// rulemakings. • A new Rose Lake Meter Station and www.ferc.gov under the link to auxiliary piping/facilities at the Documents and Filings. An eComment In addition, the Commission offers a Ellisburg Compressor Station. is an easy method for interested persons free service called eSubscription which TGP’s project consists of the following to submit brief, text-only comments on allows you to keep track of all formal facility modifications at its existing a project; issuances and submittals in specific Station 230C Compressor Station in (2) You may file your comments dockets. This can reduce the amount of Niagara County, New York: electronically by using the eFiling time you spend researching proceedings • New Solar Centaur natural gas-fired feature, which is located on the by automatically providing you with turbines for compressor units A2 and Commission’s Web site at http:// notification of these filings, document A3 and restaging of centrifugal www.ferc.gov under the link to summaries, and direct links to the compressors for units A2, A3, and A4 Documents and Filings. With eFiling documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/ for bi-directional flow; you can provide comments in a variety esubscribenow.htm. • New station cooling equipment and of formats by attaching them as a file discharge flow check meters and check with your submission. New eFiling Dated: August 16, 2011. valves along the existing 20- and 30- users must first create an account by Kimberly D. Bose, inch Niagara Spur Loop Line pipelines; clicking on ‘‘eRegister.’’ You will be Secretary. and asked to select the type of filing you are [FR Doc. 2011–21451 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] • Modification to station piping and making. A comment on a particular BILLING CODE 6717–01–P automation systems, and installation of project is considered a ‘‘Comment on a yard valves to allow bi-directional flow. Filing’’; or The EA has been placed in the public (3) You may file a paper copy of your files of the FERC and is available for comments at the following address: public viewing on the FERC’s Web site Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal at http://www.ferc.gov using the Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 eLibrary link. A limited number of First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, copies of the EA are available for DC 20426. distribution and public inspection at: Although your comments will be Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, considered by the Commission, simply Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, filing comments will not serve to make NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, the commentor a party to the (202) 502–8371. proceeding. Any person seeking to Copies of the EA have been mailed to become a party to the proceeding must federal, state, and local government file a motion to intervene pursuant to 1 Interventions may also be filed electronically via representatives and agencies; elected Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of the Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous officials; environmental and public Practice and Procedures (18 CFR discussion on filing comments electronically.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52654 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY including the use of eminent domain received will be considered during the and how to participate in the preparation of the EA. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s proceedings. It is also In the EA we will discuss impacts that Commission available for viewing on the FERC Web could occur as a result of the [Docket No. CP11–515–000] site (http://www.ferc.gov). construction and operation of the proposed project under these general Summary of the Proposed Project Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC; headings: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Millennium proposes to construct and • Geology and soils; • Environmental Assessment for the operate one new compressor station in Land use; • Water resources and wetlands; Proposed Minisink Compressor Minisink, New York. The Minisink • Project, Request for Comments on Compressor Project would allow Cultural resources; • Vegetation and wildlife; Environmental Issues, and Notice of Millennium to increase natural gas • Air quality and noise; Public Scoping Meeting deliveries to its existing interconnection • Endangered and threatened species; with Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC The staff of the Federal Energy and at Ramapo, New York, to approximately Regulatory Commission (FERC or • Public safety. 675,000 dekatherms per day. Commission) will prepare an We will also evaluate reasonable environmental assessment (EA) that will The project would consist of the alternatives to the proposed project, and discuss the environmental impacts of following facilities: make recommendations on how to the Minisink Compressor Project • Two 6,130-horsepower natural gas- lessen or avoid impacts on the various involving construction and operation of fired compressor units at the new resource areas. facilities by Millennium Pipeline Minisink Compressor Station; Our independent analysis of the Company, LLC (Millennium) in • Approximately 1,090 feet of 36- issues will be presented in the EA. The Minisink, New York. This EA will be inch-diameter pipeline for suction and EA will be placed in the public record used by the Commission in its decision- discharge to the existing Millennium and, depending on the comments making process to determine whether mainline; and received during the scoping process, the project is in the public convenience • Associated ancillary facilities. may be published and distributed to the and necessity. public. A comment period will be The general location of the project allotted if the EA is published for This notice announces the opening of 1 the scoping process the Commission facilities is shown in appendix 1. review. We will consider all comments will use to gather input from the public Land Requirements for Construction on the EA before we make our and interested agencies on the project. recommendations to the Commission. Your input will help the Commission Construction of the proposed facilities To ensure your comments are staff determine what issues need to be would take place on a 10.5-acre plot considered, please carefully follow the evaluated in the EA. Please note that the entirely within a 74.3-acre parcel of instructions in the Public Participation scoping period will close on September land that is owned by Millennium. section below. 16, 2011. Following construction, 3.3 acres would With this notice, we are asking Comments may be submitted in be maintained permanently for agencies with jurisdiction and/or written form or verbally. Further details operation of the Minisink Compressor special expertise with respect to on how to submit written comments are Station. environmental issues to formally provided in the Public Participation The EA Process cooperate with us in the preparation of section of this notice. In lieu of or in the EA. These agencies may choose to addition to sending written comments, The National Environmental Policy participate once they have evaluated the we invite you to attend the public Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to proposal relative to their scoping meeting scheduled as follows: take into account the environmental responsibilities. Agencies that would FERC Public Scoping Meeting, Minisink impacts that could result from an action like to request cooperating agency status Compressor Project, September 6, 2011, whenever it considers the issuance of a should follow the instructions for filing 7 p.m., Minisink Town Hall, 20 Roy Certificate of Public Convenience and comments provided under the Public Smith Dr., Westtown, NY 10998. Necessity. NEPA also requires us 2 to Participation section of this notice. The Commission staff will also attend discover and address concerns the Millennium’s public open house on public may have about proposals. This Public Participation August 23, 2011, in Westtown, New process is referred to as ‘‘scoping.’’ The You can make a difference by York. Notice of this public open house main goal of the scoping process is to providing us with your specific was sent to all affected landowners by focus the analysis in the EA on the comments or concerns about the project. Millennium on August 11, 2011. important environmental issues. By this Your comments should focus on the This notice is being sent to the notice, the Commission requests public potential environmental effects, Commission’s current environmental comments on the scope of the issues to reasonable alternatives, and measures to mailing list for this project. State and address in the EA. All comments avoid or lessen environmental impacts. local government representatives are The more specific your comments, the asked to notify their constituents of this 1 The appendices referenced in this notice are not more useful they will be. To ensure that proposed project and encourage them to being printed in the Federal Register. Copies of your comments are timely and properly comment on their areas of concern. appendices were sent to all those receiving this recorded, please send your comments so notice in the mail and are available at http:// A fact sheet prepared by the FERC www.ferc.gov using the link called ‘‘eLibrary’’ or that they will be received in entitled ‘‘An Interstate Natural Gas from the Commission’s Public Reference Room, 888 Washington, DC on or before September Facility On My Land? What Do I Need First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call 16, 2011. To Know?’’ was attached to the project (202) 502–8371. For instructions on connecting to For your convenience, there are three eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. notice Millennium provided to 2 ‘‘We,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the methods which you can use to submit landowners. This fact sheet addresses a environmental staff of the Commission’s Office of your comments to the Commission. In number of typically-asked questions, Energy Projects. all instances please reference the project

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52655

docket number (CP11–515–000) with Becoming an Intervenor DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of In addition to involvement in the EA Federal Energy Regulatory comments and has expert eFiling staff scoping process, you may want to Commission available to assist you at (202) 502–8258 become an ‘‘intervenor’’ which is an or [email protected]. official party to the Commission’s [Project No. 606–027—California] (1) You may file your comments proceeding. Intervenors play a more electronically by using the eComment formal role in the process and are able Pacific Gas and Electric Company; feature, which is located on the to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be Notice of Availability of the Final Commission’s Web site at http:// heard by the courts if they choose to Environmental Impact Statement for www.ferc.gov under the link to appeal the Commission’s final ruling. the Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Documents and Filings. An eComment An intervenor formally participates in Project is an easy method for interested persons the proceeding by filing a request to In accordance with the National to submit brief, text-only comments on intervene. Instructions for becoming an Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as a project; intervenor are included in the User’s amended, and the Federal Energy (2) You may file your comments Guide under the ‘‘e-filing’’ link on the Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) electronically by using the eFiling Commission’s Web site. feature, which is located on the regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. Commission’s Web site at http:// Additional Information 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application, www.ferc.gov under the link to Additional information about the Documents and Filings. With eFiling, filed March 12, 2009, requesting project is available from the you can provide comments in a variety surrender of the Kilarc-Cow Creek Commission’s Office of External Affairs, of formats by attaching them as a file Project (FERC No. 606) license. The with your submission. New eFiling at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC Web project is located on Old Cow Creek, users must first create an account by site at http://www.ferc.gov using the South Cow Creek, and tributaries in clicking on ‘‘eRegister.’’ You will be ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Click on the eLibrary Shasta County, California. The Draft asked to select the type of filing you are link, click on ‘‘General Search’’ and Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) making. A comment on a particular enter the docket number, excluding the was issued for public comment on June project is considered a ‘‘Comment on a last three digits in the Docket Number 22, 2010, followed by two public Filing’’; or field (i.e., CP11–515). Be sure you have meetings. Commission staff has prepared the Final Environmental (3) You may file a paper copy of your selected an appropriate date range. For Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project. comments at the following address: assistance, please contact FERC Online Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Support at [email protected] The FEIS contains staff’s evaluation of Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 or toll free at (866) 208–3676, or for the licensee’s proposal and the First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, TTY, contact (202) 502–8659. The alternatives for surrendering the license DC 20426. eLibrary link also provides access to the of the Kilarc-Cow Creek Project. The texts of formal documents issued by the FEIS documents the views of Environmental Mailing List Commission, such as orders, notices, governmental agencies, non- governmental organizations, affected The environmental mailing list and rulemakings. includes Federal, State, and local Indian tribes, the public, the licensee, In addition, the Commission now government representatives and and Commission staff. offers a free service called eSubscription agencies; elected officials; A copy of the FEIS is available for environmental and public interest which allows you to keep track of all review in the Commission’s Public groups; Native American Tribes; other formal issuances and submittals in Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at interested parties; and local libraries specific dockets. This can reduce the 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC and newspapers. This list also includes amount of time you spend researching 20426. The FEIS also may be viewed on all affected landowners (as defined in proceedings by automatically providing the Commission’s Web site at http:// the Commission’s regulations) who own you with notification of these filings, www.ferc.gov, under the eLibrary link. property or homes within a certain document summaries, and direct links Enter the docket number excluding the distance of the proposed compressor to the documents. Go to http:// last three digits in the docket number station site and anyone who submits www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. field to access the document. For comments on the project. We will Finally, public meetings or site visits assistance, contact FERC Online update the environmental mailing list as will be posted on the Commission’s Support at [email protected] or toll- the analysis proceeds to ensure that we calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/ free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, send the information related to this EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along (202) 502–8659. environmental review to all individuals, with other related information. organizations, and government entities You may also register online at interested in and/or potentially affected Dated: August 17, 2011. http: by the proposed project. Kimberly D. Bose, //www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ If the EA is published for distribution, Secretary. esubscription.asp to be notified via e- copies will be sent to the environmental [FR Doc. 2011–21497 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] mail of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. mailing list for public review and BILLING CODE 6717–01–P comment. If you would prefer to receive For assistance, contact FERC Online a paper copy of the document instead of Support. the CD version or would like to remove For further information, contact the your name from the mailing list, please environmental coordinator, CarLisa return the attached Information Request Linton-Peters at (202) 502–8416, or via (appendix 2). e-mail at [email protected].

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52656 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Dated: August 16, 2011. days from the issuance of this notice. sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if Kimberly D. Bose, Competing applications and notices of issued, is to grant the permit holder Secretary. intent must meet the requirements of 18 priority to file a license application [FR Doc. 2011–21449 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to during the permit term. A preliminary BILLING CODE 6717–01–P intervene, notices of intent, and permit does not authorize the permit competing applications may be filed holder to perform any land-disturbing electronically via the Internet. See 18 activities or otherwise enter upon lands DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the or waters owned by others without the instructions on the Commission’s Web owners’ express permission. Federal Energy Regulatory site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ The proposed project would consist of Commission efiling.asp. Commenters can submit the following: (1) Two prefabricated [Project No. 14211–000] brief comments up to 6,000 characters, concrete walls attached to the without prior registration, using the downstream side of the Corps’ dam Rhode Island Department of eComment system at http:// which would support one frame Environmental Management; Notice of www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ module; (2) the frame module would be Preliminary Permit Application ecomment.asp. You must include your 40 feet wide and weigh 0.65 million Accepted for Filing and Soliciting name and contact information at the end pounds and contain 6 generating units Comments, Motions To Intervene, and of your comments. For assistance, with a total combined capacity of 4.5 Competing Applications please contact FERC Online Support at megawatts (MW); (3) a tailrace [email protected] or toll approximately 175 feet long, lined with On June 10, 2011, the Rhode Island free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, riprap; (4) a new switchyard containing Department of Environmental (202) 502–8659. Although the a transformer; and (5) a proposed 1.3- Management filed an application for a Commission strongly encourages mile-long, 34.5-kilovolt (kV) preliminary permit, pursuant to section electronic filing, documents may also be transmission line connecting to an 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an existing line. The proposed project proposing to study the feasibility of the original and seven copies to: Kimberly would have an average annual Elizabeth Webbing Hydroelectric Project D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy generation of 25.64 gigawatt-hours, to be located on the Blackstone River, in Regulatory Commission, 888 First which would be sold to a local utility Central Falls, Providence County, Rhode Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. or the Regional Independent System Island. The sole purpose of a More information about this project, Operator. preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant including a copy of the application, can Applicant Contact: Mr. Wayne the permit holder priority to file a be viewed or printed on the ‘‘eLibrary’’ Krouse, Lock + Hydro Friends Fund VII, license application during the permit 5090 Richmond Avenue #390, Houston, link of Commission’s Web site at http: term. A preliminary permit does not TX 77056; phone (877) 556–6566 x709. //www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. authorize the permit holder to perform FERC Contact: Tim Looney; phone: Enter the docket number (P–14211–000) any land-disturbing activities or (202) 502–6096. in the docket number field to access the otherwise enter upon lands or waters Deadline for filing comments, motions document. For assistance, contact FERC owned by others without the owners’ to intervene, competing applications Online Support. express permission. (without notices of intent), or notices of The proposed project would consist of Dated: August 16, 2011. intent to file competing applications: the following: (1) The existing 10-foot- Kimberly D. Bose, 60 days from the issuance of this notice. high, 156-foot-long granite masonry Secretary. Competing applications and notices of Elizabeth Webbing Dam with proposed [FR Doc. 2011–21448 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to 12-inch-high flashboards; (2) an existing BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 26-acre impoundment with a normal intervene, notices of intent, and maximum water surface elevation of competing applications may be filed 34.9 feet (NGVD 1929); (3) an existing DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY electronically via the Internet. See 18 trashrack and 40-foot-wide, 39-foot-long CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the headrace; (4) an existing 40-foot-wide, Federal Energy Regulatory instructions on the Commission’s Web 70-foot-long powerhouse containing a Commission site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ efiling.asp. Commenters can submit 745-kilowatt turbine connected to a [Project No. 14243–000] generator; (5) an existing tailrace; (6) brief comments up to 6,000 characters, proposed 400-foot-long, 5-kilovolt and Lock+Hydro Friends Fund VII; Notice without prior registration, using the 70-foot-long, 15-kilovolt transmission of Preliminary Permit Application eComment system at http:// lines; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The Accepted for Filing and Soliciting www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ project would have an estimated annual Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ecomment.asp. You must include your generation of 4,360 megawatt-hours. Competing Applications name and contact information at the end Applicant Contact: Catherine Sparks, of your comments. For assistance, Chief, Division of Forest Environment, On August 4, 2011, Lock+Hydro please contact FERC Online Support at Rhode Island Department of Friends Fund VII, filed an application [email protected] or toll Environmental Management, 235 for a preliminary permit, pursuant to free at 1–866–208–3676, or for TTY, Promenade Street, Providence, RI section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (202) 502–8659. Although the 02908; phone: (401) 222–4700. (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility Commission strongly encourages FERC Contact: Brandon Cherry; of hydropower at the U.S. Army Corps electronic filing, documents may also be phone: (202) 502–8328. of Engineers’ (Corps) Shamokin Dam. paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an Deadline for filing comments, motions The Shamokin Dam Project (project) original and seven copies to: Kimberly to intervene, competing applications would be located on the Susquehanna D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy (without notices of intent), or notices of River, near the town of Shamokin Dam, Regulatory Commission, 888 First intent to file competing applications: 60 in Snyder County, Pennsylvania. The Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52657

More information about this project, can submit brief comments up to 6,000 exemptee that it was in violation of the including a copy of the application, can characters, without prior registration, terms and conditions of the exemption. be viewed or printed on the ‘‘eLibrary’’ using the eComment system at http:// The Commission required the exemptee link of the Commission’s Web site at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ to show cause within 30 days why the http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ ecomment.asp. You must include your exemption should not be revoked. The elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number name and contact information at the end exemptee did not file a response. To (P–14243–000) in the docket number of your comments. Please include the date, the exemptee has failed to file the field to access the document. For project number (P–4754–004) on any information requested by Commission assistance, contact FERC Online documents or motions filed. staff and the project remains Support. j. Description of Existing Facilities: inoperative. The inoperative project consists of the l. This notice is available for review Dated: August 17, 2011. following existing facilities: (1) An and reproduction at the Commission in Kimberly D. Bose, earthfill dam approximately 339 feet the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, Secretary. long and 17 feet high with an ungated 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC [FR Doc. 2011–21495 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] spillway about 150 feet long; (2) a 20426. The filing may also be viewed on BILLING CODE 6717–01–P reservoir of approximately 21 acres and the Commission’s Web site at http:// a maximum storage capacity of www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. approximately 171 acre-feet; (3) an Enter the docket number (P–4754) in the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY approach channel approximately 1,000 docket number field to access the feet long and 8 feet wide at the bottom; notice. You may also register online at Federal Energy Regulatory (4) a 3-foot-diameter, 355-foot-long steel http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ Commission penstock; (5) a powerhouse containing esubscription.asp to be notified via [Project No. 4754–004] two generating units: Unit No. 1 consists e-mail of new filings and issuances of a 300-kW generator connected to a related to this or other pending projects. Herschel L. Webster; Revonda Amthor; 190-kW turbine, and Unit No. 2 consists For assistance, call toll-free 1–866–208– Notice of Termination of Exemption by of a 200-kW generator connected to a 3676 or e-mail Implied Surrender and Soliciting 85-kW turbine; (6) a two-mile-long, [email protected]. For TTY, Comments, Protests, and Motions To 14.4-kV transmission line; and (7) call (202) 502–8659. Intervene appurtenant facilities. m. Individuals desiring to be included k. Description of Proceeding: The on the Commission’s mailing list should Take notice that the following exemptee is currently in violation of so indicate by writing to the Secretary hydroelectric proceeding has been Standard Article 1 of its exemption of the Commission. initiated by the Commission: granted on May 11, 1982 (19 FERC n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To a. Type of Proceeding: Termination of ¶62,223). Section 4.106 of the Intervene—Anyone may submit exemption by implied surrender. Commission’s regulations, 18 CFR comments, a protest, or a motion to b. Project No.: 4754–004. 4.106, provides, among other things, intervene in accordance with the c. Date Initiated: August 16, 2011. that the Commission reserves the right requirements of Rules of Practice and d. Exemptee: Herschel L. Webster/ to revoke an exemption if any term or Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, Revonda Amthor. condition of the exemption is violated. and 385.214. In determining the e. Name and Location of Project: The The project has not operated since 1996 appropriate action to take, the Webster Lake Project is located on and has been abandoned by the Commission will consider all protests White Creek near Cleveland, in White exemptee. By not operating the project filed, but only those who file a motion County, Georgia. as proposed and authorized, the to intervene in accordance with the f. Issued Pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.106. exemptee is in violation of the terms Commission’s Rules may become a g. Exemptee Contact Information: Mr. and conditions of the exemption. party to the proceeding. Any protests or Herschel L. Webster, c/o Ms. Glenda On February 15, 2006, the motions to intervene must be received Maher or Ms. Revonda Amthor, 245 Commission staff sent the exemptee a on or before the specified deadline date Stephens Drive, Cleveland, GA 30528; letter concerning the non-operating for the particular proceeding. phone (706) 865–4267. status of its project and requested o. Filing and Service of Responsive h. FERC Contact: Diane M. Murray, information on its future plans for the Documents—Any filing must: (1) Bear (202) 502–8838, or project or for the surrender of the in all capital letters the title [email protected]. exemption. The exemptee did not file a ‘‘COMMENTS,’’ ‘‘PROTEST,’’ or i. Deadline for filing comments, response. On November 29, 2006, the ‘‘MOTION TO INTERVENE,’’ as protests, and motions to intervene is 30 Commission staff again sent a letter applicable; (2) set forth in the heading days from the issuance date of this stating that the Commission may the project number of the proceeding to notice. All documents may be filed consider the failure of the exemptee to which the filing responds; (3) furnish electronically via the Internet in lieu of repair the project as its intent to the name, address, and telephone paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) surrender the exemption. The exemptee number of the person commenting, and the instructions on the did not file a response. protesting or intervening; and (4) Commission’s Web site at http:// On June 25, 2009, Commission staff otherwise comply with the requirements www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. required the exemptee to file a plan to of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. The Commission strongly encourages address non-compliance issues within All comments, protests or motions to electronic filings. If unable to be filed 45 days and again informed the intervene must set forth their electronically, documents may be paper- exemptee that the Commission may evidentiary basis and otherwise comply filed. To paper-file, an original and consider its failure to address the non- with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). seven copies should be sent to: The compliance issues as its intent to All comments, protests, or motions to Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory surrender the exemption. The exemptee intervene should relate to project works, Commission, 888 First Street, NE., failed to respond. On April 12, 2011, which are the subject of the termination Washington, DC 20426. Commenters Commission staff informed the of exemption. A copy of any protest or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52658 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

motion to intervene must be served all other remaining facilities not facilities and hatcheries; Phase II upon each representative of the previously transferred in Phases I–III. includes federal facilities, stormwater exemptee specified in item g above. If The EPA approved the one year program, pretreatment program, and an intervener files comments or extension for Phase IV. Phase IV will miscellaneous non-domestic discharges; documents with the Commission transfer to ADEC four years from the and Phase III includes mining. The relating to the merits of an issue that date of program approval, or October 31, original ADEC phasing schedule may affect the responsibilities of a 2012. Upon approval of the program authorized the transfer of Phase IV three particular resource agency, they must revision, the Regional Administrator years from APDES program approval, or also serve a copy of the document on notified the State and signed the October 31, 2011. Phase IV components that resource agency. A copy of all other modified Memorandum of Agreement include oil and gas, cooling water filings in reference to this notice must (MOA) between EPA and ADEC. The intakes and dischargers, munitions, and be accompanied by proof of service on EPA will suspend issuance of applicable all other remaining facilities not all persons listed in the service list NPDES permits in Alaska in accordance previously transferred in Phases I–III. with the extension for transfer of NPDES prepared by the Commission in this A. Scope of APDES Program Revision proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR program authority for Phase IV. 4.34(b) and 385.2010. DATES: Pursuant to 40 CFR 123.62(b), ADEC proposed a delay of the Phase p. Agency Comments—Federal, state, the APDES program revision was IV transfer for one year, or until October and local agencies are invited to file approved and became effective on 31, 2012, by letter dated March 14, comments on the described proceeding. August 11, 2011. 2011. ADEC also submitted a modified If any agency does not file comments FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To APDES program description and a within the time specified for filing obtain further information or copies of modified MOA related to the APDES comments, it will be presumed to have related documents, contact Hanh Shaw, program revision. The only changes no comments. Office of Water and Watersheds, U.S. proposed to the program description related to the one year extension for the Dated: August 17, 2011. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900, transfer of the Phase IV program Kimberly D. Bose, component and updating of the Phase Secretary. Mail Stop OWW–130, Seattle, WA 98101–3140, (206) 553–0171, IV permit list. The modifications [FR Doc. 2011–21499 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] [email protected] or Theresa incorporated the proposed one year BILLING CODE 6717–01–P Svancara, [email protected], extension of the Phase IV transfer. The APDES program revision was Alaska Department of Environmental described in the Federal Register (76 FR Conservation, P.O. Box 111800, 410 28027) published on May 13, 2011. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303, Juneau, Notice of the program revision was AGENCY AK 99811–1800, (907) 465–5257, published in two Alaska newspapers. A [FRL–9455–8] [email protected]. The public comment period was held from ADEC’s modified program description, May 13–June 27, 2011. A public hearing State Program Requirements; the modified MOA related to the on the program revision was held in Approval of Application for Program approved APDES program revision and Anchorage, Alaska on June 13, 2011. Revision to the National Pollutant the EPA’s responses to comments can be Additionally, the EPA held government- Discharge Elimination System viewed and downloaded from the EPA to-government consultation (NPDES) Program; Alaska Web site http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/ teleconferences on April 26, 27 and 28, water.nsf/NPDES+Permits/apdes and AGENCY: Environmental Protection 2011 for interested tribes Agency (EPA). from the ADEC Web site http://www. dec.state.ak.us/water/npdes/index.htm. B. Public Comments ACTION: Notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section The EPA received comments SUMMARY: On August 11, 2011, the 402 of the CWA created the NPDES concerning the APDES program Regional Administrator for the program under which the EPA may revision, including comments in Environmental Protection Agency, issue permits for the point source support of the Phase IV extension. The Region 10 (EPA), approved the discharge of pollutants to waters of the EPA did not receive any comments application by the State of Alaska to United States under conditions required urging the EPA to disapprove the revise Alaska’s National Pollutant by the Act. Section 402 also provides requested program revision. One Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) that the EPA may approve a State to commenter did not support a time program pursuant to section 402 of the administer an equivalent state NPDES extension for any greater length of time. Clean Water Act (CWA or ‘‘the Act’’). program. The EPA approved the APDES A Tribal association suggested that the The revised State program, called the program application on October 31, EPA consider adopting stipulations Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination 2008. The APDES program application related to jurisdiction issues and System (APDES), includes an was described in the Federal Register authorities of federally-recognized tribal implementation plan that transfers the (73 FR 34746) published on June 18, governments in Alaska. All public administration of specific program 2008. The approved program authorized comments are addressed in the EPA components from EPA to the Alaska ADEC to assume responsibility for the response to comments document dated Department of Environmental NPDES program in four phases over August 2011, which can be viewed and Conservation (ADEC) in four phases. three years from the date of APDES downloaded from the EPA Web site Phases I–III have been transferred from program approval. ADEC currently has http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/ the EPA to ADEC. In March 2011, ADEC NPDES permit administration authority NPDES+Permits/apdes. made a submission for approval for a for Phases I–III. These three phases one year extension of the transfer of cover the following major components: C. Notice of Decision Phase IV of the APDES program, which Phase I includes domestic discharges I hereby provide public notice that the includes oil and gas, cooling water (excluding the bio-solids program), EPA has taken final action approving intakes and dischargers, munitions and timber harvesting, seafood processing the APDES program revision extending

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52659

the Phase IV transfer date to October 31, Instructions: Direct your comments to B. How can I get copies of this document 2012. Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011– and other related information? Authority: This action is taken under 0621. EPA’s policy is that all comments 1. Electronically the authority of Section 402 of the Clean received will be included in the public Water Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1342. docket without change and may be EPA has included a public docket for made available online at http:// this Federal Register notice under Dated: August 16, 2011. Docket EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0621. www.regulations.gov, including any Dennis McLerran, All documents in the docket are Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental personal information provided, unless identified in the docket index available Protection, Region 10. the comment includes information at http://www.regulations.gov. Although [FR Doc. 2011–21538 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] claimed to be confidential business listed in the index, some information is BILLING CODE 6560–50–P information (CBI) or other information not publicly available, such as whose disclosure is restricted by statute. confidential business information (CBI) Do not submit information that you or other information for which ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION consider to be CBI or otherwise disclosure is restricted by statute. AGENCY protected through http:// Certain materials, such as copyrighted www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The material, will only be available in hard [EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0621; FRL–9455–5] http://www.regulations.gov Web site is copy at the EPA Docket Center. Access by EPA Contractors to an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 2. EPA Docket Center means EPA will not know your identity Confidential Business Information Materials listed under Docket EPA– (CBI) Related to the Greenhouse Gas or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. HQ–OAR–2011–0621 will be available Reporting Program for public viewing at the EPA Docket If you send an e-mail comment directly Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room AGENCY: Environmental Protection to EPA without going through http:// Agency (EPA). 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., www.regulations.gov your e-mail Washington, DC 20460. The EPA Docket ACTION: Notice. address will be automatically captured Center Public Reading Room is open and included as part of the comment SUMMARY: from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday EPA’s Office of Atmospheric that is placed in the public docket and Programs plans to authorize the through Friday, excluding legal made available on the Internet. If you contractors named in this notice to holidays. The telephone number for the submit an electronic comment, EPA access information that will be Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and submitted to EPA under the Greenhouse recommends that you include your the telephone number for the Air Docket Gas Reporting Program that may be name and other contact information in is (202) 566–1742. the body of your comment and with any designated or claimed as confidential B. What should I consider as I prepare disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA business information. Contractor access my comments to EPA? to this information will begin on August cannot read your comment due to 29, 2011. technical difficulties and cannot contact 1. Submitting CBI in Response to This Notice DATES: EPA will accept comments on you for clarification, EPA may not be this Notice through August 29, 2011. able to consider your comment. Clearly mark the part or all of the Electronic files should avoid the use of comments that you claim to be CBI ADDRESSES: You may submit your special characters, any form of comments, identified by Docket ID No. submitted in response to this notice. For EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0621 by any of the encryption, and be free of any defects or CBI information in a disk or CD ROM following methods: viruses. that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// identify electronically within the disk or www.regulations.gov. Follow the Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, CD ROM the specific information that is online instructions for submitting Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– claimed as CBI. In addition to one comments. 6207J), Environmental Protection _ complete version of the comment that E-mail: MRR [email protected]. Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., includes information claimed as CBI, a Include Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– Washington, DC 20460; telephone copy of the comment that does not OAR–2011–0621 in the subject line of number: (202) 343–9263; fax number: contain the information claimed as CBI the message. (202) 343–2342; e-mail address: must be submitted for inclusion in the Fax: (202) 566–9744. [email protected]. public docket. Information marked as Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, CBI will not be disclosed except in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), accordance with procedures set forth in Mailcode 2822T, Attention Docket ID I. Background and Comment 40 CFR part 2. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0621, 1200 Information If you have any questions about CBI Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., or the procedures for claiming CBI, Washington, DC 20004. A. Does this notice apply to me? please consult the person identified in Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT This notice is directed to the general Center, Public Reading Room, EPA section. West Building, Room 3334, 1301 public. However, this action may be of Constitution Avenue, NW., particular interest to parties subject to 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments Washington, DC 20004. Such the requirements of 40 CFR part 98. If When submitting comments, deliveries are only accepted during you have further questions regarding the remember to: the Docket’s normal hours of applicability of this action to a Identify this Notice by docket number operation, and special arrangements particular party, please contact the and other identifying information (e.g., should be made for deliveries of person listed in FOR FURTHER subject heading, Federal Register date boxed information. INFORMATION CONTACT. and page number).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52660 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Follow directions. EPA may ask you the GHGRP that is designated or Access to data, including information to respond to specific questions or claimed as CBI. EPA is providing notice designated or claimed as CBI, will organize comments by referencing a and an opportunity to comment and is commence on August 29, 2011 and will CFR part or section number. issuing this Federal Register notice to continue until the termination of this Describe any assumptions and inform all reporters of information contract. If the contract is extended, this provide any technical information and/ under part 98 that EPA plans to grant access will continue for the remainder or data that you used. access to material that may be of the contract and any further Provide specific examples to illustrate designated or claimed as CBI to the extensions without further notice. your concerns and suggest alternatives. contractors identified below, as needed. Under Contract Number EP–W–07– Explain your views as clearly as Under Contract Number GS–10F– 068 Task Order 91, ICF International, possible, avoiding the use of profanity 0036K, Eastern Research Group, 110 1725 I Street, NW., Suite 1000, or personal threats. Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421, Washington, DC 20006, and its Make sure to submit your comments provides technical support that requires subcontractors, Glew Engineering, 240 by the deadline identified in the access to information designated or Pamela Drive, Mountain View, CA preceding section titled DATES. To claimed as CBI related to the GHGRP 94040, J Marks & Associates, L.L.C., 312 ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to including, but not limited to, research NE. Brockton Drive, Lee Summit, MO identify the docket ID number assigned on data elements for all subparts. Access 64064, and Donald Wubbles, 105 S. to this action in the subject line on the to data, including information Gregory Street, Urbana, IL 61801, first page of your response. You may designated or claimed as CBI, will provide technical support that requires also provide the name, date, and commence on August 29, 2011 and will access to information designated or Federal Register citation. continue until the termination of this claimed as CBI related to the GHGRP, II. Description of Programs and contract. If the contract is extended, this including, but not limited to, 40 CFR Potential Disclosure of Information access will continue for the remainder part 98, subparts F, I, T, DD, OO, QQ, Claimed as Confidential Business of the contract and any further and SS, as well as Best Available Information to Contractors extensions without further notice. Monitoring Method (BAMM) petitions. Under Contract Number EP–W–07– Access to data, including information EPA’s Office of Atmospheric 067 Task Order 76, Eastern Research designated or claimed as CBI, will Programs (OAP) has responsibility for Group, 110 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, commence on August 29, 2011 and will protecting public health and the MA 02421, provides technical support continue until the termination of this environment by addressing climate that requires access to information contract. If the contract is extended, this change, protecting the ozone layer, and designated or claimed as CBI related to access will continue for the remainder improving regional air quality. In the GHGRP, including, but not limited of the contract and any further response to the FY2008 Consolidated to, 40 CFR part 98, subparts H and FF. extensions without further notice. Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764; Pub. L. Access to data, including information Under Contract Number EP–W–07– 110–161), EPA created the Greenhouse designated or claimed as CBI, will 068 Task Order 93, ICF International, Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), 40 commence on August 29, 2011 and will 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031, CFR part 98 (part 98), which requires continue until the termination of this provides technical support that requires reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) data contract. If the contract is extended, this access to information designated or and other relevant information from access will continue for the remainder claimed as CBI related to the GHGRP, large sources and suppliers in the of the contract and any further including, but not limited to, 40 CFR United States. The purpose of part 98 is extensions without further notice. part 98, subparts NN and P. Access to to collect accurate and timely GHG data Under Contract Number EP–W–07– data, including information designated to inform future policy decisions. Some 099 Task Order 19, Eastern Research or claimed as CBI, will commence on of the information submitted is Group, 2300 Wilson Boulevard, Suite August 29, 2011 and will continue until designated or claimed to be CBI. Such 350, Arlington, VA 22201, provides the termination of this contract. If the information is handled in accordance technical support that requires access to contract is extended, this access will with EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR part information designated or claimed as continue for the remainder of the 2, subpart B and in accordance with CBI related to the GHGRP, including, contract and any further extensions EPA procedures that are consistent with but not limited to, supporting field without further notice. those regulations. inspections for any source category. Under Contract Number EP–W–07– EPA has, at times, determined that it Access to data, including information 068 Task Order 66, ICF International, is necessary to disclose to EPA designated or claimed as CBI, will 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031, contractors certain information that has commence on August 29, 2011 and will provides technical support that requires been designated or claimed as CBI. continue until the termination of this access to information designated or When this occurs, the corresponding contract. If the contract is extended, this claimed as CBI related to the GHGRP, contract must address the appropriate access will continue for the remainder including, but not limited to, 40 CFR use and handling of the information by of the contract and any further part 98, subpart W, as well as BAMM the contractor. In every instance, the extensions without further notice. petitions. Access to data, including contractor must require its personnel Under Contract Number EP–W–07– information designated or claimed as who need access to information 068 Task Order 100, ICF International, CBI, will commence on August 29, 2011 designated or claimed as CBI to sign 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031, and will continue until the termination written agreements before they are and its subcontractor, Advanced of this contract. If the contract is granted access to the data. Resources International, 4501 Fairfax extended, this access will continue for In accordance with 40 CFR 2.301(h), Drive, Suite 910, Arlington, VA 22203, the remainder of the contract and any EPA has determined that the provide technical support that requires further extensions without further contractors, subcontractors, and access to information designated or notice. grantees (collectively referred to as claimed as CBI related to the GHGRP, Under Contract Number EP–W–07– ‘‘contractors’’) listed below require including, but not limited to, 40 CFR 069 Task Order 21, RTI International, access to data submitted to EPA under part 98, subparts PP, RR, and UU. PO Box 12194, 3040 Cornwallis Road,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52661

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, of the contract and any further support that requires access to provides technical support that requires extensions without further notice. information designated or claimed as access to information designated or Under Contract Number EP–W–07– CBI related to the GHGRP, including, claimed as CBI related to the GHGRP, 071 Task Order 13, SRA International, but not limited to, maintenance of the including, but not limited to, 40 CFR Inc., 652 Peter Jefferson Parkway, Suite e-GGRT server(s) and other information part 98, subparts HH and TT. Access to 300, Charlottesville, VA 22911, provides technology related efforts. Access to data, including information designated technical support that requires access to data, including information designated or claimed as CBI, will commence on information designated or claimed as or claimed as CBI, will commence on August 29, 2011 and will continue until CBI related to the GHGRP, including, August 29, 2011 and will continue until the termination of this contract. If the but not limited to, 40 CFR part 98, the termination of this contract. If the contract is extended, this access will subpart C, as well as BAMM petitions. contract is extended, this access will continue for the remainder of the Access to data, including information continue for the remainder of the contract and any further extensions designated or claimed as CBI, will contract and any further extensions without further notice. commence on August 29, 2011 and will without further notice. Under Contract Number EP–W–07– continue until the termination of this Under Contract Number GS–35F– 069 Task Order 28, RTI International, contract. If the contract is extended, this 4461G Task Order 1668, Science PO Box 12194, 3040 Cornwallis Road, access will continue for the remainder Applications International Corporation Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, of the contract and any further (SAIC), 10260 Campus Point Drive, San provides technical support that requires extensions without further notice. Diego, CA 92121, and its contractors, access to information designated or Under Contract Number EP–W–07– Federated IT, Inc., 1200 G Street, NW., claimed as CBI related to the GHGRP 071 Task Order 15, SRA International, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005, including, but not limited to, 40 CFR Inc., 4300 Fair Lakes Court, Fairfax, Intervise Consultants, Inc., 10110 part 98, subparts L and O, as well as Virginia 22033, and its subcontractor, Molecular Drive, Suite 100, Rockville, BAMM petitions. Access to data, Rabbit Software, LLC, 1657 Old Brook MD 20850, and Premier Technical including information designated or Road, Charlottesville, VA 22901, Services, 312 Main Street, Luray, VA claimed as CBI, will commence on provide technical support that requires 22835, provide technical support that August 29, 2011 and will continue until access to information designated or requires access to information the termination of this contract. If the claimed as CBI related to the GHGRP, designated or claimed as CBI related to contract is extended, this access will including, but not limited to, the GHGRP, including, but not limited continue for the remainder of the verification of data submitted through to, maintenance of the e-GGRT server(s) contract and any further extensions the electronic-Greenhouse Gas and other information technology without further notice. Reporting Tool (e-GGRT). Access to related efforts. Access to data, including Under Contract Number EP–W–07– data, including information designated information designated or claimed as 069 Task Order 29, RTI International, or claimed as CBI, will commence on CBI, will commence on August 29, 2011 PO Box 12194, 3040 Cornwallis Road, August 29, 2011 and will continue until and will continue until the termination Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, the termination of this contract. If the of this contract. If the contract is provides technical support that requires contract is extended, this access will extended, this access will continue for access to information designated or continue for the remainder of the the remainder of the contract and any claimed as CBI related to the GHGRP, contract and any further extensions further extensions without further including, but not limited to, 40 CFR without further notice. notice. part 98, subparts C, D, E, G, K, N, Q, R, Under Contract Number EP–W–07– Under Contract Number GS–35F– S, U, V, X, Y, Z, AA, BB, CC, EE, GG, 064 Work Assignment No. 3–10, SRA 4797H Task Order EP–G11D–00056, LL, and MM. Access to data, including International, Inc., 652 Peter Jefferson CGI, 12601 Fair Lakes Circle, Fairfax, information designated or claimed as Parkway, Suite 300, Charlottesville, VA VA 22033, and its subcontractors, CBI, will commence on August 29, 2011 22911, provides technical support that FedConcepts, 101 Log Canoe Circle, and will continue until the termination requires access to information Suite M, Stevensville, MD 21666, and of this contract. If the contract is designated or claimed as CBI related to Raytheon Company, 5700 Rivertech extended, this access will continue for the GHGRP, including, but not limited Court, Riverdale, MD 20737, provide the remainder of the contract and any to, information technology and technical support that requires access to further extensions without further computer system development and information designated or claimed as notice. support for 40 CFR part 98. Access to CBI related to the GHGRP, including, Under Contract Number EP–W–07– data, including information designated but not limited to, maintenance of the 070 Task Order 8, Science Applications or claimed as CBI, will commence on e-GGRT server(s) and other information International Corporation (SAIC), 1710 August 29, 2011 and will continue until technology related efforts. Access to SAIC Drive, McLean, VA 22102, and its the termination of this contract. If the data, including information designated subcontractor, Federal Working Group, contract is extended, this access will or claimed as CBI, will commence on 508 Lincoln Avenue, Falls Church, VA continue for the remainder of the August 29, 2011 and will continue until 22046, provide technical support that contract and any further extensions the termination of this contract. If the requires access to information without further notice. contract is extended, this access will designated or claimed as CBI related to Under Contract Number GS– continue for the remainder of the the GHGRP, including, but not limited 35F4381G Task Order 1659, CSC, 15000 contract and any further extensions to, information technology development Conference Center Drive, Chantilly, VA without further notice. and support for 40 CFR part 98. Access 20151, and its contractors, ITM Parties who wish further information to data, including information Associates, Inc., 1700 Rockville Pike, about this Federal Register notice or designated or claimed as CBI, will Suite 350, Rockville, MD 20852, Excel about OAP’s disclosure of information commence on August 29, 2011 and will Management Systems, 691 N. High designated or claimed as CBI to continue until the termination of this Street, 2nd floor, Columbus, OH 43215, contactors may contact the person listed contract. If the contract is extended, this and KForce, 12010 Sunset Hill Road, under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION access will continue for the remainder Reston, VA 20190, provide technical CONTACT.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Dated: August 17, 2011. Mexico 88011, phone number: 575– performance of the functions of the Elizabeth Craig, 522–4300. The meeting is open to the Commission, including whether the Acting Director, Office of Atmospheric public, with limited seating on a first- information shall have practical utility; Programs. come, first-serve basis. (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s [FR Doc. 2011–21562 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Mark Joyce, Acting Designated Federal the quality, utility, and clarity of the Officer, [email protected], 202–564– information collected; and (d) ways to 2130, U.S. EPA, Office of Federal minimize the burden of the collection of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Advisory Committee Management and information on the respondents, AGENCY Outreach (1601M), 1200 Pennsylvania including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of [FRL–9455–4] Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you information technology. Good Neighbor Environmental Board wish to make oral comments or submit DATES: Written comments should be written comments to the Board, please submitted on or before October 24, AGENCY: Environmental Protection contact Mark Joyce at least five days 2011. If you anticipate that you will be Agency (EPA). prior to the meeting. submitting comments, but find it ACTION: Notice of meeting. General Information: Additional difficult to do so within the period of information concerning the GNEB can time allowed by this notice, you should SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory be found on its Web site at http:// advise the contact listed below as soon Committee Act, Public Law 92463, EPA www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb. as possible. gives notice of a meeting of the Good Meeting Access: For information on ADDRESSES: A copy of any comments on Neighbor Environmental Board (Board). access or services for individuals with the information collections contained The Board usually meets three times disabilities, please contact Mark Joyce at herein should be submitted to Judy each calendar year, twice at different 202–564–2130 or by e-mail at Boley Herman, Federal Communications locations along the U.S. border with [email protected]. To request Commission, Room 1–B441, 445 12th Mexico, and once in Washington, DC. It accommodation of a disability, please Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or was created in 1992 by the Enterprise contact Mark Joyce at least 10 days prior via the Internet to Judith- for the Americas Initiative Act, Public to the meeting to give EPA as much time [email protected]. Law 102–532, 7 U.S.C. Section 5404. as possible to process your request. Implementing authority was delegated FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For to the Administrator of EPA under Dated: August 10, 2011. additional information about the Executive Order 12916. The Board is Mark Joyce, information collection(s), contact Judy responsible for providing advice to the Acting Designated Federal Officer. Boley Herman at (202) 418–0214. President and the Congress on [FR Doc. 2011–21523 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: environmental and infrastructure issues BILLING CODE 6560–50–P OMB Control No.: 3060–0207. and needs within the States contiguous Title: Emergency Alert System (EAS). to Mexico in order to improve the Form No.: N/A. quality of life of persons residing on the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Type of Review: Revision of a United States side of the border. The COMMISSION currently approved collection. statute calls for the Board to have Respondents: Business or other for- representatives from U.S. Government Notice of Public Information Collection profit entities; State, Local or Tribal agencies; the states of Arizona, Being Reviewed by the Federal Governments; Non-profit entities. California, New Mexico and Texas; and Communications Commission Number of Respondents: 3,569,028 tribal and private organizations with respondents; 3,569,028 responses. AGENCY: experience in environmental and Federal Communications Estimated Time per Response: .034– infrastructure issues along the U.S.- Commission. 20 hours. Mexico border. ACTION: Notice and Request for Frequency of Response: The purpose of the meeting is to comments. Recordkeeping requirements; reporting continue discussion on the Board’s 14th requirements; third party disclosure SUMMARY: The Federal Communications requirement. report, which is focusing on the Commission, as part of its continuing environmental and economic benefits of Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. effort to reduce paperwork burden, Statutory authority for this collection of renewable energy development in the invites the general public and other border region. Panel discussions will information is contained in 47 U.S.C. Federal agencies to take this sections 154(i) and 606. take place on economic opportunities opportunity to comment on the and community impacts in the U.S.- Total Annual Burden: 82,008 hours. following information collection(s), as Total Annual Cost: N/A. Mexico border region. A copy of the required by the Paperwork Reduction Privacy Impact Assessment: N/A. meeting agenda will be posted at http:// Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An Nature and Extent of confidentiality: www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb. agency may not conduct or sponsor a The Commission will treat submissions DATES: The Good Neighbor collection of information unless it pursuant to 47 CFR 11.61(a)(3) as Environmental Board will hold an open displays a currently valid control confidential. meeting on Thursday, September 8, number. No person shall be subject to Needs and Uses: On March 10, 2010, from 8:30 a.m. (registration at 8 a.m.) to any penalty for failing to comply with OMB authorized the collection of 6 p.m. The following day, Friday, a collection of information subject to the information set forth in the Second September 9, the Board will meet from Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that FNPRM in EB Docket No. 04–296, FCC 8 a.m. until 2 p.m. does not display a valid control number. 09–10. Specifically, OMB authorized the ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Comments are requested concerning (a) Commission to require entities required the Hotel Encanto de Las Cruces, 705 Whether the proposed collection of to participate in EAS (EAS Participants) South Telshor Blvd., Las Cruces, New information is necessary for the proper to gather and submit the following

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52663

information on the operation of their called for by our reporting rules (e.g. the Section 11(d)(11)(A) of the FDI Act, EAS equipment during a national test of detailed test results) within the 45 day 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11)(A), sets forth the the EAS: (1) Whether they received the period. The Commission believes that order of priority for distribution of alert message during the designated test; structuring an electronic reporting amounts realized from the liquidation or (2) whether they retransmitted the alert; system in this fashion would allow the other resolution of an insured and (3) if they were not able to receive participants to populate the database depository institution to pay claims. and/or transmit the alert, their ‘best with known information well prior to Under the statutory order of priority, effort’ diagnostic analysis regarding the the test, and thus be able to provide the administrative expenses and deposit cause or causes for such failure. OMB Commission with actual test data, both liabilities must be paid in full before also authorized the Commission to close to real-time and within a any distribution may be made to general require EAS Participants to provide it reasonable period in a minimally unsecured creditors or any lower with the date/time of receipt of the EAN burdensome fashion. The Commission priority claims. message by all stations; and the date/ also seeks comment on this revision of As of June 30, 2011, the value of time of receipt of the EAT message by the approved collection. assets available for distribution by the all stations; a description of their station Federal Communications Commission. Receiver, together with maximum identification and level of designation Marlene H. Dortch, possible recoveries on claims against (PEP, LP–1, etc.); who they were directors, officers, and other monitoring at the time of the test, and Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director. professionals was $86,789,915. As of the the make and model number of the EAS same date, administrative expenses and equipment that they utilized. [FR Doc. 2011–21545 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] depositor liabilities equaled In the Third Report and Order in EB BILLING CODE 6712–01–P $220,441,349, exceeding available assets Docket No. 04–296, FCC 09–10, the and potential recoveries by Commission adopted the foregoing rule $133,651,434. Accordingly, the FDIC requirements. In addition, the FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE has determined that insufficient assets Commission decided that test data will CORPORATION exist to make any distribution on be presumed confidential and general unsecured creditor claims (and disclosure of test data will be limited to Determination of Insufficient Assets To any lower priority claims) and therefore FEMA, NWS and EOP at the federal Satisfy Claims Against Financial all such claims, asserted or unasserted, level. At the State level, test data will be Institution in Receivership will recover nothing and have no value. made available only to State government emergency management agencies that AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Dated: August 18, 2011. have confidential treatment protections Corporation (FDIC). Robert E. Feldman, at least equal to FOIA. The process by ACTION: Notice. Executive Secretary. which these agencies would receive test [FR Doc. 2011–21546 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] data will comport with those used to SUMMARY: The FDIC has determined that BILLING CODE 6714–01–P provide access to the Commission’s insufficient assets exist in the NORS and DIRS data. We seek comment receivership of Sun American Bank, on this revision of the approved Boca Raton, Florida, to make any DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND collection. distribution on general unsecured HUMAN SERVICES In the Third Report and Order, the claims, and therefore such claims will Commission also indicated that it would recover nothing and have no value. Centers for Disease Control and establish a voluntary electronic DATES: The FDIC made its determination Prevention (CDC) reporting system that EAS test on August 18, 2011. participants may use as part of their FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If Notice of Intent To Award Affordable participation in the national EAS test. Care Act Funding, DP–09–001 The Commission noted that using this you have questions regarding this system, EAS test participants could notice, you may contact an FDIC Claims AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and input the same information that they Agent at (904) 256–3925. Written Prevention (CDC), Department of Health were already required to file manually correspondence may also be mailed to and Human Services (HHS). FDIC as Receiver of Sun American via a web-based interface into a ACTION: Notice. confidential database that the Bank, Attention: Claims Agent, 7777 Commission would use to monitor and Baymeadows Way West, Jacksonville, SUMMARY: This notice provides public assess the test. This information would Florida 32256. announcement of CDC’s intent to fund include identifying information such as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March Approved cooperative agreement station call letters, license identification 5, 2010, Sun American Bank, Boca applications previously received and number, geographic coordinates, EAS Raton, Florida, (FIN #10192) was closed competed in response to CDC Funding assignment (LP, NP, etc), EAS by the Florida Office of Financial Opportunity, RFA–DP–09–001, ‘‘Health monitoring assignment, as well as a 24/ Regulation, and the Federal Deposit Promotion and Disease Prevention 7 emergency contact for the EAS Insurance Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’) was Research Centers (U48).’’ It is the intent Participant. The only difference, other appointed as its receiver (‘‘Receiver’’). of CDC to fund the applications with than the electronic nature of the filing, In complying with its statutory duty to Patient Protection Affordable Care Act would the the timing of the collection. resolve the institution in the method (ACA), Section 4002, appropriations. On the day of the test, EAS Test that is least costly to the deposit CFDA Number 93.542 is the ACA- participants would be able to input insurance fund, see 12 U.S.C. 1823(c)(4), specific CFDA number for this immediate test results, (e.g., was the the FDIC facilitated a transaction with initiative. EAN received and did it pass) into a First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company, web-based interface. Test participants Raleigh, North Carolina, to acquire all of Award Information would submit the identifying data prior the deposits and most of the assets of Approximate Current Fiscal Year to the test date, and the remaining data the failed institution. Funding: $10,000,000.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52664 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Approximate Number of Awards: 15– Community Transformation Grant policy.html] to provide additional 17. Program, the Education and Outreach details about this effort and progress Approximate Average Award: Campaign for Preventative Benefits, and updates. $625,000. Immunization Programs. Public Comment Period: Comments Fiscal Year Funds: 2011. ACA legislation affords an important must be received by September 22, Anticipated Award Date: September opportunity to advance public health 2011. 30, 2011. across the lifespan and to reduce health ADDRESSES: Written comments, Budget Period: 12 months. disparities by supporting an intensive identified by docket number NIOSH– Project Period: 1 year. community approach to chronic disease 240, may be submitted by any of the prevention and control. Application Selection Process following methods: Therefore, the FOA program activities • Mail: NIOSH Docket Office, Robert Only applicants who have applied for CDC proposes to fund with ACA A. Taft Laboratories, MS–C34, 4676 and have been selected as Prevention appropriations are authorized by the Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio Research Centers under CDC Program amendment to the Public Health 45226. Announcement DP–09–001 were Services Act which authorized the • Facsimile: (513) 533–8285. eligible to apply for the annual Prevention and Wellness Program. • E-mail: [email protected]. continuation funding. Dated: August 9, 2011. All information received in response Funding Authority Tanja Popovic, to this notice will be available for public examination and copying at the NIOSH CDC will add the following Authority Deputy Associate Director for Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Docket Office, 4676 Columbia Parkway, to that which is reflected in the [FR Doc. 2011–21343 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Room 111, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. A published Funding Opportunity: complete electronic docket containing BILLING CODE 4163–18–P —Section 4002 of the Patient Protection all comments submitted will be and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111– available on the NIOSH Web page at 148.). DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docket, and DATES: The effective date for this action HUMAN SERVICES comments will be available in writing is August 23, 2011 and remains in effect by request. NIOSH includes all until the expiration of the project period Centers for Disease Control and comments received without change in of the ACA funded applications. Prevention the docket, including any personal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [Docket Number NIOSH–240] information provided. All electronic Elmira Benson, Deputy Director, comments should be formatted as Procurement and Grants Office, Centers Request for Information: Microsoft Word. Please make reference for Disease Control and Prevention, Announcement of Carcinogen and to docket number NIOSH–240. 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) Background 30341, telephone (770) 488–2802, e-mail Policy Assessment NIOSH is announcing a Request for [email protected]. AGENCY: National Institute for Information on key issues identified and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March Occupational Safety and Health associated with the NIOSH Carcinogen 23, 2010, the President signed into law (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease and REL policies. Special emphasis will the Patient Protection and Affordable Control and Prevention (CDC), be placed on consideration of technical Care Act (ACA). ACA is designed to Department of Health and Human and scientific issues with the current improve and expand the scope of health Services (HHS). NIOSH Cancer and REL Policies that care coverage for Americans. Cost ACTION: Notice of public comment require further examination including savings through disease prevention is an period. the following: important element of this legislation (1) Should there explicitly be a and ACA has established a Prevention SUMMARY: The National Institute for carcinogen policy as opposed to a and Public Health Fund (PPHF) for this Occupational Safety and Health broader policy on toxicant identification purpose. Specifically, the legislation (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease and classification (e.g. carcinogens, states in Section 4002 that the PPHF is Control and Prevention (CDC) intends to reproductive hazards, neurotoxic to ‘‘provide for expanded and sustained review its approach to classifying agents)? national investment in prevention and carcinogens and establishing (2) What evidence should form the public health programs to improve recommended exposure limits (RELs) basis for determining that substances are health and help restrain the rate of for occupational exposures to hazards carcinogens? How should these criteria growth in private and public sector associated with cancer. As part of this correspond to nomenclature and health care costs. ACA and the effort, NIOSH is requesting initial input categorizations (e.g., known, reasonably Prevention and Public Health Fund on these issues (including answers to anticipated, etc.)? make improving public health a priority the 5 questions in the following (3) Should 1 in 1,000 working lifetime with investments to improve public section), to be submitted to the NIOSH risk (for persons occupationally health. Docket number 240, for a comment exposed) be the target level for a The PPHF states that the Secretary period lasting through September 22, recommended exposure limit (REL) for shall transfer amounts in the Fund to 2011. This information will be taken carcinogens or should lower targets be accounts within the Department of under consideration and used to inform considered? Health and Human Services to increase NIOSH efforts to assess and document (4) In establishing NIOSH RELs, how funding, over the fiscal year 2008 level, its carcinogen policy and REL policy should the phrase ‘‘to the extent for programs authorized by the Public regarding occupational hazards feasible’’ (defined in the 1995 NIOSH Health Services Act, for prevention, associated with cancer. NIOSH has also Recommended Exposure Limit Policy) wellness and public health activities created a new NIOSH Cancer and REL be interpreted and applied? including prevention research and Policy Web Topic Page [see http:// (5) In the absence of data, what health screenings, such as the www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/cancer/ uncertainties or assumptions are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52665

appropriate for use in the development This Federal Register notice serves to [email protected]. All of RELs? What is the utility of a provide stakeholders and the public an comments should be identified with the standard ’’action level’’ (i.e., an opportunity for input on the revision of OMB control number 0910–New and exposure limit set below the REL the NIOSH Carcinogen and REL title ‘‘Comparing Nutrition Knowledge, typically used to trigger risk Policies. It is anticipated that NIOSH Attitude, and Behavior Among English- management actions) and how should it will develop a report on the revised Dominant Hispanics, Spanish-Dominant be set? How should NIOSH address NIOSH Carcinogen and REL Policies to Hispanics, and Other Consumers.’’ Also worker exposure to complex mixtures? be made available in the Spring of 2012. include the FDA docket number found Additional information regarding in brackets in the heading of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIOSH NIOSH plans to assess and revise the document. and stakeholders have expressed Carcinogen and REL Policy can be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: concerns recently about limitations in found in the April 2011 NIOSH e-news the NIOSH Carcinogen Policy, Denver Presley, Office of Information at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/enews/ Management, Food and Drug prompting NIOSH to initiate a review of enewsV8N12.html and on the NIOSH the carcinogen policy in 2010. A major Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50– Cancer and REL Policy Web Topic Page 400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–796– limitation in the policy is the use of the [see http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ 3793. term ‘‘Potential Occupational cancer/policy.html]. Carcinogen’’ which dates to the 1980 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.J. OSHA hazard classification for compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA Lentz, telephone (513) 533–8260, or carcinogens outlined in 29 CFR has submitted the following proposed Faye Rice, telephone (513) 533–8335, 1990.103 and is defined as ‘‘* * * any collection of information to OMB for NIOSH, MS–C32, Robert A. Taft review and clearance. substance, or combination or mixture of Laboratories, 4676 Columbia Parkway, substances, which causes an increased Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. Comparing Nutrition Knowledge, incidence of benign and/or malignant Attitude, and Behavior Among English- neoplasms, or a substantial decrease in Dated: August 12, 2011. Dominant Hispanics, Spanish- the latency period between exposure John Howard, Dominant Hispanics, and Other and onset of neoplasms in humans or in Director, National Institute for Occupational Consumers—(OMB Control Number one or more experimental mammalian Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control 0910–NEW) species as the result of any oral, and Prevention. I. Background respiratory or dermal exposure, or any [FR Doc. 2011–21405 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] other exposure which results in the BILLING CODE 4163–19–P Recent estimates suggest that induction of tumors at a site other than Hispanics (defined as those who the site of administration. This identify themselves as of Hispanic or definition also includes any substance DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Latino origin) are the largest and fastest which is metabolized into one or more HUMAN SERVICES growing minority group in the nation; the proportion of the U.S. population potential occupational carcinogens by Food and Drug Administration mammals.’’ A major limitation of this that was Hispanic was 14 percent in definition is that the policy allows for [Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0129] 2005 and is projected to increase to 29 only one cancer category, which is percent in 2050 (Ref. 1). ‘‘potential occupational carcinogen.’’ Agency Information Collection Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate The adjective ‘‘potential’’ conveys Activities; Submission for Office of that, in 2005 and 2006, 34.3 percent and uncertainty that is not warranted with Management and Budget Review; 32.7 percent of the U.S. adult many carcinogens such as asbestos, Comment Request; Comparing population are obese and overweight, benzene, and others. This policy does Nutrition Knowledge, Attitude, and respectively (Ref. 2). According to CDC, not allow for classification on the basis Behavior Among English-Dominant Hispanics had 21 percent higher obesity of the magnitude and sufficiency of the Hispanics, Spanish-Dominant prevalence than Whites in 2008 (Ref. 3). scientific evidence. In contrast, other Hispanics, and Other Consumers CDC data also indicate variations in organizations, such as the International AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, prevalence of obesity among adults of Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) HHS. different race-gender groups; for and the National Toxicology Program ACTION: Notice. example, during 2006 through 2008, (NTP) allow for a more differential non-Hispanic Blacks had the greatest classification. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug prevalence of obesity (35.7 percent), The revision of the NIOSH Carcinogen Administration (FDA) is announcing followed by Hispanics (28.7 percent), Policy also coincides with the that a proposed collection of and non-Hispanic Whites (23.7 percent); international realization that there is a information has been submitted to the non-Hispanic Black women had the need for more efficient and quicker Office of Management and Budget greatest prevalence (39.2 percent), means of classifying chemicals. (OMB) for review and clearance under followed by non-Hispanic Black men Qualitative and semi-quantitative the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. (31.6 percent), Hispanic women (29.4 approaches such as hazard banding are DATES: Fax written comments on the percent), Hispanic men (27.8 percent), increasingly being investigated as a collection of information by September non-Hispanic White men (25.4 percent), means of addressing the vast numbers of 22, 2011. and non-Hispanic White women (21.8 unregulated chemicals. NIOSH has been ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on percent) (Ref. 3). in collaboration with various the information collection are received, While some Hispanics living in the organizations to consider utilizing OMB recommends that written United States use the English language hazard banding approaches to control comments be faxed to the Office of exclusively or more often than Spanish chemicals. This will also be reflected in Information and Regulatory Affairs, (English-dominant Hispanics), other the review of the carcinogen and RELs OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: U.S. Hispanics predominantly use the policies. 202–395–7285, or e-mailed to Spanish language in their daily lives

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

(Spanish-dominant Hispanics) (Ref. 4). understanding and use, nutrition, and possible measures that the Agency may Since most U.S. food labels are in health to inform possible measures that take to help consumers make informed English, Spanish-dominant Hispanics’ the Agency may take to help consumers dietary choices. understanding and use of food labels make informed dietary choices. FDA is To help design and refine the may differ from that of English- aware of no consumer research on a questionnaire, we plan to conduct dominant Hispanics and of non- nationwide level of the impact of cognitive interviews by screening 72 Hispanics who use English exclusively. language and acculturation on adult panelists in order to obtain 9 In addition, both English-dominant Hispanics’ dietary choices and label use. participants in the interviews. Each Hispanics and Spanish-dominant This study is intended to provide screening is expected to take 5 minutes Hispanics may have different answers to research questions such as (0.083 hour) and each cognitive awareness, perceptions, and behaviors whether and how much Spanish- interview is expected to take 0.5 hour. than English-speaking non-Hispanics on dominant Hispanics, English-dominant The total for cognitive interview issues of health, nutrition, and food Hispanics, and English-speaking non- activities is 11 hours (6 hours + 5 consumption (Refs. 5 through 8). Hispanics differ in their knowledge, hours). Subsequently, we plan to Existing research suggests that, in attitude, and behavior toward food label conduct two waves of pretests of the addition to language and other use, nutrition, and health among three questionnaire before it is administered demographic differences, acculturation population groups and the role that in the study. We expect that 360 is an important factor associated with demographic and other factors may play invitations, each taking 2 minutes (0.033 individual differences in dietary and in any differences. hour), will need to be sent to adult public health-related perceptions, The proposed study will use a Web- members of the online consumer panels attitudes, and behaviors among based survey to collect information from to have 180 of them complete a 15- Hispanics. Acculturation is defined as 2,400 adult members in online minute (0.25 hour) pretest. The total for the change in behavior and values by consumer panels maintained by a the pretest activities is 57 hours (12 immigrants when they come in contact contractor. The study plans to randomly hours + 45 hours). For the survey, we with a new group, nation, or culture select 800 members into each of three estimate that 4,800 invitations, each (Ref. 9). Immigrants may possess groups: Spanish-dominant Hispanics, taking 2 minutes (0.033 hour) to different degrees of acculturation, English-dominant Hispanics, and complete, will need to be sent to adult depending on the time of migration and English-speaking non-Hispanics. Either members of the online consumer panels other factors, such as the dominant an English or a Spanish questionnaire to have 2,400 of them complete a 15- culture of the neighborhoods where they will be used, as appropriate. The study minute (0.25 hour) questionnaire. The live and work and type of education plans to include topics such as: (1) total for the survey activities is 758 received (Refs. 10 and 11). Hence, Nutrition and health; (2) use and hours (158 hours + 600 hours). Thus, variation in the degree of acculturation understanding of food labels and the total estimated burden is 826 hours. can lead to differences in lifestyle and labeling information; (3) degree of This estimate is 496 hours lower than behaviors, including behaviors related capacity to understand and use health the 1,322 hours published in the 60-day to dietary choices and to use and information; and (4) levels of notice and reflects 20 fewer hours for understanding of nutrition information acculturation among Hispanic pretest invitation and 476 fewer hours on food labels, because of English respondents as measured by a Hispanic for survey invitation. Recent evidence proficiency and degree of assimilation acculturation scale that is widely used available to the Agency suggests the into the values, lifestyles, and diets in social science research (Ref. 22). To study will not need to send as many prevalent in this country. The existing help understand the data, the study will invitations as originally estimated to research has shown the influence of also collect information on participants’ achieve its target sample sizes in pretest acculturation on Hispanics’ perceptions, background, including, but not limited and survey. FDA’s burden estimate is attitudes, and behaviors relating to to, health status and demographic based on prior experience with research public health factors including dietary characteristics, such as age, gender, that is similar to this proposed study. practices, nutrition, the health practices education, and income. In the Federal Register of March 14, of pregnant women, obesity, coronary The study is part of the Agency’s 2011 (76 FR 13626), FDA published a heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, alcohol continuing effort to enable consumers to 60-day notice requesting public consumption, and smoking behavior (for make informed dietary choices and comment on the proposed collection of example, Refs. 10 and 12 through 21). construct healthful diets. The results of information. No comments were FDA needs an understanding of how the study will not be used to develop received. different population groups perceive population estimates. The results of the FDA estimates the burden of this and behave in terms of food label study will be used for informing collection of information as follows:

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1

Number of Average Activity Number of responses per Total annual burden per Total hours respondents respondent responses response

Cognitive interview screener ...... 72 1 72 0.083 (5 min.) 6 Cognitive interview ...... 9 1 9 0.5 (30 min.) .. 5 Pretest invitation ...... 360 1 360 0.033 (2 min.) 12 Pretest ...... 180 1 180 0.25 (15 min.) 45 Survey invitation ...... 4,800 1 4,800 0.033 (2 min.) 158 Survey ...... 2,400 1 2,400 0.25 (15 min.) 600

Total ...... 826 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52667

II. References 12. Otero-Sabogal, R., F. Sabogal, E.J. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Pe´rez-Stable, et al., ‘‘Dietary Practices, The following references have been HUMAN SERVICES Alcohol Consumption, and Smoking placed on display in the Division of Behavior: Ethnic, Sex, and Acculturation Food and Drug Administration Dockets Management (HFA–305), Food Differences,’’ Journal of National Cancer and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Institute Monograph, 18:73–82, 1995. [Docket No. FDA–2008–D–0386] Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 13. Lara, M., C. Gamboa, M.I. and may be seen by interested persons Kahramanian, et al., ‘‘Acculturation and International Conference on between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday Latino Health in the United States: A Review Harmonisation; Guidance on E2F through Friday. (FDA has verified the of the Literature and its Sociopolitical Development Safety Update Report; Web site addresses but is not Context,’’ Annual Review of Public Health, Availability responsible for any subsequent changes 26:367–397, 2005. AGENCY: to the Web site after this document 14. Winkleby, M.A., S.P. Fortmann, and B. Food and Drug Administration, publishes in the Federal Register.) Rockhill, ‘‘Health-Related Risk Factors in a HHS. Sample of Hispanics and Whites Matched on ACTION: Notice. 1. Passel, J.S. and C. D’Vera, ‘‘U.S. Sociodemographic Characteristics: The Population Projections: 2005–2050,’’ Pew Stanford Five-City Project,’’ American SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Research Center, Washington, DC, February Journal of Epidemiology 137(12):1365–1375, Administration (FDA) is announcing the 11, 2008, (http://pewhispanic.org/files/ 1993. reports/85.pdf). availability of a guidance entitled ‘‘E2F 2. CDC, ‘‘Prevalence of Overweight, 15. Byrd, T.L., H. Balcazar, and R.A. Development Safety Update Report.’’ Obesity, and Extreme Obesity Among Adults: Hummer, ‘‘Acculturation and Breast-Feeding The guidance was prepared under the United States, Trends 1976–80 Through Intention and Practice in Hispanic Women auspices of the International Conference 2005–2006,’’ December 2008, (http:// on the U.S.-Mexico Border,’’ Ethnicity & on Harmonisation of Technical www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/overweight/ Disease, 11(1):72–79, 2001. Requirements for Registration of _ overweight adult.pdf). 16. Cobas, J.A., H. Balcazar, M.B. Benin, et Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). al., ‘‘Acculturation and Low-Birthweight 3. CDC, ‘‘Differences in Prevalence of The guidance describes the format, Obesity Among Black, White, and Hispanic Infants Among Latino Women: A Reanalysis Adults—United States, 2006–2008,’’ of Hispanic Health and Nutrition content, and timing of a development Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Examination Survey Data With Structural safety update report (DSUR) for an 58(27):740–744, July 17, 2009, (http:// Equation Models,’’ American Journal of investigational drug. The DSUR will www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ Public Health, 86(3):394–396, 1996. serve as a common standard for periodic mm5827a2.htm). 17. Dixon, L.B., J. Sundquist, and M. reporting on drugs under development 4. CDC, ‘‘Health Disparities Experienced by Winkleby, ‘‘Differences in Energy, Nutrient, (including marketed drugs that are Hispanics—United States,’’ Morbidity and and Food Intakes in a U.S. Sample of under further study) among the ICH Mortality Weekly Report, 53(40):935–937, Mexican-American Women and Men: regions. The DSUR can be submitted in October 15, 2004, (http://www.cdc.gov/ Findings From the Third National Health and mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5340a1.htm). the United States in place of an annual Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994,’’ report for an investigational new drug 5. National Heart, Lung and Blood American Journal of Epidemiology, Institute, ‘‘Epidemiologic Research in application (IND). The harmonized 152(6):548–557, 2000. Hispanic Populations: Opportunities, DSUR is intended to promote a 18. Khan, L.K., J. Sobal, and R. Martorell, Barriers and Solutions,’’ December 3, 2003, consistent approach to annual clinical ‘‘Acculturation, Socioeconomic Status, and (http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/ safety reporting among the ICH regions workshops/hispanic.htm). Obesity in Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, and Puerto Ricans,’’ International and enhance efficiency by reducing the 6. Information Resources, Inc., ‘‘Times & number of reports generated for Trends: Hispanic Consumers—Capturing Journal of Obesity, 21(2):91–96, 1997. CPG Market Potential,’’ April 2008, (http:// 19. Markides, K.S., D.J. Lee, and L.A. Ray, submission to the regulatory authorities. www.symphonyiri.com/portals/0/articlePdfs/ ‘‘Acculturation and Hypertension in Mexican DATES: Submit either electronic or TT_April_2008_Hispanic_Consumers.pdf). Americans,’’ Ethnicity & Disease, 3:70–74, written comments on Agency guidances 7. Yang, S., M.G. Leff, D. McTague, et al., 1993. at any time. ‘‘Multistate Surveillance for Food-Handling, 20. Stern, M.P., C. Gonzalez, B.D. Mitchell, ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for Preparation, and Consumption Behaviors et al., ‘‘Genetic and Environmental Associated With Foodborne Diseases: 1995 Determinants of Type II Diabetes in Mexico single copies of the guidance to the and 1996 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance City and San Antonio,’’ Diabetes, 41(4):484– Division of Drug Information, Center for Systems Food-Safety Questions,’’ Morbidity 492, 1992. Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(SS–4):33– 21. Sundquist, J., and M.A. Winkleby, and Drug Administration, 10903 New 54, September 11, 1998, (http://www.cdc.gov/ ‘‘Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Mexican Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054714.htm). American Adults: A Transcultural Analysis Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, or the 8. Lin, C.-T.J. and S.T. Yen, ‘‘Knowledge of of National Health and Nutrition Office of Communication, Outreach and Dietary Fats Among U.S. Consumers,’’ Examination Survey III, 1988–1994,’’ Development (HFM–40), Center for Journal of the American Dietetic Association, American Journal of Public Health, Biologics Evaluation and Research, 110(4):613–618, April 2010. 89(5):723–730, 1999. 9. Marin, G., F. Sabogal, B.V. Marin, et al., Food and Drug Administration, 1401 22. Thomson, M.D., and L. Hoffman-Goetz, Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852– ‘‘Development of a Short Acculturation Scale ‘‘Defining and Measuring Acculturation: A for Hispanics,’’ Hispanic Journal of 1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive Systematic Review of Public Health Studies Behavioral Sciences, 9(2):183–205, 1987. With Hispanic Population in the United label to assist the office in processing 10. Satia-About, J., R.E. Patterson, M.L. States,’’ Social Science & Medicine, 69:983– your requests. The guidance may also be Neuhouser, et al., ‘‘Dietary Acculturation: 991, 2009. obtained by mail by calling the Center Applications to Nutrition Research and for Biologics Evaluation and Research at Dietetics,’’ Journal of the American Dietetic Dated: August 18, 2011. 1–800–835–4709 or 301–827–1800. See Association, 102(8):1105–1118, August 2002. David Dorsey, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 11. Lin, H., O.I. Bermudez, and K.L. the section Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy and Tucker, ‘‘Dietary Patterns of Hispanic Elders for electronic access to the guidance Planning. Are Associated With Acculturation and document. Obesity,’’ Journal of Nutrition, 133:3651– [FR Doc. 2011–21485 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Submit electronic comments on the 3657, 2003. BILLING CODE 4160–01–P guidance to http://www.regulations.gov.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Submit written comments to the Federation of Pharmaceutical III. Electronic Access Division of Dockets Management (HFA– Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA). Persons with access to the Internet 305), Food and Drug Administration, The ICH Steering Committee includes may obtain the document at http://www. 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, representatives from each of the ICH regulations.gov, http://www.fda.gov/ MD 20852. sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatory FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: observers from the World Health Information/Guidances/default.htm, or Regarding the guidance: Ellis F. Unger, Organization, Health Canada, and the http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBlood Center for Drug Evaluation and European Free Trade Area. Vaccines/GuidanceCompliance Research, Food and Drug In the Federal Register of August 5, RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ Administration, 10903 New Hampshire 2008 (73 FR 45462), FDA published a default.htm. notice announcing the availability of a Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 4208, Silver Spring, Dated: August 16, 2011. draft guidance entitled ‘‘E2F MD 20993–0002, 301–796–2270; or Leslie Kux, Development Safety Update Report.’’ Peter F. Bross, Center for Biologics Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. Evaluation and Research (HFM–755), The notice gave interested persons an [FR Doc. 2011–21447 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Food and Drug Administration, 1401 opportunity to submit comments by Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, November 3, 2008. BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 301–827–5102. After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guidance, Regarding the ICH: Michelle Limoli, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND a final draft of the guidance was Office of International Programs, Food HUMAN SERVICES and Drug Administration, 10903 New submitted to the ICH Steering Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, rm. 3506, Committee and endorsed by the three Food and Drug Administration participating regulatory agencies in Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796– [Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0002] 8377. August 2010. The guidance describes the format, Vaccines and Related Biological SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: content, and timing of a DSUR for an Products Advisory Committee; investigational drug. The DSUR will I. Background Amendment of Notice serve as a common standard for periodic In recent years, many important reporting on drugs under development AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, initiatives have been undertaken by (including marketed drugs that are HHS. regulatory authorities and industry under further study) among the ICH ACTION: Notice. associations to promote international regions. The DSUR is patterned after the harmonization of regulatory periodic safety update report (used for The Food and Drug Administration requirements. FDA has participated in safety reporting in the postmarketing (FDA) is announcing an amendment to many meetings designed to enhance environment) and can be submitted in the notice of meeting of the Vaccines harmonization and is committed to the United States in place of an annual and Related Biological Products seeking scientifically based harmonized report for an IND. The harmonized Advisory Committee. This meeting was technical procedures for pharmaceutical DSUR is intended to promote a announced in the Federal Register of development. One of the goals of consistent approach to annual clinical July 22, 2011 (76 FR 44016). The harmonization is to identify and then safety reporting among the ICH regions amendment is being made to reflect a reduce differences in technical and enhance efficiency by reducing the change in the Date and Time, Location, requirements for drug development number of reports generated for Agenda, Procedure, and Closed among regulatory agencies. submission to the regulatory authorities. Committee Deliberations portions of the ICH was organized to provide an This guidance is being issued document. There are no other changes. opportunity for tripartite harmonization consistent with FDA’s good guidance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: initiatives to be developed with input practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). Donald W. Jehn or Denise Royster, from both regulatory and industry The guidance represents the Agency’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and representatives. FDA also seeks input current thinking on this topic. It does Research (HFM–71), Food and Drug from consumer representatives and not create or confer any rights for or on Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, others. ICH is concerned with any person and does not operate to bind Rockville, MD 20852, 301–827–0314, or harmonization of technical FDA or the public. An alternative FDA Advisory Committee Information requirements for the registration of approach may be used if such approach Line, 1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 pharmaceutical products among three satisfies the requirements of the in the Washington DC area), and follow regions: The European Union, Japan, applicable statutes and regulations. the prompts to the desired center or and the United States. The six ICH product area. Please call the Information II. Comments sponsors are the European Commission; Line for up-to-date information on this the European Federation of Interested persons may submit to the meeting. Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; Division of Dockets Management (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, ADDRESSES) either electronic or written Federal Register of July 22, 2011, FDA and Welfare; the Japanese comments regarding this document. It is announced that a meeting of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers only necessary to send one set of Vaccines and Related Biological Association; the Centers for Drug comments. It is no longer necessary to Products Advisory Committee would be Evaluation and Research and Biologics send two copies of mailed comments. held on September 20, 2011. On page Evaluation and Research, FDA; and the Identify comments with the docket 44016, in the 2nd and 3rd column and Pharmaceutical Research and number found in brackets in the on page 44017, in the 1st column, the Manufacturers of America. The ICH heading of this document. Received Date and Time, Location, Agenda, Secretariat, which coordinates the comments may be seen in the Division Procedure, and Closed Committee preparation of documentation, is of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. Deliberations portions of the document provided by the International and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. are changed to read as follows:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52669

Date and Time: The meeting will be made to the contact person on or before DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND held on September 20, 2011, from 1 September 13, 2011. Oral presentations HUMAN SERVICES p.m. to approximately 4 p.m. from the public will be scheduled Location: National Institutes of Health between approximately 2:30 p.m. and Food and Drug Administration (NIH), 9000 Rockville Pike, Building 3:30 p.m. Those individuals interested 29B, Conference Room C, Bethesda, MD in making formal oral presentations [Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0332] 20892. The public is welcome to attend should notify the contact person and the meeting at the specified location submit a brief statement of the general Report on the Performance of Drug where a speakerphone will be provided. nature of the evidence or arguments and Biologics Firms in Conducting Public participation in the meeting is they wish to present, the names and Postmarketing Requirements and limited to the use of the speakerphone addresses of proposed participants, and Commitments; Availability; Correction in the conference room. Important an indication of the approximate time information about transportation and requested to make their presentation on AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, directions to the NIH campus, parking, or before September 9, 2011. Time HHS. and security procedures is available on allotted for each presentation may be ACTION: Notice of availability; the Internet at http://www.nih.gov/ limited. If the number of registrants correction. about/visitor/index.htm. (FDA has requesting to speak is greater than can verified the Web site address, but FDA be reasonably accommodated during the SUMMARY: The Food and Drug is not responsible for any subsequent scheduled open public hearing session, Administration (FDA) is correcting a changes to the Web site after this FDA may conduct a lottery to determine notice of availability that appeared in document publishes in the Federal the speakers for the scheduled open the Federal Register of August 4, 2011 Register.) Visitors must show two forms public hearing session. The contact (76 FR 47211). The Agency is required of identification, one of which must be person will notify interested persons a government-issued photo to report annually in the Federal regarding their request to speak by Register on the status of postmarketing identification such as a Federal September 10, 2011. employee badge, driver’s license, requirements and commitments Closed Committee Deliberations: On required of, or agreed upon by, holders passport, green card, etc. Detailed September 20, 2011, from information about security procedures is of approved drug and biological approximately 3:30 p.m. to products. The August 4, 2011, notice is located at http://www.nih.gov/about/ approximately 4 p.m., the meeting will visitorsecurity.htm. Due to the limited the Agency’s report on the status of the be closed to permit discussion where studies and clinical trials that available parking visitors are disclosure would constitute a clearly encouraged to use public transportation. applicants have agreed to, or are unwarranted invasion of personal required to, conduct. The document was Agenda: On September 20, 2011, the privacy (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6)). The committee will meet in open session to published with an error. This document committee will discuss the report of the corrects that error. hear updates of the research programs in intramural research programs and make the Laboratory of Enteric and Sexually recommendations regarding personnel FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Transmitted Diseases, Division of staffing decisions. Joyce A. Strong, Office of Policy and Bacterial, Parasitic, and Allergenic This notice is issued under the Planning, Food and Drug Products, Office of Vaccines Research Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 Administration, 10903 New Hampshire and Review, Center for Biologics U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 3208, Silver Spring, Evaluation and Research, FDA. relating to the advisory committees. MD 20993–0002, 301–796–9148. Procedure: On September 20, 2011, from 1 p.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m., Dated: August 18, 2011. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. the meeting is open to the public. Jill Hartzler Warner, 2011–19806, appearing on page 47211 Interested persons may present data, Acting Associate Commissioner for Special in the Federal Register of August 4, information, or views, orally or in Medical Programs. 2011, the following correction is made: writing, on issues pending before the [FR Doc. 2011–21535 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] On page 47214, table 1 is corrected to committee. Written submissions may be BILLING CODE 4160–01–P read as follows:

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF POSTMARKETING REQUIREMENTS AND COMMITMENTS [Numbers as of September 30, 2010]

NDA/ANDA (% of Total PMR or BLA (% of Total PMR or % of % of total PMC) total PMC) 1

Number of open PMRs ...... 526 149. On-schedule open PMRs (see table 2 of this document) ...... 477 (91%) 131 (88%). Off-schedule open PMRs (see table 3 of this document) ...... 49 (9%) 18 (12%). Number of open PMCs 2 ...... 473 307. On-schedule open PMCs (see table 4 of this document) ...... 399 (84%) 236 (77%). Off-schedule open PMCs (see table 5 of this document) ...... 74 (16%) 71 (23%). 1 On October 1, 2003, FDA completed a consolidation of certain therapeutic products formerly regulated by CBER into CDER. Consequently, CDER now reviews many BLAs. Fiscal year statistics for postmarketing requirements and commitments for BLAs reviewed by CDER are in- cluded in BLA totals in this table. 2 The number of PMCs reported as open as of September 30, 2009, in the ‘‘Report on the Performance of Drug and Biologics Firms in Con- ducting Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments’’ notice published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2010 (75 FR 68802), inad- vertently also included open PMRs. That error has been corrected for the current reporting period.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Dated: August 17, 2011. —Phil Ross, Managing Director, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Leslie Kux, Healthcare, JPMorgan HUMAN SERVICES Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy. —Maarten deJong, Managing Director, National Institutes of Health [FR Doc. 2011–21487 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Barclays Capital BILLING CODE 4160–01–P —Andrew Robertson, Chief Policy National Institute of Allergy and Officer, BIO Ventures for Global Infectious Diseases Notice of Closed Meeting DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND Health HUMAN SERVICES —Orin Herskowitz, Executive Director & Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Vice President, Intellectual Property Federal Advisory Committee Act, as National Institutes of Health Technology Transfer, Columbia amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is Technology Ventures hereby given of the following meeting. 2011 Technology Transfer Summit The meeting will be closed to the North America Conference —Erik Lium, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Research, UCSF public in accordance with the AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, provisions set forth in sections —Brian Kelly, Director, Technology, 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Public Health Service, HHS. Enterprise & Commercialisation, Weill ACTION: Notice of Conference. as amended. The grant applications and Cornell Medical College the discussions could disclose SUMMARY: The NIH Office of Technology —Daniel Perez, Partner, Bay City Capital confidential trade secrets or commercial Transfer extends invitations to attend —Hubert Birner, Partner, TVM Capital property such as patentable material, the 2011 Technology Transfer Summit and personal information concerning North America Conference. —Glen Steinbach, COO, Johns Hopkins individuals associated with the grant Technology Transfer DATES: October 3–4, 2011. applications, the disclosure of which ADDRESSES: NIH campus, 9000 —Markus Goebel, Managing Director, would constitute a clearly unwarranted Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, NIH Novartis Venture Fund invasion of personal privacy. Clinical Center (Building 10), Masur The Summit will strive to induce Name of Committee: National Institute of Auditorium. interactive debate, deliberation and Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Targeting Resistance in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NIH discussion, networking and business Select Gram-Negative Pathogens. campus in Bethesda, MD will be the site over the 2-day period with the leaders Date: September 22–23, 2011. for the 2011 Tech Transfer Summit in the sector. The Summit conference Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. North America (TTSNA), the leading will be further enhanced by the TTS Agenda: To review and evaluate grant early-stage biotech partnering, licensing, Initiative Business Social Network, an applications. venture and innovation platform, co- online business-networking platform Place: Hilton Silver Spring, 8727 Colesville hosted and co-sponsored by the NIH powered by JuJaMa. The Network is a Road, Chesapeake Room, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Office of Technology Transfer, TTS Ltd. communication tool for business that Contact Person: Nancy Lewis Ernst, PhD, and regional host partners such as BIO will allow the posting of profiles and Scientific Review Official, Scientific Review Maryland. technology offers; the searching of other Program, Division of Extramural Activities, TTSNA is one of a series of summits participants by category, by technology National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B held within the Global Tech Transfer or licensing offer; and the setting up of Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD Initiative and is designed specifically to meetings prior to, during and after the 20892–7616, 301–451–7383, put innovators, early-stage SMEs and Summit. Total participation numbers for [email protected]. technology managers from leading this conference will be strictly limited (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance universities and research institutes to ensure the ideal environment for real Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, together with biotech & pharma discussion and business. Microbiology and Infectious Diseases licensing & business development Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) executives, VCs, serial entrepreneurs, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and leading IP specialists for interactive More details about the conference Dated: August 17, 2011. sessions relating to partnering, licensing including registration information and Jennifer S. Spaeth, & business development. the conference agenda can be found by Director, Office of Federal Advisory Conference speakers for the 2011 contacting Tech Transfer Summit North Committee Policy. include: America (http:// [FR Doc. 2011–21512 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] —Kathy Hudson, Deputy Director, www.techtransfersummit.com/ BILLING CODE 4140–01–P National Institutes of Health (NIH) northamerica2011). Attendees may also —James C. Greenwood, President & enter the Partner Code ‘‘NIH11’’ to CEO, BIO register with a 10% reduction. For DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND —Shiv Krishnan, Director, Scouting & information about sign language HUMAN SERVICES interpretation or accommodation for Partnering, Sanofi, USA National Institutes of Health —Sanjeev Munshi, Director, Licensing disabilities, please contact Sharon and External Research, Merck & Co Fields at telephone 301–594–7700 or National Institute of Allergy and —David Kaslow, Head of Vaccines [email protected]. Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Project & Pipeline Leadership, Merck Dated: August 16, 2011. Meetings & Co —Ed Mascioli, Head of Orphan & Steven M. Ferguson, Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Genetic Diseases Research Unit, Pfizer Deputy Director, Licensing & Federal Advisory Committee Act, as —Arthur Tzianabos, Vice President of Entrepreneurship, Office of Technology amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is Research, HGT Division, Shire Transfer, National Institutes of Health. hereby given of the following meetings. —Steve Groft, Director, Office of Rare [FR Doc. 2011–21514 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] The meetings will be closed to the Diseases Research, NIH BILLING CODE 4140–01–P public in accordance with the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52671

provisions set forth in sections Dated: August 17, 2011. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Jennifer S. Spaeth, HUMAN SERVICES as amended. The grant applications and Director. Office of Federal Advisory the discussions could disclose Committee Policy. National Institutes of Health confidential trade secrets or commercial [FR Doc. 2011–21511 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Clinical Center; Notice of Meeting property such as patentable material, BILLING CODE 4140–01–P and personal information concerning Pursuant to section 10(d) of the individuals associated with the grant Federal Advisory Committee Act, as applications, the disclosure of which DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is would constitute a clearly unwarranted hereby given of a meeting of the NIH invasion of personal privacy. National Institutes of Health Advisory Board for Clinical Research. Name of Committee: National Institute of The meeting will be open to the Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Eunice Kennedy Shriver National public as indicated below, with Emphasis Panel; Partnerships for Biodefense Institute of Child Health & Human attendance limited to space available. (R01) Development; Notice of Closed Individuals who plan to attend and Date: September 13, 2011. Meeting need special assistance, such as sign Time: 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. Notice of Closed Meeting language interpretation or other Agenda: To review and evaluate grant reasonable accommodations, should applications. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the notify the Contact Person listed below Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Federal Advisory Committee Act, as in advance of the meeting. Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is (Telephone Conference Call) The meeting will be closed to the hereby given of the following meeting. Contact Person: Frank S. De Silva, PhD, public in accordance with the Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review The meeting will be closed to the provisions set forth in section Program, Division of Extramural Activities, public in accordance with the 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended to National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B provisions set forth in sections discuss personnel matters, the Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., disclosure of which would constitute a 20892–7616, 301–594–1009, as amended. The contract proposals and clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. [email protected]. the discussions could disclose Name of Committee: NIH Advisory Board Name of Committee: National Institute of confidential trade secrets or commercial for Clinical Research Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special property such as patentable material, Date: October 3, 2011 Emphasis Panel; Partnerships for Biodefense and personal information concerning Open: 10 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. (R01) individuals associated with the contract Agenda: To discuss intramural clinical Date: September 14, 2011. proposals, the disclosure of which research operational and funding issues. Time: 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. would constitute a clearly unwarranted Place: National Institutes of Health, Agenda: To review and evaluate grant invasion of personal privacy. Building 10, 10 Center Drive, CRC Medical Board Room 4–2551, Bethesda, MD 20892. applications. Name of Committee: National Institute of Closed: 1:15 p.m. to 2 p.m. Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Child Health and Human Development Agenda: To discuss personnel matters. Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, Special Emphasis Panel; The Effect of Place: National Institutes of Health, (Telephone Conference Call) Supervised Practice Driving on Driving Building 10, 10 Center Drive, CRC Medical Contact Person: Frank S. De Silva, PhD, Performance Among Newly Licensed Teen Board Room 4–2551, Bethesda, MD 20892. Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Drivers. Contact Person: Maureen E Gormley, Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Date: September 15, 2011. Executive Secretary, Mark O. Hatfield National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Clinical Research Center, National Institutes Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD Agenda: To review and evaluate contract of Health, Building 10, Room 6–2551, 20892–7616, 301–594–1009, proposals. Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496–2897. Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 [email protected]. Any interested person may file written Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, comments with the committee by forwarding Name of Committee: National Institute of (Telephone Conference Call) the statement to the Contact Person listed on Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, this notice. The statement should include the Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of name, address, telephone number and when Program Project Application. Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver applicable, the business or professional Date: September 19–20, 2011. National Institute of, Child Health and affiliation of the interested person. Time: 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. Human Development, NIH 6100 Executive In the interest of security, NIH has Agenda: To review and evaluate grant Blvd., Room 5b01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301– instituted stringent procedures for entrance applications. 435–6680, [email protected]. onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817. Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; will be inspected before being allowed on Contact Person: Maja Maric, PhD, 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; campus. Visitors will be asked to show one Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation form of identification (for example, a Research; 93.209, Contraception and government-issued photo ID, driver’s license, Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National or passport) and to state the purpose of their DHHS/NIH/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Institutes of Health, HHS) visit. MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–451– 2634, [email protected]. Dated: August 17, 2011. Dated: August 17, 2011. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Jennifer S. Spaeth, Jennifer S. Spaeth, Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Director, Office of Federal Advisory and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Committee Policy. Committee Policy. Microbiology and Infectious Diseases [FR Doc. 2011–21510 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 2011–21509 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS) BILLING CODE 4140–01–P BILLING CODE 4140–01–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52672 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Docket: For access to the docket, HUMAN SERVICES SECURITY background documents or comments received by the NSTAC, go to http:// [Docket No. DHS–2011–0064] National Institutes of Health www.regulations.gov. President’s National Security A public comment period will be held National Institute of Environmental Telecommunications Advisory during the meeting on September 8, Health Sciences; Notice of Closed Committee 2011, from 2:45 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., and Meeting speakers are requested to limit their AGENCY: National Protection and comments to 3 minutes. Please note that Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Programs Directorate, DHS. the public comment period may end Federal Advisory Committee Act, as ACTION: Committee Management; Notice before the time indicated, following the amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is of an Open Federal Advisory Committee last call for comments. Contact the hereby given of the following meeting. Teleconference. individual listed below to register as a The meeting will be closed to the speaker. SUMMARY: The President’s National public in accordance with the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Security Telecommunications Advisory provisions set forth in sections Woodhouse, NSTAC Alternate Committee (NSTAC) will meet on Designated Federal Officer, Department 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., Thursday, September 8, 2011, via a as amended. The contract proposals and of Homeland Security, telephone (703) conference call. The meeting will be 235–4900. the discussions could disclose open to the public. confidential trade secrets or commercial SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of DATES: The NSTAC will meet Thursday, this meeting is given under the Federal property such as patentable material, September 8, 2011, from 2 p.m. to 3:15 and personal information concerning Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 p.m. Please note that the meeting may U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92–463). The individuals associated with the contract close early if the committee has proposals, the disclosure of which NSTAC advises the President on matters completed its business. related to national security and would constitute a clearly unwarranted ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held emergency preparedness invasion of personal privacy. via a conference call. For access to the telecommunications policy. Name of Committee: National Institute of conference bridge, contact Ms. Sue During the conference call, the Environmental Health Sciences Special Daage at (703) 235–4964 or by e-mail at NSTAC members will receive an update Emphasis Panel, Reproductive Assessment in [email protected] by 5 p.m. September regarding the progress of the NSTAC’s Rodent Tissues. 1, 2011. Cloud Computing Subcommittee’s Date: September 22, 2011. To facilitate public participation, we recent work and receive a tasking from Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. are inviting public comment on the the Executive Office of the President Agenda: To review and evaluate contract issues to be considered by the regarding the National Public Safety proposals. committee as listed in the Broadband Network. Place: Nat. Inst. of Environmental Health ‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section Dated: August 5, 2011. Sciences, Keystone Building, 530 Davis below. Associated briefing materials Allen Woodhouse, Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. that will be discussed on the conference Contact Person: RoseAnne M McGee, call will be available at http:// Acting Director, National Communications System. Associate Scientific Review Officer, www.ncs.gov/nstac for review prior to Scientific Review Branch, Division of the call. Written comments must be [FR Doc. 2011–21518 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Extramural Research and Training, Nat. received by the Deputy Manager no later BILLING CODE 9110–9P–P Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, than September 23, 2011, identified by P.O. Box 12233, MD EC–30, Research Federal Register Docket Number DHS– DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Triangle Park, NC 27709. (919) 541–0752. 2011–0064 and may be submitted by SECURITY [email protected]. any one of the following methods: • (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Federal Emergency Management Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk www.regulations.gov. Follow the Agency Estimation—Health Risks from instructions for submitting written Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS comments. [Docket ID: Docket ID: FEMA–2011–0012] Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety • E-mail: [email protected]. Agency Information Collection Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Include the docket number in the Activities: Submission for OMB Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and subject line of the email message. Review; Comment Request, Level 1 Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower • Fax: (703) 235–4981 Assessment and Level 3 Evaluations Development in the Environmental Health • Mail: Deputy Manager, National for the Center for Domestic Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Communications System, National Preparedness (CDP) Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Protection and Programs Directorate, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, Department of Homeland Security, 245 AGENCY: Federal Emergency National Institutes of Health, HHS) Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0615, Management Agency, DHS. Dated: August 17, 2011. Arlington, VA 20598–0615. ACTION: Notice. Jennifer S. Spaeth, Instructions: All written submissions Director, Office of Federal Advisory received must include the words SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Committee Policy. ‘‘Department of Homeland Security’’ Management Agency (FEMA) will [FR Doc. 2011–21506 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] and the docket number for this action. submit the information collection Written comments received will be abstracted below to the Office of BILLING CODE 4140–01–P posted without alteration at http:// Management and Budget for review and www.regulations.gov, including any clearance in accordance with the personal information provided. requirements of the Paperwork

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52673

Reduction Act of 1995. The submission Dated: August 2, 2011. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND will describe the nature of the Lesia M. Banks, SECURITY information collection, the categories of Director, Records Management Division, respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., Mission Support Bureau, Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management the time, effort and resources used by Management Agency, Department of Agency respondents to respond) and cost, and Homeland Security. the actual data collection instruments [FR Doc. 2011–21430 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA–1999– FEMA will use. BILLING CODE 9111–53–P DR; Docket ID FEMA–2011–0001] DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 22, 2011. Texas; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND a Major Disaster Declaration ADDRESSES: Submit written comments SECURITY on the proposed information collection AGENCY: Federal Emergency to the Office of Information and Federal Emergency Management Regulatory Affairs, Office of Agency Management Agency, DHS. Management and Budget. Comments [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA–1997– ACTION: Notice. should be addressed to the Desk Officer DR; Docket ID FEMA–2011–0001] for the Department of Homeland SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice Security, Federal Emergency Indiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of of a major disaster declaration for the Management Agency, and sent via a Major Disaster Declaration State of Texas (FEMA–1999–DR), dated electronic mail to AGENCY: July 1, 2011, and related determinations. [email protected] or faxed Federal Emergency to (202) 395–5806. Management Agency, DHS. DATES: Effective Date: August 15, 2011. ACTION: Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice Peggy Miller, Office of Response and copies of the information collection of a major disaster declaration for the Recovery, Federal Emergency should be made to Director, Records State of Indiana (FEMA–1997–DR), Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Management Division, 1800 South Bell dated June 23, 2011, and related Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886. Street, Arlington, VA 20598–3005, determinations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice facsimile number (202) 646–3347, or e- DATES: Effective Date: August 15, 2011. mail address FEMA–Information- of a major disaster declaration for the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [email protected]. State of Texas is hereby amended to Peggy Miller, Office of Response and include the following areas among those SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recovery, Federal Emergency areas determined to have been adversely Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Collection of Information affected by the event declared a major Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3886. disaster by the President in his Title: Level 1 Assessment and Level 3 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice declaration of July 1, 2011. Evaluations for the Center for Domestic of a major disaster declaration for the Preparedness (CDP). State of Indiana is hereby amended to Fisher County for Public Assistance. Type of Information Collection: New include the following areas among those Kent and Moore Counties for Public information collection. areas determined to have been adversely Assistance (already designated for emergency OMB Number: OMB No. 1660–NEW. affected by the event declared a major protective measures [Category B], including Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA disaster by the President in his direct Federal assistance). Form 092–0–2, Level 1 Assessment declaration of June 23, 2011. (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Form; FEMA Form 092–0–2A, Level 3 Clay and Lawrence Counties for Public Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Evaluation Form for Students; FEMA Assistance. for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Form 092–0–2B, Level 3 Evaluation (The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Form for Supervisors. Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; Abstract: The forms in this collection for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, of information will be used to survey Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; the Center for Domestic Preparedness 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, (CDP) students (and their supervisors) 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); Individuals and Households in Presidentially enrolled in CDP courses. The survey 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, will collect information regarding 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to quality of instruction, course material, Individuals and Households in Presidentially Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance— and impact of training on their Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals professional employment. Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance— and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals Affected Public: State, local or Tribal and Households; 97.050, Presidentially and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, government. Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals Disaster Grants—Public Assistance Estimated Number of Respondents: and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, 72,000. Disaster Grants—Public Assistance Hazard Mitigation Grant.) Frequency of Response: Once. (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Estimated Average Hour Burden per Hazard Mitigation Grant.) W. Craig Fugate, Respondent: .25 burden hours. W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Estimated Total Annual Burden Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Hours: 18,000 burden hours. Management Agency. [FR Doc. 2011–21429 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Estimated Cost: There are no annual [FR Doc. 2011–21427 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111–23–P start-up or capital costs. BILLING CODE 9111–23–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52674 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Submission @omb.eop.gov; fax: 202– (e.g., permitting electronic submission URBAN DEVELOPMENT 395–3086. of responses). This Notice also lists the following [Docket No. FR–5480–N–85] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information: Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Title of Proposal: FY 2011 Notice of Notice of Proposed Information Department of Housing and Urban Funding Availability (NOFA) for Collection for Public Comment; Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Neighborhood Stabilization Program Emergency Comment Request; FY Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Technical Assistance and Capacity 2011 Notice of Funding Availability [email protected]; telephone Building; Request for Qualifications (NOFA) for Neighborhood Stabilization (202) 708–2374. This is not a toll-free (NSPTA). Program Technical Assistance and number. Copies of available documents Description of the Need for the Capacity Building; Request for submitted to OMB may be obtained Information and Its Proposed Use: The Qualifications (NSPTA) from the Reports Management Officer. Narratives, Matrices and Reporting AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Requirements associated with NSP TA Officer. Department will submit the proposed will allow CPD to accurately assess the ACTION: Notice of proposed information information collection to OMB for experience, expertise, and overall collection. review, as required by the Paperwork capacity of applicants for technical Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. assistance under the FY 2011 Program SUMMARY: The proposed information Chapter 35, as amended). This Notice is NOFA. They will also allow CPD to collection requirement described below soliciting comments from members of monitor and evaluate TA progress over has been submitted to the Office of the public and affected agencies the course of each grant and make Management and Budget (OMB) for concerning the proposed collection of necessary interventions. The new format emergency review and approval, as information to: (1) Evaluate whether the for this type of collection also makes it required by the Paperwork Reduction proposed collection of information is easier for applicants to apply and report Act. The Department is soliciting public necessary for the proper performance of by reducing the time required for filling comments on the subject proposal. the functions of the agency, including out an application and reporting forms, DATES: Comments Due Date: September whether the information will have while retaining the utility of the 6, 2011. practical utility; (2) Evaluate the previous collection methods. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the OMB Control Number: 2506–Pending. invited to submit comments regarding burden of the proposed collection of Agency Form Numbers: NSP this proposal. Comments must be information; (3) Enhance the quality, Technical Assistance and Capacity received within 14 days from the date utility, and clarity of the information to Building Experience Form; NSP of this Notice. Comments should refer to be collected; and (4) Minimize the Technical Assistance and Capacity the proposal by name/or OMB approval burden of the collection of information Building Expertise Form. number and should be sent to: HUD on those who are to respond, including Members of Affected Public: Business Desk Officer, Office of Management and through the use of appropriate or other for-profit, not-for-profit Budget, New Executive Office Building, automated collection techniques or institutions, State, Local or Tribal Washington, DC 20503; e-mail: OIR other forms of information technology Government.

Number of Annual × Hours per respondents responses response = Burden hours

Reporting Burden ...... 165 1.36 22.466 5,055

Status: New collection. ACTION: Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act Program Contact, Catherine Brennan, of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. SUMMARY: The proposed information Director, Office of Housing, Housing Assistance and Grants Administration, Dated: August 16, 2011. collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Department of Housing and Urban Colette Pollard, Management and Budget (OMB) for Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Departmental Reports Management Officer, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) Office of the Chief Information Officer. review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is 708–3000 (this is not a toll free number) [FR Doc. 2011–21434 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] soliciting public comments on the for copies of the proposed forms and BILLING CODE 4210–67–P subject proposal. other available information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DATES: Comments Due Date: October 24, Department is submitting the proposed DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 2011. URBAN DEVELOPMENT information collection to OMB for ADDRESSES: Interested persons are review, as required by the Paperwork invited to submit comments regarding Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. [Docket No. FR–5484–N–30] this proposal. Comments should refer to Chapter 35, as amended). Notice of Proposed Information the proposal by name and/or OMB This Notice is soliciting comments Collection: Comment Request; Control Number and should be sent to: from members of the public and affected Procedures for Appealing Section 8 Colette Pollard, Reports Management agencies concerning the proposed Rent Adjustments Officer, Department of Housing and collection of information to: (1) Evaluate Urban Development, 451 7th Street, whether the proposed collection is AGENCY: Office of the Assistant SW., Washington, DC 20410; or necessary for the proper performance of Secretary for Housing, HUD. telephone (202) 402–3400. the Section 8 rent appeal process. (2)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52675

Evaluate whether to continue the DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND submitted to OMB may be obtained quality of appeal that rendered the URBAN DEVELOPMENT from Ms. Pollard. initial rent adjustment decision made to [Docket No. FR–5480–N–83] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This local HUD Office or Contract notice informs the public that the Administrator and Section appeals to Notice of Submission of Proposed Department of Housing and Urban HUD Director, who will designate to an Information Collection to OMB; Development has submitted to OMB a Officer to review any appeal. This Housing Choice Voucher Program request for approval of the Information Notice also lists the following Administrative Fee Study collection described below. This notice information: is soliciting comments from members of AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information the public and affecting agencies Title of Proposal: Procedure for Officer, HUD. concerning the proposed collection of Appealing Section 8 Rent Adjustments. ACTION: Notice. information to: (1) Evaluate whether the OMB Control Number, if applicable: SUMMARY: The proposed information proposed collection of information is 2502–0446. collection requirement described below necessary for the proper performance of Description of the need for the has been submitted to the Office of the functions of the agency, including information and proposed use: HUD is Management and Budget (OMB) for whether the information will have charged with the responsibility of review, as required by the Paperwork practical utility; (2) Evaluate the determining the method of rent Reduction Act. The Department is accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the adjustments and with facilitating these soliciting public comments on the burden of the proposed collection of adjustments. Because rent adjustments subject proposal. information; (3) Enhance the quality, are considered benefits to project The Housing Choice Voucher Program utility, and clarity of the information to owners, HUD must also provide some Administrative Fee Study is designed to be collected; and (4) Minimize the means for owners to appeal the evaluate the amount of funding needed burden of the collection of information decisions made by the Department or to administer the voucher program on those who are to respond; including the Contract Administrator. This appeal based on direct measurement of the through the use of appropriate work actually performed by voucher automated collection techniques or process, and the information collection administrators. The study will measure other forms of information technology, included as part of the process, play an and identify the tasks performed by e.g., permitting electronic submission of important role in preventing costly PHA staff to meet program responses. litigation and in ensuring the accuracy requirements, to assist voucher holders This Notice Also Lists the Following of the overall rent adjustment process. in finding and renting suitable housing Information Agency form numbers, if applicable: in a timely way, and to ensure that a Owners will submit rent appeal on broad range of affordable rental housing Title of Proposal: Housing Choice owner’s letterhead providing a written throughout the community is available Voucher Program Administrative Fee explanation for the appeal. to voucher families. The study will Study. Estimation of the total numbers of identify the costs involved in each task, OMB Approval Number: 2528– including salaries, benefits, and hours needed to prepare the information Pending. overhead. Ultimately, the findings of the collection including number of Form Numbers: None. study will be used to inform the respondents, frequency of response, and Description of the Need for the development of a new formula for hours of response: The number of Information and Its Proposed Use: The allocating HCV program administrative Housing Choice Voucher Program burden hours is 1050. The number of fees. respondents is 525 and the number of Administrative Fee Study is designed to responses is 525, the frequency of DATES: Comments Due Date: September evaluate the amount of funding needed response is on occasion, and the burden 22, 2011. to administer the voucher program hour per response is 2. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are based on direct measurement of the invited to submit comments regarding work actually performed by voucher Status of the proposed information this proposal. Comments should refer to administrators. The study will measure collection: This is an extension of a the proposal by name and/or OMB and identify the tasks performed by currently approved collection. approval Number (2528–Pending) and PHA staff to meet program Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, requirements, to assist voucher holders of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended. Office of Management and Budget, New in finding and renting suitable housing Executive Office Building, Washington, in a timely way, and to ensure that a Dated: August 17, 2011. DC 20503; e-mail OIRA- broad range of affordable rental housing Ronald Y. Spraker, [email protected] fax: 202–395– throughout the community is available Associate General Deputy Assistant Secretary 5806. to voucher families. The study will for Housing-Associate Deputy Federal FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: identify the costs involved in each task, Housing Commissioner. Colette Pollard, Reports Management including salaries, benefits, and [FR Doc. 2011–21441 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing overhead. Ultimately, the findings of the BILLING CODE 4210–67–P and Urban Development, 451 Seventh study will be used to inform the Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e- development of a new formula for mail Colette Pollard at allocating HCV program administrative [email protected]; or telephone fees. (202) 402–3400. This is not a toll-free Frequency of Submission: On number. Copies of available documents occasion.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52676 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Number of Annual × Hours per respondents responses response = Burden hours

Reporting Burden ...... 300 1 0.4 950

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 950. This Notice is soliciting comments Dated: August 17, 2011. Status: New collection. from members of the public and affected Ronald Y. Spraker, Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork agencies concerning the proposed Associate General Deputy Assistant Secretary Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as collection of information to: (1) Evaluate for Housing-Associate Deputy Federal amended. whether the proposed collection is Housing Commissioner. Dated: August 16, 2011. necessary for the proper performance of [FR Doc. 2011–21438 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] the functions of the agency, including BILLING CODE 4210–67–P Colette Pollard, whether the information will have Departmental Reports Management Officer, practical utility; (2) Evaluate the Office of the Chief Information Officer. accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND [FR Doc. 2011–21440 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] burden of the proposed collection of URBAN DEVELOPMENT BILLING CODE 4210–67–P information; (3) Enhance the quality, [Docket No. FR–5480–N–84] utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND Notice of Submission of Proposed burden of the collection of information URBAN DEVELOPMENT Information Collection to OMB on those who are to respond; including Continuum of Care Check-Up [Docket No. FR–5484–N–29] the use of appropriate automated Assessment Tool collection techniques or other forms of Notice of Proposed Information information technology, e.g., permitting AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Collection: Comment Request; electronic submission of responses. Officer, HUD. Multifamily Financial Management This Notice also lists the following ACTION: Notice. Template information: SUMMARY: The proposed information AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Title of Proposal: Multifamily collection requirement described below Secretary for Housing, HUD. Financial Management Template. has been submitted to the Office of ACTION: Notice. OMB Control Number, if applicable: Management and Budget (OMB) for 2502–0551. review, as required by the Paperwork SUMMARY: The proposed information Reduction Act. The Department is Description of the need for the collection requirement described below soliciting public comments on the information and proposed use: The will be submitted to the Office of subject proposal. Uniform Financial Reporting Standards Management and Budget (OMB) for The CoC Check-up Tool enhances (UFRS) regulation requires HUD’s review, as required by the Paperwork each CoC’s awareness of their capacity multifamily housing program Reduction Act. The Department is to assume new responsibilities outlined participants to submit financial data soliciting public comments on the in the McKinney-Vento ACT, as electronically, using generally accepted subject proposal. amended by HEARTH Act. accounting principles, in a prescribed DATES: Comments Due Date: October 24, Communities will self-identify and format. HUD collects the financial 2011. prioritize areas where improvement is information from participants to needed. HUD will use aggregate ADDRESSES: Interested persons are evaluate the financial condition of information of assess and target invited to submit comments regarding multifamily properties receiving Federal technical assistance needs, prepare for this proposal. Comments should refer to financial assistance. With the training conferences, develop sample the proposal by name and/or OMB standardization of the data under UFRS, tools and templates, guidebooks, Control Number and should be sent to: it has been easier for HUD to monitor Webinars to help communities plan the Colette Pollard, Reports Management compliance, and to identify and mitigate transition. Officer, Department of Housing and risks to the government. Urban Development, 451 7th Street, DATES: Comments Due Date: September SW., Washington, DC 20410; or Agency form numbers, if applicable: 22, 2011. None. telephone (202) 402–3400. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Estimation of the total numbers of invited to submit comments regarding Harry Messner, Housing Program hours needed to prepare the information this proposal. Comments should refer to Manager, Office of Asset Management, collection including number of the proposal by name and/or OMB Department of Housing and Urban respondents, frequency of response, and approval Number (2506–Pending) and Development, 451 7th Street, SW., hours of response: The number of should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) burden hours is 297,108. The number of Office of Management and Budget, New 708–2626 (this is not a toll free number) respondents is 21,222, the number of Executive Office Building, Washington, for copies of the proposed forms and responses is 21,222, the frequency of DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. E-mail: other available information. response is annually, and the burden [email protected] fax: hour per response is 14. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 202–395–5806. Department is submitting the proposed Status of the proposed information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: information collection to OMB for collection: This is a renewal of a Colette Pollard, Reports Management review, as required by the Paperwork previously approved collection. Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Chapter 35, as amended). of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended. Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; e-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52677

mail Colette Pollard at Colette. whether the information will have Form Numbers: None. [email protected]. or telephone (202) practical utility; (2) Evaluate the Description of the Need for the 402–3400. This is not a toll-free number. accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the Information and its Proposed Use:The Copies of available documents burden of the proposed collection of CoC Check-up Tool enhances each information; (3) Enhance the quality, submitted to OMB may be obtained CoC’s awareness of their capacity to utility, and clarity of the information to from Ms. Pollard. assume new responsibilities outlined in be collected; and (4) Minimize the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This burden of the collection of information the McKinney-Vento ACT, as amended notice informs the public that the on those who are to respond; including by HEARTH Act. Communities will self- Department of Housing and Urban through the use of appropriate identify and prioritize areas where Development has submitted to OMB a automated collection techniques or improvement is needed. HUD will use request for approval of the Information other forms of information technology, aggregate information of assess and collection described below. This notice e.g., permitting electronic submission of target technical assistance needs, is soliciting comments from members of responses. prepare for training conferences, the public and affecting agencies This notice also lists the following develop sample tools and templates, concerning the proposed collection of information: guidebooks, Webinars to help information to: (1) Evaluate whether the Title of Proposal: Continuum of Care communities plan the transition. proposed collection of information is Check-up Assessment Tool. necessary for the proper performance of OMB Approval Number: 2506— Frequency of Submission: On the functions of the agency, including Pending. occasion.

Number of Annual × Hours per = Burden hours respondents responses response

Reporting Burden ...... 450 8 1.5 5,400

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 5,400. Reports Liaison Officer, Department of information technology, e.g., permitting Status: New collection. Housing and Urban Development, 451 electronic submission of responses. Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, This Notice also lists the following Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as Room 9120 or the number for the information: amended. Federal Information Relay Service (1– 800–877–8339). Title of Proposal: Application for Dated: August 16, 2011. Energy Innovation Fund—Multifamily Colette Pollard, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pilot Program. Departmental Reports Management Officer, Theodore K. Toon, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Affordable OMB Control Number, if applicable: Office of the Chief Information Officer. 2502–0599. [FR Doc. 2011–21437 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Housing Preservation, Multifamily Housing Division, Department of Description of the need for the BILLING CODE 4210–67–P Housing and Urban Development, 451 information and proposed use: 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Application information will be used to DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND telephone (202) 402–8386 (this is not a evaluate, score and rank applications for URBAN DEVELOPMENT toll free number) for copies of the grant funds. proposed forms and other available Agency form numbers, if applicable: [Docket No. FR–5484–N–28] information. HUD 2880, HUD 424CB, HUD 2993, Notice of Proposed Information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The HUD 2991, SF424, SF424 Supp, SF LLL. Collection: Comment Request; Department is submitting the proposed Estimation of the total numbers of Application for Energy Innovation information collection to OMB for hours needed to prepare the information Fund—Multifamily Pilot Program review, as required by the Paperwork collection including number of Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. respondents, frequency of response, and AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Chapter 35, as amended). hours of response: The number of Secretary for Housing, HUD. This Notice is soliciting comments burden hours is 2470.5. The number of ACTION: Notice. from members of the public and affected respondents is 383, the number of agencies concerning the proposed responses is 502, the frequency of SUMMARY: The proposed information collection of information to: (1) Evaluate response is on occasion, and the burden collection requirement described below whether the proposed collection is hour per response is 93.25. will be submitted to the Office of necessary for the proper performance of Status of the proposed information Management and Budget (OMB) for the functions of the agency, including review, as required by the Paperwork collection: This is an extension of a whether the information will have currently approved collection. Reduction Act. The Department is practical utility; (2) Evaluate the soliciting public comments on the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended. subject proposal. burden of the proposed collection of DATES: Comments Due Date: October 24, information; (3) Enhance the quality, Dated: August 17, 2011. 2011. utility, and clarity of the information to Ronald Y. Spraker, ADDRESSES: Interested persons are be collected; and (4) Minimize the Associate General Deputy Assistant Secretary invited to submit comments regarding burden of the collection of information for Housing-Associate Deputy Federal this proposal. Comments should refer to on those who are to respond; including Housing Commissioner. the proposal by name and/or OMB the use of appropriate automated [FR Doc. 2011–21435 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Control Number and should be sent to: collection techniques or other forms of BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52678 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND work unless all of the iron, steel, and produced in the U.S. in sufficient and URBAN DEVELOPMENT manufactured goods used in the project reasonably available quantities or of are produced in the United States. satisfactory quality. [Docket No. FR–5374–N–32] Section 1605(b) provides that the Buy 4. Philadelphia Housing Authority. Buy American Exceptions Under the American requirement shall not apply On August 1, 2011, upon request of the American Recovery and Reinvestment in any case or category in which the Philadelphia Housing Authority, HUD Act of 2009 head of a Federal department or agency granted an additional exception to finds that: (1) Applying the Buy applicability of the Buy American AGENCY: Office of the Assistant American requirement would be requirements with respect to work, Secretary for Public and Indian inconsistent with the public interest; (2) using CFRFC funds, in connection with Housing, HUD. iron, steel, and the relevant the Plymouth Halls project. The ACTION: Notice. manufactured goods are not produced in exception was granted by HUD on the the U.S. in sufficient and reasonably basis that the relevant manufactured SUMMARY: In accordance with the available quantities or of satisfactory goods (convection microwave ovens) are American Recovery and Reinvestment quality; or (3) inclusion of iron, steel, not produced in the U.S. in sufficient Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–05, approved and manufactured goods will increase and reasonably available quantities or of February 17, 2009) (Recovery Act), and the cost of the overall project by more satisfactory quality. implementing guidance of the Office of than 25 percent. Section 1605(c) Dated: August 11, 2011. Management and Budget (OMB), this provides that if the head of a Federal notice advises that certain exceptions to department or agency makes a Sandra B. Henriquez, the Buy American requirement of the determination pursuant to section Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Recovery Act have been determined 1605(b), the head of the department or Housing. applicable for work using Capital Fund agency shall publish a detailed written [FR Doc. 2011–21436 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Recovery Formula and Competition justification in the Federal Register. BILLING CODE 4210–67–P (CFRFC) grant funds. Specifically, In accordance with section 1605(c) of exceptions were granted to the Malden the Recovery Act and OMB’s Housing Authority of Malden, MA for implementing guidance published on DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND the purchase and installation of side April 23, 2009 (74 FR 18449), this notice URBAN DEVELOPMENT opening Uniform Federal Accessibility advises the public that the following [Docket No. FR–5514–N–02] Standards-compliant (UFAS-compliant) exceptions were granted: ovens for the Linden Homes project, and 1. Malden Housing Authority. On July Request for Qualification (RFQ) for the to the Philadelphia Housing Authority 21, 2011, upon request of the Malden Fellowship Placement Pilot Program for the purchase and installation of Housing Authority, HUD granted an AGENCY: Office of the Assistant ductless split air conditioning systems exception to applicability of the Buy Secretary for Policy Development and for its scattered sites projects and American requirements with respect to Research, HUD. convection microwave ovens for its work, using CFRFC grant funds, in scattered sites projects and its Plymouth connection with the Linden Homes ACTION: Notice. Halls project. project. The exception was granted by HUD on the basis that the relevant Funding Opportunity Title: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: manufactured goods (UFAS-compliant Fellowship Placement Program. Donald J. LaVoy, Deputy Assistant side opening ovens) are not produced in Eligible Applicants: A single third Secretary for Office of Field Operations, the U.S. in sufficient and reasonably party, or a partnership of third parties Office of Public and Indian Housing, available quantities or of satisfactory as defined under section I.B. Definitions Department of Housing and Urban quality. of this notice. Development, 451 7th Street, SW., 2. Philadelphia Housing Authority. Announcement Type: Initial Room 4112, Washington, DC 20410– On July 6, 2011, upon request of the Announcement. 4000, telephone number 202–402–8500 Philadelphia Housing Authority, HUD OMB Control Number: The OMB (this is not a toll-free number); or granted an exception to applicability of control number is 2528–0272. Dominique G. Blom, Deputy Assistant the Buy American requirements with Catalog of Federal Domestic Secretary for Public Housing respect to work, using CFRFC grant Assistance Number (CFDA): The CFDA Investments, Office of Public Housing funds, in connection with its scattered number for this announcement is Investments, Office of Public and Indian sites project. The exception was granted 14.529. Housing, Department of Housing and by HUD on the basis that the relevant SUMMARY: This notice announces HUD’s Urban Development, 451 7th Street, manufactured goods (ductless split air proposal to conduct a Fellowship SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC conditioning systems) are not produced Placement Pilot (fellowship program). 20410–4000, telephone number 202– in the U.S. in sufficient and reasonably The fellowship program is designed to 402–8500 (this is not a toll-free available quantities or of satisfactory assist local governments rebuild their number). Persons with hearing- or quality. capacity by training and placing highly speech-impairments may access this 3. Philadelphia Housing Authority. motivated early to midcareer number through TTY by calling the toll- On July 21, 2011, upon request of the professionals into two-year fellowships free Federal Relay Service at 800–877– Philadelphia Housing Authority, HUD to work in a mayor’s office or other 8339. granted an additional exception to offices of local government agencies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section applicability of the Buy American HUD will conduct the fellowship 1605(a) of the Recovery Act provides requirements with respect to work, program in six pilot cities. HUD has that none of the funds appropriated or using CFRFC funds, in connection with conducted an extensive evaluation made available by the Recovery Act may its scattered sites project. The exception process and have selected the following be used for a project for the was granted by HUD on the basis that six pilot cities: Chester, PA; Cleveland, construction, alteration, maintenance, or the relevant manufactured goods OH; Detroit, MI; Fresno, CA; Memphis, repair of a public building or public (convection microwave ovens) are not TN; and New Orleans, LA.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52679

Through a national competitive I. Background promote economic growth, and enhance process, up to 30 fellows will be In 2010, senior leadership from the community prosperity. As a result, this recruited for the initial class, where White House, HUD, and other federal targeted assistance will help put these each pilot city may receive up to five agencies have assessed ways to enhance places on a path towards creating a fellows. Fellows will receive stipends technical assistance to help some of the customized and specific plan for long- and will be mentored by staff located in nation’s most economically distressed term economic revitalization. each pilot city. cities so that they may begin to stabilize To administer the fellowship II. Fellowship Placement Pilot Program and rebuild their local economies. The program, HUD will select an eligible result of these discussion led to the A. Fellowship Placement Pilot Program third party as defined in section II.B. creation of the White House’s Strong Overview Definitions of this notice. Interested Cities, Strong Communities (SC2) As described in the Summary, the third parties are invited to submit full initiative, a new and customized pilot applications to be reviewed by HUD for fellowship program will be a initiative to strengthen local capacity consideration. competitive program that provides While there is no match requirement and spark economic growth in local funding for early to mid-career for the fellowship program, HUD communities. professionals to work for two year terms recognizes that the scope of work These cities, formerly key economic in local government positions to required of the program may exceed the engines of regional and national supplement existing local capacity. funds that are available for this grant. prosperity have in the past several HUD envisions that through a national Therefore, HUD expects that the decades, undergone high poverty and competitive process, up to 30 fellows selected third party will secure unemployment rates, severe residential who are strongly committed to public additional funding support from other and commercial vacancies, long-term service, will be selected for the initial philanthropic organizations to fulfill the population loss, and have struggled to fellowship class. Fellows will be scope of work for the fellowship return to a place of economic deployed to one of the six pilot cities program. (Please see section II.C.1 productivity. The long term economic that have been selected for the SC2 Leveraging for more information.) decline of these cities have constrained initiative. In their pilot cities, they will Funding for the fellowship program local resources, and precluded them support and assist local governments in was made available to HUD through the from attracting, hiring and maintaining their economic revitalization efforts. Rockefeller Foundation, which HUD is sufficient staff to support key operations Fellows will receive stipends and will statutorily authorized to accept. and execute revitalization strategies. be mentored by staff located in each Moreover, rising government costs, DATES: Request for Qualification Due pilot city. The objectives of fellows Date: Applications are due no later than declining revenue streams, and the assigned to selected pilot cities will be September 22, 2011, 11:59 p.m., Eastern requirement that state and local to: Standard Time. If applying as a governments maintain a balanced 1. Take on high-level responsibilities partnership, only the lead organization budget continue to further these and be immersed in the core operations needs to submit an application for the economic challenges. of the host city; However, despite these significant partnership. HUD will review the 2. Engage in peer-to-peer learning challenges, these cities possess Request for Qualification (RFQ) received opportunities and become active leaders tremendous physical, commercial, and from third parties and anticipates that it in their host city; and public assets that can be used to revive will select a grantee no later than 3. Be intensely engaged and their local and regional economies. In 30 days after September 22, 2011, when committed to the redevelopment of the an effort to ensure the economic health the original applications were city so that they remain working in the and well being of regional and national submitted. city after the end of the program. economies, these cities must be given HUD will conduct the fellowship ADDRESSES: Applicants seeking to apply the best opportunity possible to regain program in the following pilot cities: as the third party to manage the strength through leveraging their key Chester, PA; Cleveland, OH; Detroit, MI; fellowship program are directed to assets and extensively partner with Fresno, CA; Memphis, TN; and New submit their application, responses and public and private sectors. In addition, Orleans, LA. Each pilot city may receive relevant documents (see Appendix B for the revitalization of these cities can be up to five fellows. checklist) to assisted by providing them with HUD has conducted a comprehensive [email protected] additional highly skilled staff with city assessment for each pilot city to by September 22, 2011. wide-ranging technical expertise in identify their key challenges and areas Applicants may download the fields that include urban planning, of capacity need. The city assessment required application documents and workforce training, economic provides useful information to help forms SF424, SF424sup and SF–LL at: development, and human capital HUD and the fellowship program http://www.huduser.org/portal/ strategies. determine how fellows can be used to fellowship/placepilot.html. The fellowship program is one of four support each pilot city. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: strategies of the White House SC2 Funding for the fellowship program is Kheng Mei Tan, Office of Policy initiative that is part of a broader and provided through a donation of $2.5 Development and Research, Department new approach to making the Federal million by the Rockefeller Foundation, of Housing and Urban Development, investment model more flexible, a private philanthropic organization, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC targeted, tailored, and holistic in which HUD is authorized to accept 20410; telephone number 202–402–4986 building local capacity in cities and under section 7(k)(1) of the Department (this is not a toll-free number). Persons regions facing long-term challenges. of Housing and Urban Development Act with hearing or speech impairments With this new method, these cities can (42 U.S.C. 3535(k)(1)). The donation was may access this number through TTY by more effectively build partnerships with specifically provided to HUD to calling the toll-free Federal Relay businesses, non-profits, and other key develop, manage, and implement a Service at 800–877–8339. economic players that will help attract national fellowship program to enhance SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: critical private investment to create jobs, the capacity of some of the nation’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52680 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

most economically distressed cities. In Activity 1 application, HUD is asking for an addition, section 3(b) of the Department Local organization: The term ‘‘local outline of a detailed plan that describes of Housing and Urban Development Act organization’’ will refer to those third how the applicant will identify, select (42 U.S.C. 3532(b)) authorizes the parties that will be tasked to work in and coordinate with local Secretary of HUD to ‘‘exercise each of the pilot cities. In addition, HUD organizations.) leadership at the direction of the will expand this definition of ‘‘local HUD expects the relationship between President in coordinating Federal organization’’ to include an the Administrator and local activities affecting housing and urban individual(s) who is a qualified organizations to be sufficiently flexible development’’ as well as to ‘‘provide independent consultant or professional to ensure that the program functions technical assistance and information expert that can effectively manage the smoothly and successfully. The * * * to aid state, county, town, village, work at the local level. Administrator will be responsible for or other local governments in the following six tasks: developing solutions to community and Activity 2 • Managing the overall operations of metropolitan development problems.’’ Training Organization: The term the fellowship program which includes ‘‘training organization’’ will refer to the paying fellow stipends, recruiting and B. Fellowship Placement Pilot Program third parties that will assume all tasks selecting fellows, and coordinating with Administrator associated with training as described in local organizations in each pilot city. HUD is seeking applications through section II.C.2 of this Expression of • Working with the city to ensure that this notice from eligible third parties Interest. fellows are well integrated with their (Administrator) to administer the Period of expenditure of fellowship pilot city and working on high-level, fellowship program. The selected program funds: The $2.5 million to be strategic projects; Administrator will be responsible for made available for the fellowship • Helping to coordinate site visits two major activities of the fellowship program is to be used by the with the training organization; program: Administrator over the course of 32 • Identifying additional training and 1. Manage and administer the months from the date that funding is mentoring opportunities fellows may fellowship program at the national and made available. HUD Headquarters will require as they progress through the local level (Activity 1); and monitor the Administrator to ensure program; and • 2. Develop training curriculum and that the funds are efficiently utilized Tracking and monitoring data to be over the 32 month period. train fellows for the program (Activity used for evaluating the success of Cooperative agreement: Upon 2). fellows and the fellowship program. selection of an Administrator, HUD • Securing additional support from To be eligible for selection, the intends to execute a cooperative philanthropic organizations to meet the Administrator must be able to carry out agreement with the Administrator that objectives and scope of work in the both activities. delineates the objectives, roles and fellowship program. The selected Administrator will be a responsibilities for HUD and the Note: Applicants must specify in their single third party or a partnership of Administrator. HUD recognizes that the third parties, as the term ‘‘third party’’ application who (the Administrator or local success of the fellowship program will organization) would be responsible for is defined below, along with other key require flexibility and adaptability in carrying out the five tasks described above. definitions. design and implementation. Therefore, Definitions: The following terms shall the cooperative agreement will allow Payment of fellows: The have the meaning indicated below: HUD to work closely with the Administrator will be responsible for paying fellows in the program. HUD Administrator: The term Administrator to help fine tune plans to set-aside a portion of the $2.5 ‘‘administrator’’ means a third party or activities as needed to ensure that million to pay fellow stipends. HUD partnership of third parties that will be activities are implemented in a manner anticipates that fellow stipends will be responsible for all tasks associated with that is consistent with the objectives of $60,000 per year. In the best case activities 1 and 2 described in this the fellowship program. HUD scenario, the cost of the stipend is Expression of Interest. anticipates that it will have significant involvement in all aspects of the shared between the pilot city and the Third-party: The term ‘‘third party’’ program. HUD is in the process of means an educational institution, fellowship program’s planning, delivery, and follow-up. negotiating with each pilot city to private and for-profit entity, or private determine the cost share of the stipend. or public nonprofit with a 501(c)(3) C. Primary Tasks of the Administrator Recruitment and selection of fellows: status. HUD’s proposal for the fellowship The Administrator will be responsible Partnership: The term ‘‘partnership’’ program involves two major activities for recruiting and selecting qualified means any combination or grouping of for the Administrator to carry out, as fellows for the program. No HUD or two or more third-parties as previously noted above. The following provides federal employees are eligible to defined. Examples of possible more details on these activities. participate in the fellowship program. partnerships among third parties may The Administrator will be primarily include, but is not limited to, a 1. Activity 1: Manage and Implement responsible for marketing and partnership between: the Fellowship Program at the National advertising the program in places such • A national or regional leadership and Local Level as graduate programs, career listservs institute and local universities or other Coordination with selected pilot and public sector networks. HUD may local organization with relevant cities: HUD recognizes that the also assist in advertising the program to experience; or fellowship program will require a local increase the number of applicants. • A volunteer or community driven presence in each of the pilot cities. HUD recognizes that selecting the organization and college institution. Therefore, the Administrator will be most qualified fellows is a critical Further, to differentiate among the tasks required to identify, coordinate and element to ensuring the success of the associated with Activity 1 and Activity collaborate with a local organization in fellowship program. As a result, the 2, HUD will use the following terms: each of the pilot cities. (Note: In the Administrator to be selected must have

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52681

significant expertise in similar selection Assessments for more information on c. Identify the locations of where and recruitment experience, preferably the city assessment process. fellows are to be trained and train for public service employment. HUD Coordinating training activities: HUD fellows; and will work with Administrator to ensure expects the selected Administrator will d. Coordinate with the national and that the types of fellows selected meet work to identify opportunities for local intermediaries on additional the needs and objectives of the additional training which may include, training fellows may need as they fellowship program. HUD also has but are not limited to conferences, progress through the program, as well as developed general criteria for the types workshops, or meetings. In addition, the help to coordinate site visits. of qualifications anticipated for Administrator will help coordinate site Orientation: The training organization participation in the program. Please see visits throughout the span of the will develop the materials and agenda to Appendix A for the list of fellow fellowship program. help orient the new class of fellows. The qualifications. Evaluation: HUD expects that the training organization will administer the HUD expects the Administrator to selected Administrator will collect data orientation training and coordinate work closely with pilot cities to ensure to help HUD evaluate the success of activities, guest speakers and attendees that the skill sets of fellows recruited fellows and the program. HUD will with HUD. reflects the needs of the pilot cities. provide the Administrator with a basic Training: The training organization Before the recruitment process begins, template to collect qualitative and will be responsible for all aspects of HUD will connect the Administrator to quantitative information. In addition, training, which includes training the relevant pilot city officials to HUD welcomes proposals from the fellows and developing the training facilitate such coordination. Administrator on additional metrics for curriculum for fellows. HUD expects Coordination with local data collection. that training courses should be practical organizations: The Administrator will in nature, and focus on leadership Leveraging: As described in the coordinate their activities with local development and team building. Areas Summary, HUD will not have a match organizations to ensure that the of focus will be wide-ranging in scope requirement for the fellowship program. objectives of the fellowship program are and may include, but are not limited to However, HUD recognizes that the being met. This may include activities project management; bureaucratic scope of work required of the program such as monitoring the work of the navigation; finance and acquisition; data may exceed the funds that are available fellows and working with the pilot cities and monitoring; changing market for this grant. Therefore, HUD expects to identify potential projects. HUD does conditions; urban planning and that the selected Administrator will not want to be rigid in defining these redevelopment; human and social secure additional funding support from roles and responsibilities. Rather, HUD capital development; and local other philanthropic organizations to expects the relationship between the government finance and budgeting. fulfill the scope of work for the Administrator and the local While HUD recognizes that the fellowship program. (Note: Applicants organizations to be flexible enough to training of fellows will largely be ‘‘on- will be required to explain how they ensure that the program operates the-job’’ training, HUD expects that the plan to identify and secure additional smoothly and successfully. training courses developed should make financial support to meet the full scale Mentorship of fellows: HUD every effort to draw on real world of the fellowship program in their recognizes that mentors will be critical experiences in the policies and practices applications.) to the success and retention of fellows of local government. in the program. HUD does not want to 2. Activity 2: Develop Training Development of local training be rigid in defining the roles and Curriculum and Train Fellows for the opportunities: The training organization responsibility of mentorship. Rather, Fellowship Program will be responsible for developing or HUD expects the selected Administrator identifying additional local training to be adaptive, responsive and flexible HUD expects that fellows selected opportunities for fellows. enough to meet the needs of fellows. will likely enter the program with an Responsibilities for the training This would include ensuring that array of skills and expertise, but organization may include, but are not fellows work on challenging and notwithstanding skills and expertise, limited to, coordinating site visits; strategic projects and are well-integrated fellows will be expected to undergo developing workshops on a specific and connected to their pilot city. orientation and training. The selected topic; and identifying and bringing in Due to the complex nature of the work Administrator will either serve as the expert consultants or speakers to required of fellows to meet the intricate training organization or identify a educate fellows. While HUD will not challenges of pilot cities, HUD training organization to assist with require a minimum number of training anticipates that the roles and training selected fellows. In this opportunities or site visits, HUD expects responsibilities of fellows will likely discussion of Activity 2, training at least one site visit to be in a pilot city. change as the program progresses. In organization refers to the entity (either The purpose of site visits is to help addition, HUD does not have specific the Administrator or another third increase the knowledge and expertise of projects for fellows in mind. However, party) that will be responsible and fellows in the program. HUD, at minimum, expects that the conduct orientation and training. For Leveraging: HUD recognizes that the work of fellows must be high-level, this activity, the training organization scope of work required of the fellowship strategic projects that will help advance would be required to complete the program will exceed the funds that are the economic goals of a pilot city. As following tasks: available for this grant. Therefore, HUD described in section II.A Fellowship a. Develop orientation materials for expects that the training organization Placement Pilot Program Overview, the fellows entering the program; will secure additional funding support types of projects that fellows are b. Develop or apply existing training from other philanthropic organizations expected to work on will be informed by curriculum that will equip fellows with to fulfill the scope of work for the the city assessments that HUD has the fundamental knowledge, tools and fellowship program. (Note: Again, completed for each pilot city. Please skills they would need to be successful applicants will be required to explain also review section D. Pilot Cities, City in the program. how they plan to identify and secure

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52682 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

additional financial support to meet the better able to recruit and match fellows chart and contact information, resumes, full scale of the fellowship program in according to the needs of each pilot city. references, budget table and project their applications.) HUD’s Coordination Role. When an completion schedule. This information Administrator is selected, HUD will take should be added to the back of the 3. Reporting Requirements the lead role in coordinating all key responses to the rating factors as an HUD will require the selected aspects of the program between the appendix, and will not count towards Administrator to report to the Administrator and the pilot cities to the page limit. Please label the appendix Government Technical Representative ensure the successful implementation of using the following format and order: (GTR) who will be responsible for program objectives. HUD’s role in • Appendix A: Organization Chart & managing the fellowship program grant coordination would include, but is not Contact list at HUD no less often than quarterly, limited to: • Appendix B: Resumes unless otherwise specified in the • Facilitating meetings between the • Appendix C: References cooperative agreement. As part of this Administrator and the pilot cities; • Appendix D: Budget Table required report to HUD, the selected • Negotiating, where appropriate, • Appendix E: Project Completion Administrator will update the GTR with fellowship work responsibilities; Schedule • Hosting site visits in pilot city information on actual outputs and data B. Submitting Required Documents related to outcomes achieved, and a locations. All applicants applying to this RFQ narrative explanation of any disparity III. Rating Factor Overview, General must submit additional documents in between projected and actual results. Rules and Instructions HUD will also require the selected addition to their responses to the rating Administrator to provide HUD with a HUD will rate the qualifications of an factors below. These documents are: final narrative report no more than four applicant on three rating factors Application form SF–424, SF424sup, months from the end of the grant period. described below. Only applicants (a and SF–LL. single third party or a partnership of Indirect costs: Indirect costs, if SF–424: Applicants applying as a third parties) that can meet the applicable, are allowable based on an single third party must complete this competencies of both activities 1 and 2 established approved indirect cost rate. form. If an applicant is applying as a should submit applications. If applying Applicants should have on file, and partnership, only the lead organization as a partnership, a lead applicant must submit to HUD as part of their grant in the partnership is required to submit be named in the application form application, a copy of their approved a SF–424 on behalf of the partnership. SF424. The lead applicant also will be Note that as part of the SF–424 form, indirect cost rate agreement if they have responsible for managing the scope of and SF424sup form, the applicant will one. Applicants that are selected for work in the activities applied for by the be required to provide their DUNS funding but do not have an approved partnership. Only the lead applicant number. This DUNS number allows the indirect cost rate agreement established needs to submit an application, and all federal government to track federal by the cognizant federal agency, and relevant forms and documents on behalf funding allocations. Please see who want to charge indirect costs to the of the partnership. Appendix C on instructions on how to grant, will be required to establish a The total number of points possibly secure a DUNS number if the applicant rate. In such cases, HUD will issue an awarded for an application is 190 does not have one. award with a provisional rate and assist points. SF424sup: This document must be applicants with the process of The applicant must answer all submitted by all third parties, regardless establishing a final rate. questions in this RFQ. HUD suggests of whether they are applying as a single D. Selected Pilot Cities that applicants answer and label their third party or a partnership. responses in the order of which the SF–LL: This document is a lobbying HUD has announced the pilot cities rating factor questions are asked. disclosure form. This form is only for the fellowship program. They are Applicants that leave questions required to be submitted by all third Chester, PA; Cleveland, OH; Detroit, MI; unanswered will be determined to have parties that conduct lobbying activities, Fresno, CA; Memphis, TN; and New submitted incomplete applications, and regardless of whether they are applying Orleans, LA. their applications will not be as a single third party or a partnership. City assessments: HUD has conducted considered. For a helpful checklist, please see a comprehensive city assessment. The Appendix B. purpose of the city assessment is to A. Page Limitations and Font Size identify the key challenges and areas of Applicant responses to all of the C. Rating Factors need for each pilot city. In conducting rating factors must be formatted so that Rating Factor 1: Demonstrated Capacity these assessments, HUD has worked the total number of pages submitted are of the Applicant and Relevant closely with city mayors and their staff equal to no more than 18 single-sided Organizational Staff (70 Points) to examine areas such as staffing pages of singlespaced text based on an A. Previous Experience (40 Points) resources; internal decision making 8.5 by 11 inch paper, using a standard processes; fiscal and budget capacity; 12 point font. However, for third parties 1. General question (10 points): HUD and economic development and housing submitting their application as a is interested in the applicant’s projects. partnership, they are allowed an demonstrated history of direct public The Administrator, in close additional four pages (for a total of 22 service and if relevant, its placement of collaboration with each pilot city, may pages). public servants within the last 24 use the city assessments to identify the Reviewers will not review more than months. This must include a brief types of work and projects for fellows to 18 pages for all the factors combined explanation about the objectives, goals undertake in the program. (HUD will (unless the applicant is submitting as a and work of the applicant, and any help connect the Administrator with partnership, in which case the page awards that the applicant has received each pilot city.) By understanding the limit is 22). for public service. In addition, please types of work that may be identified by The rating factors will ask the describe any previous work, the pilot city, the Administrator may be applicant to submit an organization partnerships or collaborations with the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52683

federal or local government. If applying are institutions to develop training Rating Factor 2: Soundness of Approach as a partnership, please provide a brief curriculum for a fellowship program. (100 Points) explanation for all third parties in the B. Management Structure (30 Points) A. Proposed Activities (90 Points) partnership that answers the latter questions. Organization Structure (26 points): 1. (5 points) The applicant must 2. The following questions relate only HUD is interested in understanding the provide a general description of the to Activity 1 (15 points). The applicant applicant’s capacity to support the activities it proposes to undertake for must explain its recent experience fellowship program in relation to ALL this fellowship program, including any (within the last 24 months) where the activities described in the RFQ. additional activities it plans to undertake that will not be funded by the applicant has managed activities similar 1. The applicant must provide a fellowship program but that the to the ones covered under Activity 1. In general description of its management applicant might pursue because it may answering the questions below (2a–c), structure that explains how the the applicant’s explanation should benefit the program. organization will work together to In addition to the latter explanation, include a discussion of (1) the tasks ensure that the activities will be undertaken, (2) actual results achieved, for Activity 1 (50 points), please address achieved successfully and how specifically in the proposal the and (3) the specific resources applied to decisions will be made. each task. following: Please include an organization chart a. HUD recognizes that key to the a. The applicant must explain its that identifies all key management success of the fellowship program will demonstrated experience in working on positions and the names and positions be determined by the close collaboration projects that have required it to connect of staff managing ALL key tasks and communication between the with other local networks, organizations described in the RFQ that are associated national and local third parties. HUD and/or key individuals in cities. In with both activities described in the recently has announced the pilot cities addition, the applicant must explain RFQ. The applicant must also describe and would like the applicant to describe how it has built and maintained these the key staff and their specific roles and in detail: relationships with local networks, responsibilities for the management of i. How it plans to identify and select organizations and/or key individuals, its proposed activities. Please also the most appropriate types of local and how integral this collaboration was include resumes and a brief description organizations or individuals that it will to its project. of the prior experience for each key staff work with to meet the objectives of b. The applicant must explain its member. Activity 1. demonstrated experience in attracting If applying as a partnership, the ii. How it anticipates each local and recruiting talented individuals from organization or individual will around the country, including those applicant must answer the latter questions in the context of the communicate and work with the from top universities or other career applicant to ensure the success of the networks. The applicant, if relevant, partnership. In addition to your organization chart, fellowship program. should also provide an explanation of iii. What it thinks the key how they have mentored recruits. please include on a separate page a contact list of all third parties associated responsibilities and roles would be of c. If relevant, the applicant must the local organizations to accomplish explain its demonstrated experience in with this application. This must include the name of ONE key point of contact the tasks associated with Activity 1. managing staff and/or program b. HUD is interested in understanding for the third party and include the participants who work remotely. how the applicant plans to market the address, city, state, zip code and phone 3. The following questions relate only program to secure the most qualified number. If you are applying as a to Activity 2 (15 points). The applicant fellows. The applicant must include a partnership, indicate which third party must explain its recent experience discussion of how it plans to reach out is the lead organization, and include (within the last 24 months) where the to various places to recruit qualified ONE key point of contact and the applicant has managed activities similar fellows. respective address, city, state, zip code to the ones covered under Activity 2. In c. HUD is interested in learning the and phone number for each third party answering the questions below (3a–b), applicant’s process for selecting fellows. in the partnership, including the lead the applicant’s explanation should While HUD recognizes that some of the organization. include a discussion of (1) the tasks fellow selection will be based on the undertaken, (2) actual results achieved, References (4 points). The applicant needs of the pilot cities, HUD is looking and (3) the specific resources applied to must include two references for recent for an explanation of the applicant’s each task. work similar to the programs covered proposed selection process and any a. The applicant must explain its under the RFQ that has been undertaken proposed criteria for fellows it may have demonstrated experience in developing by the applicant. If a partnership, the in addition to the fellows criteria in training curriculum for a public service applicant must include two references Appendix B. Information in this process and/or community or economic for each third party in the partnership. may include additional consultants and development program and how it has References must be from an experts the applicant may hire, how it trained past participants. In addition, organization, individual or institution plans to conduct the interviews, and please include the length of training; the that the applicant has worked with in what additional criteria—given its purpose of the training; the types of the past 24 months applicable to the understanding of fellowship programs— training past participants underwent activity(s) that are described in this it may look for in fellows. (e.g., classroom instruction, site visits, RFQ. References must be submitted in d. HUD would like to know how the workshops); and how it has recruited the form of a letter (one-page maximum) applicant plans to identify any instructors and speakers to enhance the that includes a contact name, address, additional training opportunities trainings. phone number and email address so that (including site visits, workshops, and b. The applicant must explain its HUD may verify the information. The conferences) for fellows in the program. demonstrated experience in partnering letter must speak to the relevant work e. HUD recognizes that mentoring with other organizations, individuals experience of the applicant. fellows will be critical to the success of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52684 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

the program. Therefore, HUD expects organization will be responsible for secure additional funding support from the applicant to have a close mentor managing the funds. other philanthropic organizations. In relationship with each fellow. The a. In addition, as referenced in section this rating factor, HUD would like to applicant must explain how it plans to III.A.1 Payment of Fellows, HUD know the applicant’s experience in mentor fellows and how it plans to help recognizes that the cost of the fellow securing philanthropic support and its them resolve or work through their stipends under the fellowship program ability to leverage existing funds. challenges as they arise in the program. is unknown as HUD is in the process of 1. In this factor, the applicant must f. The applicant should provide HUD negotiating the stipend share between describe its success in securing with a list and description of possible what the pilot cities and the fellowship philanthropic support for projects metrics it thinks would be valuable to program will each pay. For your budget, similar or related to any or all of the collect for evaluation. please include a category for fellow activities the applicant is applying for in For Activity 2 (30 points), the stipends for years 1 and 2. HUD the RFQ. applicant must address specifically in anticipates that fellows will be paid 2. The applicant must also describe its the proposal the following: $60,000 per year (for a total of $120,000 plans for reaching out to other The applicant must provide a brief for years 1 and 2 for each fellow). Please philanthropic organizations or private explanation of how it plans to develop assume that the program will pay 75 institutions, and fundraising activities it training curriculum, how it plans to percent of this stipend for years 1 and plans to undertake if granted funds from train fellows, and the frequency of 2 (this amounts to $45,000 for each the RFQ. which fellows will be trained. The year). Given your proposed budget, 3. The applicant must indicate, where applicant must include a discussion on HUD wants to see the maximum number appropriate, if it currently has how its proposed training curriculum of fellows that could be funded with the commitments of additional funds from would advance and enhance leadership $2.5 million grant. other philanthropic organizations or skills among fellows, and how its B. Project Completion Schedule (5 private institutions and how those funds training curriculum would prepare might be leveraged for this program. fellows for the fellowship program. Points) a. In addition to answering the latter 1. For each activity, the applicant IV. Award Administration Information question, the applicant must include must provide a table with the project A. Award Notices other organizations it may use to help completion schedule that includes develop the curriculum, if necessary. If milestones for the 32 month period (see HUD will send written notifications to the applicant does not plan to include II.B. period of expenditure and II.C.3 both successful and unsuccessful other organizations, it must explain why reporting requirements). applicants. A notification sent to a it thinks the curriculum that it has successful applicant is not an developed meets the needs of the C. Performance and Monitoring (5 authorization to begin performance. fellowship program. The applicant also Points) Upon notification that an applicant has must list the types of training it plans 1. HUD grantees must have a plan for been selected for award, HUD will to have fellows undertake (e.g., monitoring and funds control plan for request additional information to be workshops, classroom training, etc.) all program activities to ensure submitted or may work with the including potential instructors or successful performance. This includes applicant to amend information that speakers, and how it plans to recruit an internal audit function. An internal was already submitted as part of the qualified instructors and speakers. The audit function will continually examine application. potentially risky areas of program and applicant must describe the curriculum B. Code of Conduct and the type of materials it plans to financial operations and management develop to train fellows and if and provide regular and valuable After selection, but prior to award, applicable, describe any certifications it feedback to program managers and to applicants selected for funding will be might offer to fellows. those who hold them accountable. This required to provide HUD with their b. The applicant must explain how it feedback will include identification of written Code of Conduct if they have will develop the orientation training for risky management practices and missing not previously done so and it is not fellows and include a description of the or ineffective internal controls, areas recorded on the HUD Web site at: types of materials it plans to develop to that are not in compliance with program http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/ train fellows. requirements, and ineffective codeofconduct/cconduct.cfm. c. The applicant must describe the implementation of established policies. C. Administrative and National Policy types of site visits it plans to undertake The end result is the establishment of Requirements to enhance the learning experience of corrective actions. For the activity(s) the fellows. The applicant should also applicant is applying for in this factor, After selection for funding but prior to explain how it plans to identify, the applicant must: award, applicants must submit financial develop and/or implement any a. Describe your monitoring and funds and administrative information to additional trainings it thinks would be control plan. comply with applicable requirements. helpful in the fellowship program. b. Describe how you will meet the These requirements are found in 24 CFR 2. Activity 1 & Activity 2 (5 points). internal audit requirement and how part 84 for all organizations, except As referenced in III.A.1.a Leveraging, corrective actions will be implemented. states and local governments whose HUD recognizes that the full cost of the Specifically identify the position(s) and requirements are found in 24 CFR part program will likely exceed the $2.5 agency responsible for internal audit. 85. Cost principles requirements are million granted under the RFQ. Rating Factor 3: Leveraging of Other found at OMB Circular A–122 for Nevertheless, HUD is requesting that the Funds (20 Points): HUD does not require nonprofit organizations, OMB Circular applicant indicate how it will use the the applicant to have matching funds to A–21 for institutions of higher $2.5 million by providing a budget table be awarded a grant from this RFQ. education, OMB Circular A–87 for states showing how funds will be budgeted for However, as referenced in III.A.1.a and local governments, and at 48 CFR each activity for years 1 and 2, and Leveraging, HUD expects that the 31.2 for commercial organizations. indicate on the chart, who in the applicant that is awarded the grant will Applicants must submit a certification

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52685

from an Independent Public Accountant either the prime awardee or a sub- Dated: August 17, 2011. or the cognizant government auditor, awardee’s organization if: Raphael W. Bostic, stating that the applicant’s financial (1) More than 80% of annual gross Assistant Secretary for Policy Development management system meets prescribed revenues are from the Federal and Research. standards for fund control and government, and those revenues are accountability. greater than $25M annually; and Appendix A: Fellowship Placement (2) Compensation information is not Pilot Program—Fellows Criteria for D. Federal Funding Accountability and already available through reporting to Selection Transparency Act of 2006 the SEC. The fellows selection of the fellowship Applicants selected for funding will The statute exempts from reporting any program will be open nationally to all be required to report first sub-grant sub-awards less than $25,000 made to qualified applicants. The Administrator will award and executive compensation individuals or to an entity whose annual help develop the application and selection information, where both their initial expenditures are less than $300,000. criteria for new recruits. The Administrator award is $25,000 or greater, as required OMB has published Interim Final will conduct the competition for fellows. by the Federal Funding Accountability Guidance to agencies regarding the At minimum, core perquisites must require and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. that candidates: FFATA subrecipient reporting • Have 3–5 years of work experience, 109–282). The prime grant awardees requirements in the Federal Register on where candidates with graduate degrees are will have until the end of the month September 14, 2010 (75FR55663.) preferred; plus one additional month after an • E. Equal Employment Opportunity Make a 2-year commitment; award or sub-grant is obligated to fulfill • Have prior experience in the area of the reporting requirement. The Federal All contracts under the fellowship community development, economic Funding Accountability and program shall contain a provision development, community or other public Transparency Act (FFATA) of 2006 calls requiring compliance with E.O. 11246, service, or related field; for the establishment of a publicly ‘‘Equal Employment Opportunity,’’ as • Be a problem solver, critical thinker and available web site to disclose the use of amended by E.O. 11375, ‘‘Amending potential manager; • Federal finance assistance. Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Have a proven track record of a. The Act requires the reporting of Employment Opportunity,’’ and as entrepreneurship or social entrepreneurship, the following data for first-tier sub- supplemented by regulations at 41 CFR ability to work through bureaucracies to get part 60, ‘‘Office of Federal Contract things done; and grants of $25,000 or more: • Demonstrate a commitment and passion (1) Name of entity receiving award; Compliance Programs, Equal to public service. (2) Amount of award; Employment Opportunity, Department In addition, applicants will be asked to (3) Funding agency; of Labor.’’ rank order their location choices, and to (4) NAICS code for contracts/CFDA F. Additional Information articulate their interest in, or connection to program number for grants; any particular location(s). The selected (5) Program source; This issuance does not direct, provide Administrator may explore giving preference (6) Award title descriptive of the for assistance or loan and mortgage to candidates that already live in a pilot city. purpose of the funding action; insurance for, or otherwise govern or The selection process for fellows may (7) Location of the entity (including regulate, real property acquisition, involve multiple rounds of review that will congressional district); disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, culminate to several in-person group (8) Place of performance (including alteration, demolition, or new interviews. After the in-person interviews, a congressional district); construction, or establish, revise or selection committee will make the final (9) Unique identifier of the entity and provide for standards for construction or selection decisions. Fellows that best match its parent; and construction materials, manufactured the needs of the pilot cities based on their housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, existing area of knowledge and skill set will (10) Total compensation and names of be selected for the program. To ensure top five executives (same thresholds as under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this issuance fellows are properly matched to the needs of for primes). is categorically excluded from each pilot city, the selection process will b. The Transparency Act also requires environmental review under the include a review of the results from the city the reporting of the Total Compensation National Environmental Policy Act of assessments that were initially conducted for and Names of the top five executives in 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).’’ each pilot city before selection.

APPENDIX B—CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTS TO SUBMIT

Document Check box

1. Application SF424 (submitted by single third party or the lead third party in a partnership).

2. SF424sup (submitted by all third parties, regardless of whether they are applying as a partnership or a single third party).

3. SF–LL (submitted by all third parties that conduct lobby activities, regardless of whether they are applying as a partnership or a single third party).

4. Responses to Rating Factors: • For single applicants the page limit is 18. • For partnerships, the page limit is 22.

5. Appendixes: Appendix A: Organization Chart & Contact List for key points of contact. Appendix B: Resumes. Appendix C: References.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52686 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

APPENDIX B—CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTS TO SUBMIT—Continued

Document Check box

Appendix D: Budget Table. Appendix E: Project Completion Schedule.

Appendix C: Instructions on How To • Total number of employees (full and part Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Secure a DUNS Number time) Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 807, The SF424 and SF424 sup forms will If your organization does not have a DUNS Reston, VA 20192 (mail); 703–648–7174 require you to specify a DUNS number that number, use the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) (telephone); 703–648–7199 (fax); or will allow the Federal government to track online registration to receive one free of [email protected] (e-mail). Reference how Federal grant money is allocated. charge. Information Collection 1028–0053 in the All applicants applying to administer the If your organization is located outside the subject line. Fellowship Placement Pilot Program are United States, you can request and register for a DUNS number also online via web FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: required to get a DUNS number. For the SF– Carleen Kostick at 703–648–7940 424 form, if an applicant is applying as a registration. partnership, only the lead third party’s DUNS (telephone); [email protected] (e-mail); Note: Obtaining a DUNS number places or by mail at U.S. Geological Survey, number should be listed. your organization on D&B’s marketing list A DUNS number identifies your that is sold to other companies. You can 985 National Center, 12201 Sunrise organization, and it is very easy to secure request not to be added to this list during Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192. one. your application. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Below are the brief instructions on how to secure a DUNS number. To view these [FR Doc. 2011–21439 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] I. Abstract instructions online, you can also visit: BILLING CODE 4210–67–P Respondents will use these forms to http://www.grants.gov/applicants/ org_step1.jsp supply the USGS with domestic production and consumption data of Has my organization identified its Data DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR nonferrous and related nonfuel mineral Universal Number System (DUNS)? commodities, some of which are Ask the grant administrator, chief financial Geological Survey considered strategic and critical. This officer, or authorizing official of your [USGS–GX11LR000F60100] information will be published as organization to identify your DUNS number. chapters in Minerals Yearbook, monthly If your organization does not know its Agency Information Collection Mineral Industry Surveys, annual DUNS number or needs to register for one, visit Dun & Bradstreet Web site: Register or Activities: Comment Request for the Mineral Commodity Summaries, and search for a DUNS number: http:// Nonferrous Metals Surveys (30 Forms) special publications, for use by fedgov.dnb.com/webform/ Government agencies, industry, displayHomePage.do [EXIT Disclaimer] AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), education programs, and the general Interior. Purpose of This Step public. ACTION: Notice of a revision of a The federal government has adopted the currently approved information II. Data use of DUNS numbers to track how federal collection (1028–0053). OMB Control Number: 1028–0053. grant money is allocated. DUNS numbers Form Number: Various (30 forms). identify your organization. SUMMARY: We (the U.S. Geological Title: Nonferrous Metals Surveys. How long should it take? Survey) will ask the Office of Type of Request: Revision of a If requested over the phone, DUNS is Management and Budget (OMB) to currently approved collection. provided immediately. Webform requests approve the information collection Affected Public: Private sector: U.S. take 1 to 2 business days. request (IC) described below. This nonfuel minerals producers of collection consists of 30 forms. The What is a DUNS number and why do I need nonferrous and related metals. obtain one? revision includes adding the following Respondent Obligation: Voluntary. forms: USGS Form 9–4054–M and Frequency of Collection: Monthly, The Data Universal Number System USGS Form 9–4061–A; and removing quarterly, and annually. (DUNS) number is a unique nine-character Estimated Number of Annual number that identifies your organization. It is the following form: USGS Form 4128– a tool of the federal government to track how A. As required by the Paperwork Responses: 4,971. federal money is distributed. Most large Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, and as Annual Burden Hours: 3,683 hours. organizations, libraries, colleges and research part of our continuing efforts to reduce We expect to receive 4,971 annual universities already have DUNS numbers. paperwork and respondent burden, we responses. We estimate an average of 20 Ask your grant administrator or chief invite the general public and other minutes to 2 hours per response. financial officer to provide your Federal agencies to take this Estimated Reporting and organization’s DUNS number. Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-Hour Cost’’ List of Information you will need to obtain opportunity to comment on this IC. This collection is scheduled to expire on Burden: We have not identified any a DUNS number (if your organization does ‘‘non-hour cost’’ burdens associated not already have one): March 31, 2012. with this collection of information. • Name of organization DATES: To ensure that your comments • Organization address on this IC are considered, we must III. Request for Comments • Name of the CEO/organization owner receive them on or before October 24, We invite comments concerning this • Legal structure of the organization 2011. (corporation, partnership, IC on: (a) Whether the proposed proprietorship) ADDRESSES: Please submit a copy of collection of information is necessary • Year the organization started your comments to Shari Baloch, for the agency to perform its duties, • Primary type of business Information Collection Clearance including whether the information is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52687

useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s Interior, Bureau of Indian Education; Adult Education Program). BIE annually estimate of the burden of the proposed telephone (202) 208–5504. collects information to determine collection of information; (c) how to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: eligibility of Indian applicants and to enhance the quality, usefulness, and prioritize programs. The information clarity of the information to be I. Abstract helps manage the resources available to collected; and (d) how to minimize the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is provide education opportunities for burden on the respondents, including seeking renewal of the approval for the adult Indians and Alaska Natives to the use of automated collection information collection conducted under complete high school graduation techniques or other forms of information 25 CFR part 46, subpart C, Program requirements and gain new skills and technology. Requirements of the Adult Education knowledge for self-enhancement. Please note that the comments Program, to determine eligibility of Type of Review: Extension without submitted in response to this notice are Indian applicants and to prioritize change of a currently approved a matter of public record. Before programs. Approval for this collection collection. including your address, phone number, expires on December 31, 2011. This Respondents: Individuals (Tribal e-mail address, or other personal information includes an application Adult Education Program identifying information in your form. No changes are being made to the Administrators). comment, you should be aware that form or to the approved burden hours Number of Respondents: 70 per year, your entire comment, including your for this information collection. on average. personal identifying information, may Total Number of Responses: 70 per be made publicly available at any time. II. Request for Comments year, on average. While you can ask OMB in your BIE requests your comments on this Frequency of Response: Once per comment to withhold your personal collection concerning: (a) The necessity year. identifying information from public of this information collection for the Estimated Time per Response: 4 review, we cannot guarantee that it will proper performance of the functions of hours. be done. the agency, including whether the Estimated Total Annual Burden: 280 USGS Information Collection information will have practical utility; hrs. Clearance Officer: Shari Baloch (703– (b) The accuracy of the agency’s Dated: August 17, 2011. 648–7174). estimate of the burden (hours and cost) Alvin Foster, Dated: August 16, 2011. of the collection of information, Acting Chief Information Officer—Indian John H. DeYoung, Jr., including the validity of the Affairs. Director, National Minerals Information methodology and assumptions used; (c) [FR Doc. 2011–21549 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Center, U.S. Geological Survey. Ways we could enhance the quality, BILLING CODE 4310–6W–P utility, and clarity of the information to [FR Doc. 2011–21479 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] be collected; and (d) Ways we could BILLING CODE 4311–AM–P minimize the burden of the collection of DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR the information on the respondents, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR such as through the use of automated Bureau of Land Management collection techniques or other forms of [LLIDT02000.L12200000.MA0000.241A.00] Bureau of Indian Affairs information technology. Please note that an agency may not Notice of Intent To Prepare a Resource Renewal of Agency Information conduct or sponsor, and an individual Management Plan (RMP) Amendment Collection for the Bureau of Indian need not respond to, a collection of and Associated Environmental Education Adult Education Program; information unless it has a valid OMB Assessment for the Castle Rocks and Comment Request Control Number. Cedar Fields Areas, Burley Field It is our policy to make all comments AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office, ID available to the public for review at the Interior. location listed in the ADDRESSES section. AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, ACTION: Notice of Request for Before including your address, phone Interior. Comments. number, e-mail address or other ACTION: Notice of Intent. personally identifiable information, be SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork SUMMARY: In compliance with the advised that your entire comment— Reduction Act, the Bureau of Education National Environmental Policy Act of including your personally identifiable (BIE) is requesting comments on 1969, as amended, and the Federal Land information—may be made public at renewal of OMB approval to collect Policy and Management Act of 1976, as any time. While you may request that information for the BIE Adult Education amended, the Bureau of Land we withhold your personally Program. The information collection is Management (BLM) Burley Field Office, identifiable information, we cannot currently authorized by OMB Control Burley, Idaho intends to prepare a guarantee that we will be able to do so. number 1076–0120, which expires Resource Management Plan (RMP) December 31, 2011. III. Data amendment with an associated DATES: Submit comments on or before OMB Control Number: 1076–0120. Environmental Assessment (EA) for the October 24, 2011. Title: Bureau of Indian Affairs Adult Cassia and Monument RMPs to consider ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Education Program Annual Report closing BLM-managed lands to certain on the information collection to Brandi Form. activities to protect cultural and historic Sweet, U.S. Department of the Interior, Brief Description of Collection: properties, and by this notice is Bureau of Indian Education, 1849 C Submission of this information allows announcing the beginning of the Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; e- BIA to determine applicant eligibility of scoping process to solicit public mail: [email protected]. Indian applicants based upon the comments and identify issues. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: criteria referenced in 25 CFR 46, DATES: This notice initiates the public Brandi Sweet, U.S. Department of the Subpart C (Program Requirements of the scoping process for the RMP

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

amendment with an associated EA. recreational activities; potential adverse withhold your personal identifying Comments on issues may be submitted affects on Historic Properties at Castle information from public review, we in writing until September 22, 2011. Rocks from rock climbing and other cannot guarantee that we will be able to The date(s) and location(s) of any recreational activities; and the impact do so. scoping meetings will be announced at that closures to certain activities would The BLM will use an interdisciplinary least 15 days in advance through local have on recreational climbing in the approach to develop the plan in order media, newspapers and the BLM Web area. to consider the variety of resource issues site at: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/ At Cedar Fields, ongoing climbing and concerns identified. Specialists info/nepa.html. In order to be included activities have the potential to damage with expertise in the following in the EA, all comments must be cultural resources located within an disciplines will be involved in the received prior to the close of the 30-day Archeological District. In 2010, the BLM planning process: minerals and geology, scoping period or 30 days after the last prepared an EA to address similar outdoor recreation, archaeology, public meeting, whichever is later. concerns at Castle Rocks. The proposed wildlife, and soils. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments action within the Castle Rocks EA Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR on issues and planning criteria related would have allowed limited climbing 1610.2 to Castle Rocks and Cedar Fields Land and trail construction. However, due to Michael Courtney, Use Plan Amendment by any of the potential adverse cumulative effects of following methods: rock climbing activities on Historic Field Manager. • Web site: http://www.blm.gov/id/st/ Properties (as defined in 36 CFR [FR Doc. 2011–21560 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] en/info/nepa.html 800.5(a)(1) and 800.16(l)(1)), a Finding BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P • E-mail: [email protected] of No Significant Impact (FONSI) could • Fax: 208–677–6699 not be reached for the Castle Rocks EA • Mail: 15 East 200 South, Burley, (EA ID–220–2009–EA–3768). The EA DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Idaho 83318 was finalized on March 29, 2010, sent Documents pertinent to this proposal out to interested members of the public, Bureau of Land Management may be examined at the Burley Field and posted to the BLM Idaho Web site. [LLWYR05000 L51100000.GN0000. Office. Subsequently, a temporary closure LVEMK11CW630] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: notice was published in the Federal Notice of Intent To Prepare an Contact Dennis Thompson, Outdoor Register in November 2010, which Environmental Impact Statement for Recreation Planner, for further closed BLM-managed lands in the Castle the Sheep Mountain Uranium Project, information and/or to have your name Rocks Inter-Agency Recreation Area to climbing, staging, camping, and Fremont County, WY added to the Burley BLM’s mailing list, construction of new trails. This closure at telephone 208–677–6664; address 15 AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, will remain in effect until November 16, East 200 South, Burley, Idaho 83318; or Interior. _ 2012. e-mail dennis [email protected]. The RMP Amendment and associated ACTION: Notice. Persons who use a telecommunications EA will consider the permanent SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National device for the deaf (TDD) may call the designation of no climbing, no staging, Federal Information Relay Service Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as no camping, and no construction of new amended (NEPA) and the Federal Land (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the trails on BLM-managed lands at Castle above individual during normal Policy and Management Act, as Rocks Inter-Agency Recreation Area and amended (FLPMA), and in response to business hours. The FIRS is available 24 at Cedar Fields. If a closure is necessary hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a a proposal filed by Titan Uranium USA, to protect Historic Properties at Castle Inc. (Titan), the Bureau of Land message or question with the above Rocks and cultural resources in the Management (BLM), Lander Field individual. You will receive a reply Archeological District at Cedar Fields, Office, Wyoming, intends to prepare an during normal business hours. the BLM will make a decision about Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This whether to amend the Cassia and and by this notice is announcing the document provides notice that the BLM Monument RMPs and will address beginning of the scoping process to Field Office, Burley Idaho, intends to allowable uses of resources, and solicit public comments regarding prepare an RMP Amendment with an intensity and limits of use. associated EA for the Cassia and You may submit comments on issues issues and resource information for the Monument RMPs, announces the and planning criteria for the Plan proposed Sheep Mountain Uranium beginning of the the scoping process, Amendments in writing to the BLM at Project (the Project) in Fremont County, and is seeking public input on issues any public scoping meeting, or you may Wyoming. The Project is a conventional and planning criteria. The planning area submit them to the BLM using one of uranium exploration and development is located in Cassia and Power Counties, the methods listed in the ADDRESSES project employing open pit and Idaho and encompasses approximately section above. To be most helpful, you underground mining methods and using 1,556 acres of public land. The purpose should submit comments by the close of heap leach methods for uranium of the public scoping process is to the 30-day scoping period or within 30 recovery. determine relevant issues that will days after the last public meeting, DATES: This notice initiates the public influence the scope of the whichever is later. Before including scoping process. The BLM can best environmental analysis, including your address, phone number, e-mail consider public input if comments and alternatives, and guide the planning address, or other personal identifying resource information are submitted process. The BLM has identified the information in your comment, you within 45 days of publication of this following preliminary issues: the should be aware that your entire notice. To provide the public with an potential for damage to cultural comment—including your personal opportunity to review the proposal and resources within the American Falls identifying information—may be made project information, the BLM will host Archeological District at Cedar Fields publicly available at any time. While public meetings in Lander, Riverton, from rock climbing and other you can ask us in your comment to and Jeffrey City, Wyoming. The BLM

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52689

will announce the dates, times, and constructing and operating a uranium belt conveyor. The heap-leach-recovery locations for these meetings at least 15 recovery facility within the project method applies a sulfuric acid solution days prior to each event. boundary will be included in the BLM’s (H2SO4) through low-flow emitters on Announcements will be made by news analysis. This uranium recovery facility top of the heap for extraction of the release to the news media, individual requires a Source Materials License uranium mineral from the ore. After the letter mailings, and posting on the from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory solution containing uranium reaches the project Web site listed below. Project Commission (NRC) to operate in desired concentration, it would then be information and documents including addition to a surface use authorization processed through either an ion- the submitted Plan of Operations also from the BLM. The BLM’s analysis of exchange system or a solvent extraction will be available on the Project Web site. any potential impacts from granting system. Spent solutions and process- ADDRESSES: You may submit written surface use authorization for the liquid wastes would be managed in comments by any of the following uranium recovery facility are in double-lined evaporation ponds on-site, methods: addition to the environmental analysis no wastes would be discharged from the • E-mail: Sheep_Mountain_Uranium_ conducted by the NRC as part of its site. Individual heaps would be [email protected] permitting process. reclaimed in-place after the ore has been • Mail: Lander Field Office, Attn: On June 16, 2011, Titan submitted its fully leached, rinsed of leachate, and Kristin Yannone, Project Manager, 1335 formal Plan of Operations in accordance drained. Main Street, Lander, Wyoming 82520 with the BLM’s surface management The Project activities would include • Project Web site: http://www.blm. regulations at 43 CFR 3809 to develop the drilling of exploratory boreholes, gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/ a conventional mining and heap leach construction of open mine pits, lfo/sheepmtn.html recovery operation. excavation of underground mine Documents pertinent to this proposal The purpose of the Project is to declines (low angle access tunnels) and may be examined at the Lander Field identify mining reserves and extract 1.5 underground mine workings using Office. million to 2 million pounds of uranium modified room and pillar methods, per year over an anticipated project life FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: rehabilitation of existing mine shafts for of 15–20 years. The Project would use Kristin Yannone, Project Manager, ventilation, installation of monitoring conventional open pit and modified wells, construction of uranium telephone 307–332–8400; address 1335 room and pillar underground mining processing and waste-water treatment Main Street, Lander, WY 82520; e-mail methods to extract the ore. Uranium _ facilities, and development of new and Kristin [email protected]. Persons who recovery would be performed on-site improvement of existing access roads. use a telecommunications device for the using heap leach methods and a Interim reclamation activities would be deaf (TDD) may call the Federal processing facility to produce performed to minimize the amount of Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– yellowcake (uranium oxide-U O ). Two 3 8 surface disturbance at any one time. 800–877–8339 to contact the above new declines would be advanced from individual during normal business the surface to access existing Surface disturbance would be phased hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a underground workings for rehabilitation over several years, depending on the day, 7 days a week, to leave a message and further mine development. A series uranium production rate and the or question with the above individual. of double-lined pads and ponds would availability of mine construction You will receive a reply during normal be constructed for the heap-leach equipment and personnel. Titan business hours. facility and a new large building would estimates that approximately 40 acres SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The house the site’s processing plant, with a each year would be disturbed, undergo Project is located 8 road miles south of smaller structure for administration and interim reclamation, and subsequently Jeffrey City, Wyoming in Fremont shop facilities. be returned to wildlife habitat to BLM County, Sixth Principal Meridian, A total of 466 acres would be and State of Wyoming reclamation Township 28 North, Range 92 West, disturbed over the life of the mine. This standards. Final surface reclamation Sections 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, disturbance would consist of 285 acres would also be required by regulatory 32, and 33 in an area of historic of new disturbance and 181 acres of agencies and assured by bonds. uranium mining development, the existing disturbance which would be re- At the end of surface mining, all earliest of which dates back to the disturbed. The 466 acres includes 104 stockpiled overburden would be 1950s. This area lies 62 road miles acres for the heap leaching and plant returned to the pits and the surface southeast of Riverton, Wyoming and 105 operations and 362 acres for mining regraded with top soil and seeded for road miles west of Casper, Wyoming in operations. No new disturbance would revegetation. All underground mining the Crooks Gap Mining District. be required for access roads. spoils would remain underground and The project area, which is the same Both the surface and underground would be reclaimed within the area covered by an existing State of mining may use diesel-powered underground workings. Final Wyoming mining permit, covers 3,625 equipment and blasting to extract and reclamation plans include placing all pit surface acres of mixed ownership transport the ore to the heap-leach mine overburden and spoils back in the including 2,313 acres administered by facility and the overburden materials to mine pits, plugging and abandoning all the BLM, 768 acres under State their temporary and final storage ventilation shafts and access tunnels, ownership, and 544 acres of private locations. All pit overburden would be removing all ponds and buried piping, lands. The project area includes 2,836 temporarily stockpiled on the surface and regrading and revegetating the acres of Federal mineral estate. The during the initial phases of mining. disturbed surface with native plant BLM Lander Field Office will serve as During later pit mining phases, the species approved by the regulatory the lead office for preparing the overburden and waste material would agencies. After vegetation has been environmental analysis of the potential be stored within previously mined reestablished, the mine surface would impacts of authorizing the surface portions of the pit. be returned to its premining use of disturbance for the Project on public After being received at the processing livestock grazing and wildlife habitat or lands under the BLM’s regulations at 43 facility, ore would be placed on the any uses consistent with the then- CFR part 3809. The potential impacts of double-lined leach pads using a radial applicable land use plan.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52690 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Depending upon the residual Indian trust assets. Federal, State, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teri radiological hazards present within the local agencies, along with other Bakken, Chief, Fluids Adjudication millsite restricted area, administrative stakeholders who may be interested in Section, Bureau of Land Management jurisdiction of the reclaimed heaps may or affected by the BLM’s decision on Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate be required to be transferred to the this project, are invited to participate in Drive, Billings, Montana 59101–4669, Department of Energy for long-term the scoping process and, if eligible, may 406–896–5091, [email protected]. custodial care until contamination is request or be requested by the BLM to Persons who use a deemed no longer a threat to public participate as a cooperating agency. telecommunications device for the deaf health and safety. Before including your address, phone (TDD) may call the Federal Information Titan estimates that the Project would number, e-mail address, or other Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 employ a mix of full-time personnel and personal identifying information in your to contact the above individual during temporary contractors throughout the comment, you should be aware that normal business hours. The FIRS is life of the mine. During the construction your entire comment—including your available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, of each mine unit, 20 to 30 full-time personal identifying information—may to leave a message or question with the employees plus 80 contractors would be be made publicly available at any time. above individual. You will receive a employed. During mining operations, While you can ask us in your comment reply during normal business hours. about 210 full-time employees plus to withhold your personal identifying another 40 contractors would be information from public review, we Teri Bakken, required. It is likely that the majority cannot guarantee that we will be able to Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section. would live in Riverton and Lander. The do so. [FR Doc. 2011–21568 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Project is projected to provide an BILLING CODE 4310–DN–P economic benefit through a variety of Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7. taxes paid to Federal, State, and local Donald A. Simpson, governments to include employee State Director. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR income taxes, severance taxes, property [FR Doc. 2011–21563 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] taxes, and sales taxes. National Park Service BILLING CODE 4310–22–P The Project is in conformance with the Lander RMP/Final EIS and ROD, Final Environmental Impact Statement on Nabesna Off-Road Vehicle 1987. During the preparation of the EIS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR interim exploration and development Management Plan, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve will be subject to development Bureau of Land Management guidelines and decisions made in AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. applicable NEPA documents, including [LLMT922200–11–L13100000–FI0000–P; ACTION: Notice of Availability. the Lander RMP and any subsequent NDM 94247, NDM 94249, and NDM 94263] revisions. The EIS will analyze the SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National environmental consequences of Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of implementing the Project as proposed Terminated Oil and Gas Leases NDM 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C) the National and alternatives, including a No Action 94247, NDM 94249, and NDM 94263 Park Service (NPS) announces the Alternative. Other alternatives that may availability of a Final Environmental be considered in detail could include, AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Impact Statement (FEIS) on Off-Road for example, reclamation schedule Interior. Vehicle Management in the Nabesna adjustments, or perhaps a different pace ACTION: Notice. District of Wrangell-St. Elias National of development. The Project would not Park and Preserve. The FEIS evaluates impair lands with wilderness SUMMARY: Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), Pride the environmental impacts of a characteristics. Energy Company timely filed a petition The purpose of the public scoping for reinstatement of competitive oil and preferred alternative and four action process is to determine relevant issues gas leases NDM 94247, NDM 94249, and alternatives for management of off-road that will influence the scope of the NDM 94263, Billings County, ND. The vehicles in the Nabesna District. The environmental analysis, including lessee paid the required rental accruing purpose is to consider opportunities for alternatives, and guide the process for from the date of termination. appropriate and reasonable access to developing the EIS. At present, the BLM No leases were issued that affect these wilderness and backcountry recreational has identified the following preliminary lands. The lessee agrees to new lease activities, which also accommodates issues: air resources, water resources, terms for rentals and royalties, $10 per subsistence and access to inholdings; wildlife and special status species, acre and 162⁄3 percent respectively. The while protecting scenic quality, fish and vegetative resources, grazing, concerns lessee paid the $500 administration fee wildlife habitat, and other park resource about risks from selenium, heavy metals for the reinstatement of the lease and values. A no action alternative is also and uranium, and long-term post- $163 cost for publishing this Notice. evaluated. This notice officially begins closure management. The lessee met the requirements for the 30-day waiting period before the The BLM will utilize and coordinate reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31 (d) Record of Decision can be issued. the NEPA commenting process to help and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of ADDRESSES: Copies of the FEIS will be fulfill the public involvement process 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing available for public review at http:// under Section 106 of the National to reinstate the lease, effective the date parkplanning.nps.gov/wrst. Hard copies Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. of termination subject to: are available at park headquarters, 470f) as provided for in 36 CFR • The original terms and conditions located at Milepost 106.8 on the 800.2(d)(3). Native American tribal of the lease; Richardson Highway, or may be consultations will be conducted in • The increased rental of $10 per requested from Bruce Rogers, Project accordance with policy, and tribal acre; and Manager, Wrangell-St. Elias National concerns will be given due • The increased royalty of 162⁄3 Park and Preserve, PO Box 439, Copper consideration, including impacts on percent. Center, Alaska 99573.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52691

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This FEIS elements of Alternatives 4 and 5 from continue to be subject to monitoring and evaluates the impacts of a range of the DEIS. Additionally, the FEIS adaptive management steps in the same alternatives for managing off-road responds to substantive comments in manners as alternative 3 and would be vehicles (ORVs) for recreational and Chapter 5 and numerous changes were confined to designated trails in park subsistence use in the Nabesna District made to the DEIS as a result of public wilderness. of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and comment. These changes are Preserve. The nine trails under documented in the FEIS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: evaluation were in existence at the time Alternative 1 evaluates the impacts of Bruce Rogers, Project Manager, the 13.2-million-acre park and preserve no action and describes conditions Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and was established in 1980. The use of under the lawsuit settlement. Preserve, PO Box 439, Copper Center, ORVs was determined to be Recreational ORV use would be Alaska 99573. Telephone: 907–822– traditionally employed for subsistence permitted on all trails except Suslota, 7276. activities in the 1986 General Tanada Lake, or Copper Lake trails, Sue E. Masica, Management Plan. Beginning in 1983, until the ground is frozen. There would Regional Director, Alaska. the park issued permits for recreational be no change to subsistence ORV use [FR Doc. 2011–21566 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] ORV use of these established trails, and no trail improvements. initially in accordance with 36 CFR Alternative 2 would permit BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P 13.14(c) which was replaced by 43 CFR recreational ORV use on all nine trails. There would be no change to 36.11(g)(2) in 1986. The park issues 200 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR recreational ORV permits per year on subsistence ORV use and no trail average. The trails also provide for improvements. National Park Service subsistence ORV use and access to Alternative 3 would prohibit inholdings. On June 29, 2006, the recreational ORV use. Subsistence ORV Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Parks Conservation use would continue, and some trail National Historic Trail Advisory Association, Alaska Center for the improvements would be made. Trail Council Environment, and The Wilderness conditions would be monitored, and Society (Plantiffs) filed a lawsuit against adaptive management steps would be AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. taken to prevent further resource NPS in the United States District Court ACTION: Notice of meeting. for the District of Alaska regarding degradation. Alternative 4 would permit recreational ORV use on the nine trails SUMMARY: As required by the Federal that are the subject of this EIS. The recreational ORV use on designated Advisory Committee Act, the National plaintiffs challenged the NPS issuance trails in the preserve (Caribou Creek, Park Service (NPS) is hereby giving of recreational ORV permits asserting Lost Creek, Trail Creek, Soda Lake, notice that the Advisory Committee on Reeve Field) once improvements are that NPS failed to make the required the Captain John Smith Chesapeake made, but not in the park (Tanada Lake, finding that recreational ORV use is National Historic Trail will hold a Copper Lake, Boomerang). All trails compatible with the purposes and meeting. Designated through an (except Suslota) would be improved to values of the Park and Preserve. They amendment to the National Trails at least a maintainable condition also claimed that the NPS failed to System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241), the trail through trail hardening, tread prepare an environmental analysis of consists of ‘‘a series of water routes improvement, or constructed re-routes. recreational ORV use as required by extending approximately 3,000 miles Subsistence ORV use would continue NEPA. along the Chesapeake Bay and its subject to monitoring and management In the May 15, 2007, settlement tributaries in the States of Virginia, activities in the same manners as agreement, NPS agreed to endeavor to Maryland, Delaware, and in the District alternative 3. complete an EIS, Record of Decision of Columbia,’’ tracing the 1607–1609 (ROD) and compatibility determination Alternative 5 would permit recreational ORV use on all nine trails. voyages of Captain John Smith to chart by December 31, 2010 (this has been the land and waterways of the extended to December 31, 2011), during All trails (except Suslota) would be improved to at least a maintainable Chesapeake Bay. This meeting is open which time recreational use of ORVs on to the public. Preregistration is required the Suslota Lake Trail, Tanada Lake condition as under alternative 4. Until improved, recreational ORV use would for both public attendance and Trail, and a portion of the Copper Lake comment. Any individual who wishes Trail is permitted only when the ground not be permitted on trails with the most resource degradation (Tanada Lake, to attend the meeting and/or participate is frozen. in the public comment session should A Draft Environmental Impact Suslota, and Copper Lake) and register via e-mail at Statement (DEIS) was published in subsistence ORV use would continue to [email protected] or telephone: August 2010 and made available for a be subject to monitoring and adaptive (757) 258–8914. For those wishing to 90-day public comment period. During management steps in the same manners make comments, please provide a the 90-day public comment period, five as alternative 3, and would be confined written summary of your comments public meetings were held in Fairbanks, to trails in park wilderness. Anchorage, Tok, Slana, and Copper Alternative 6 is the NPS preferred prior to the meeting. The Designated Center, Alaska. The purpose of the alternative. All trails would be Federal Official for the Advisory public meetings was to provide improved to at least a maintainable Council is John Maounis, information on the DEIS, answer condition. After trail improvement, Superintendent, Captain John Smith questions, and facilitate public recreational ORV use would be National Historic Trail, telephone: (410) comment on the document. The NPS permitted on trails in the national 260–2471. received 153 comment letters from preserve (Suslota, Caribou Creek, Trail DATES: The Captain John Smith various agencies, organizations, and Creek, Lost Creek, Soda Lake, and Reeve Chesapeake National Historic Trail individuals. In response to public Field) but not on trails in the national Advisory Council will meet from 10 comment, the FEIS analyzes a sixth NPS park (Boomerang, Tanada Lake, Copper a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, preferred alternative that combines Lake). Subsistence ORV use would September 14, 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52692 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Department of Justice website, http:// the Virginia Commonwealth University www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ Rice Center, 3701 John Tyler Memorial Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the Highway, Charles City, VA 23030. For Under the Toxic Substances Control proposed consent decree may also be more information, please contact the Act obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. NPS Chesapeake Bay Office, 410 Severn Notice is hereby given that on August Department of Justice, Washington, DC Avenue, Suite 314, Annapolis, MD 15, 2011 a proposed Consent Decree in 20044–7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a 21403. United States and the State of Michigan request to Tonia Fleetwood v. Hansons Window and Construction, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ([email protected]), fax no. Inc., Civil Action No. 2:11–cv–13561– (202) 514–0097, phone confirmation Christine Lucero, Partnership JCO–MKM was lodged with the United number (202) 514–1547. If requesting a Coordinator for the Captain John Smith States District Court for the Eastern Chesapeake National Historic Trail, copy from the Consent Decree Library District of Michigan. The consent decree by mail, please enclose a check in the telephone: (757) 258–8914 or e-mail: settles claims against a window [email protected]. amount of $11.50 (25 cents per page manufacturing and replacement reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. corporation located outside of Detroit, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Treasury or, if requesting by email or Michigan. The claims were brought on section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory fax, forward a check in that amount to behalf of the Environmental Protection Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), this the Consent Decree Library at the Agency (‘‘U.S. EPA’’) under the Toxic address given above. notice announces a meeting of the Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601 Captain John Smith Chesapeake et seq., and on behalf of the State of Karen Dworkin, National Historic Trail Advisory Michigan Department of Community Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Council for the purpose of providing Health (‘‘Michigan DCH’’) under the Enforcement Section, Environment and advice on the implementation of the Michigan Lead Abatement Act, 1998 Natural Resources Division. Captain John Smith Chesapeake Mich. Pub. Acts 219 § 1 et seq., Mich. [FR Doc. 2011–21528 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] National Historic Trail Action Plan and Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.5451 et seq. The BILLING CODE 4410–15–P reviewing the preliminary Concept Plan Plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that of the James River Segment of the the Settling Defendant failed to make Captain John Smith Chesapeake one or more of the disclosures or to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE complete one or more of the disclosure National Historic Trail. The Committee Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree activities required by Title IV, section meeting is open to the public. Members Under the Clean Air Act of the public who would like to make 406(b) of the Toxic Substances Control comments to the Committee should Act. Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby preregister via e-mail at Under the Consent Decree, the given that on August 17, 2011, a [email protected] or telephone: Settling Defendant will pay to the Consent Decree in United States of (757) 258–8914; a written summary of United States a civil penalty of $50,000, America v. Erie Coke Corporation, Civil comments should be provided prior to will certify that it is now in compliance Action No. 1:09–cv–00240–SJM was the meeting. Comments will be taken for and will develop a compliance program lodged with the United States District to ensure on-going compliance with 30 minutes at the end of the meeting Court for the Western District of residential lead based paint hazard (from 4 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.). Before Pennsylvania. notification requirements in the future. In this action, the United States including your address, telephone As part of its settlement with the State sought injunctive relief and penalties number, e-mail address, or other of Michigan, the Settling Defendant will against Erie Coke Corporation (‘‘Erie personal indentifying information in also perform a Supplemental Coke’’) pursuant to Section 113(b) of the your comment, you should be aware Environmental Project (‘‘State SEP’’). Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b), for that your entire comment—including For the State SEP, the Settling alleged Clean Air Act violations and your personal identifying information— Defendant will provide $250,000 worth violations of the Pennsylvania State may be made publicly available at any of windows to the State of Michigan for Implementation Plan at a coke time. While you can ask us in your installation in housing built before manufacturing facility in Erie, comment to withhold your personal 1978. Pennsylvania owned by Erie Coke. identifying information from public The Department of Justice will receive Originally, the complaint was filed review, we cannot guarantee that we for a period of thirty (30) days from the jointly with the Commonwealth of will be able to do so. All comments will date of this publication comments Pennsylvania Department of be made part of the public record and relating to the Proposed Consent Decree. Environmental Protection, but the will be electronically distributed to all Comments should be addressed to the Commonwealth settled separately with Committee members. Assistant Attorney General, Erie Coke and a consent judgment was Environment and Natural Resources entered in the Commonwealth Court of Dated: August 1, 2011. Division, and either e-mailed to Pennsylvania (the ‘‘State Agreement’’). John Maounis, [email protected] or Under the terms of the settlement Superintendent, Captain John Smith National mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. with the United States, the settling Historic Trail, National Park Service, Department of Justice, Washington, DC defendant will: (1) Pay a $300,000 civil Department of the Interior. 20044–7611, and should refer to United penalty to the United States; and (2) [FR Doc. 2011–21565 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] States and State of Michigan v. Hansons apply interim measures to control BILLING CODE 4310–70–P Window and Construction Inc., D.J. Ref. visible air emissions until the Erie Coke # 90–5–1–1–08900. facility comes into compliance with the During the public comment period, State Agreement. the proposed Consent Decree, may also The Department of Justice will receive be examined on the following comments relating to the Consent

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52693

Decree for a period of thirty (30) days collection instruments are clearly I. Background from the date of this publication. understood, and the impact of collection Comments should be addressed to the requirements on respondents can be The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Assistant Attorney General, properly assessed. Currently, the Wage section 3(l), 29 U.S.C. 203(l) establishes Environment and Natural Resources and Hour Division is soliciting a minimum age of 16 years for most Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. comments concerning its proposal to nonagricultural employment but allows Department of Justice, Washington, DC extend Office of Management and the employment of 14- and 15-year-olds 20044–7611, or submitted via e-mail to Budget (OMB) approval of the in occupations other than [email protected], and Information Collection: Notice to manufacturing and mining or deemed should refer to United States v. Erie Examinee, Work Experience and Career hazardous, if the Secretary of Labor Coke Corporation, D.J. Ref. No. 90–5–2– Exploration (WECEP) Regulations, 29 determines such employment is 1–09614. CFR 570.35a. A copy of the proposed confined to (1) periods that will not The Consent Decree may be examined information request can be obtained by interfere with the minor’s schooling and at the Offices of the U.S. Environmental contacting the office listed below in the (2) conditions that will not interfere Protection Agency, Region 3, 1650 Arch with the minor’s health and well-being. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania FLSA section 11(c), 29 U.S.C. 211(c), section of this Notice. 19103. During the public comment requires all employers covered by the period, the Consent Decree may also be DATES: Written comments must be FLSA to make, keep, and preserve examined on the following Department submitted to the office listed in the records of their employees’ wages, of Justice Web site, http:// ADDRESSES section below on or before hours, and other conditions and www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ October 24, 2011. practices of employment. Regulations Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the issued by the Secretary of Labor ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Consent Decree may also be obtained by prescribe the recordkeeping and identified by Control Number 1235– mail from the Consent Decree Library, reporting requirements for these 0011, by either one of the following P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of records. Subpart C of Regulations 29 methods: E-mail: Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or CFR Part 570—Child Labor Regulations, [email protected]; Mail, by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Orders, and Statements of Hand Delivery, Courier: Division of Fleetwood ([email protected]), Interpretation—sets forth the Regulation, Legislation, and fax number (202) 514–0097, phone employment standards for 14- and 15- confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In Interpretation, Wage and Hour, U.S. year-olds (CL Reg. 3). Regulations 29 requesting a copy from the Consent Department of Labor, Room S–3502, 200 CFR 570.35a contain the requirements Decree Library, please enclose a check Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, and criteria for the employment of 14- in the amount of $6.50 (25 cents per DC 20210. Instructions: Please submit and 15-year-olds in specific occupations page reproduction cost) payable to the one copy of your comments by only one pursuant to a school-supervised and U.S. Treasury. method. All submissions received must school-administered WECEP under the include the agency name and Control Robert Brook, conditions CL Reg. 3 otherwise Number identified above for this prohibits. In order to utilize the CL Reg. Assistant Section Chief, Environmental information collection. Because we Enforcement Section, Environment and 3 WECEP provisions, Regulations 29 Natural Resources Division. continue to experience delays in CFR 570.35a(b)(2) requires a state receiving mail in the Washington, DC educational agency to file an application [FR Doc. 2011–21462 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] area, commenters are strongly BILLING CODE 4410–15–P for approval of a state WECEP program encouraged to transmit their comments as one not interfering with schooling or electronically via e-mail or to submit with the health and well-being of the them by mail early. Comments, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR minors involved. Regulations 29 CFR including any personal information 570.35a(b)(3)(vi) requires that a written Wage and Hour Division provided, become a matter of public training agreement be prepared for each record. They will also be summarized student participating in a WECEP and Proposed Extension of the Approval of and/or included in the request for OMB that such agreement be signed by the Information Collection Requirements approval of the information collection teacher-coordinator, the employer, and request. AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, the student. The regulation also requires Department of Labor. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the student’s parent or guardian to sign ACTION: Notice. Mary Ziegler, Director, Division of or otherwise consent to the agreement in Regulation, Legislation, and order for it to be valid. Regulations 29 SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as Interpretation, Wage and Hour, U.S. CFR 570.35a(b)(4)(ii) requires state part of its continuing effort to reduce Department of Labor, Room S–3502, 200 education agencies to keep a record of paperwork and respondent burden, Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, the names and addresses of each school conducts a preclearance consultation DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693–0406 enrolling WECEP students and the program to provide the general public (this is not a toll-free number). Copies number of enrollees in each unit. The and Federal agencies with an of this notice may be obtained in state or local educational agency office opportunity to comment on proposed alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, must keep a copy of the written training and/or continuing collections of Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by agreement for each student participating information in accordance with the calling (202) 693–0023 (not a toll-free in the WECEP. The records and copies must be maintained for three (3) years Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 number). TTY/TTD callers may dial toll- (PRA95). 44 U.S.C. 3056(c)(2)(A). This from the date of each student’s free (877) 889–5627 to obtain program helps to ensure that requested enrollment in the program. This information or request materials in data can be provided in the desired information collection is currently alternative formats. format, reporting burden (time and approved for use through December 31, financial resources) is minimized, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52694 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

II. Review Focus Dated: July 20, 2011. The Draft EA analyzes the potential Mary Ziegler, environmental impacts associated with The Department of Labor is preparing and implementing launches particularly interested in comments Director, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretations. of missions that are designated NASA which: [FR Doc. 2011–21529 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] routine payloads on U.S. expendable • Evaluate whether the proposed BILLING CODE 4510–27–P launch vehicles from existing U.S. collection of information is necessary facilities using established procedures. for the proper performance of the The NASA routine payloads meet functions of the agency, including NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND rigorously defined criteria ensuring that whether the information will have SPACE ADMINISTRATION the spacecraft and their operation would practical utility; not present any new or substantial • Evaluate the accuracy of the [Notice (11–076)] environmental and safety concerns. A agency’s estimate of the burden of the National Environmental Policy Act: Routine Payload Checklist is used to proposed collection of information, exclude missions from consideration as including the validity of the Launch of NASA Routine Payloads on Expendable Launch Vehicles routine payloads if they: (1) Include any methodology and assumptions used; extraterrestrial sample return; (2) would • Enhance the quality, utility, and AGENCY: National Aeronautics and be launched on a vehicle or from a clarity of the information to be Space Administration (NASA). launch site for which NASA has not collected; and ACTION: Notice of availability and completed NEPA compliance; (3) carry • Minimize the burden of the request for comments on the draft radioactive sources that could not be collection of information on those who environmental assessment (‘‘Draft EA’’) approved by the NASA Office of Safety are to respond, including through the for launch of NASA routine payloads on and Mission Assurance Nuclear Flight use of appropriate automated, expendable launch vehicles. Safety Assurance Manager or designee; electronic, mechanical, or other (4) cause the manifested launch rate (per technological collection techniques or SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National year) for a particular launch vehicle to other forms of information technology, Environmental Policy Act of 1969 exceed the rate previously approved and e.g., permitting electronic submissions (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et permitted at the launch sites; (5) require of responses. seq.), the Council on Environmental the construction of any new facilities (or Quality (CEQ) Regulations for substantial modification of existing III. Current Actions Implementing the Procedural Provisions facilities); (6) utilize hazardous of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and The DOL seeks approval for the materials in quantities exceeding the NASA NEPA policy and procedures extension of this currently approved Envelope Payload Characteristics (14 CFR part 1216 subpart 1216.3), information collection in order to carry (EPCs); (7) utilize potentially hazardous NASA has prepared a Draft EA for out its responsibility to ensure material whose type or amount would launch of NASA routine payloads on compliance with the youth employment not be covered by new or existing local expendable launch vehicles. For provisions of the FLSA and its permits; (8) release material other than purposes of this Draft EA, NASA routine propulsion system exhaust or inert gases regulations. Without this information, payloads include science instruments, into the atmosphere; (9) suggest the the Administrator would have no means spacecraft or technology potential for any substantial impact on to determine if the proposed program demonstrations. This EA updates the public health and safety not covered by meets the regulatory requirements. Final Environmental Assessment for Type of Review: Extension. Launch of NASA Routine Payloads on this Draft EA; (10) have the potential for Agency: Wage and Hour Division. Expendable Launch Vehicles from Cape substantial effects on the environment Titles: Work Experience and Career Canaveral Air Force Station Florida and outside the United States; (11) utilize an Exploration Programs (WECEP) Vandenberg Air Force Base California Earth-pointing laser system that does Regulations, 29 CFR 570.35a. published in June 2002. NASA missions not meet the requirements for safe operations according to American OMB Number: 1235–0011. covered by this Draft EA would be National Standards Institute analysis Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal scheduled for launch at one of the proposed launch sites and would be techniques; (12) carry live or inactive Government. disease-causing biological agents Frequency: Biennially. within the total number of launch operations previously analyzed in beyond Biological Safety Level 1; or (13) Total Respondents: 37. launch vehicle and launch site NEPA have the potential to create substantial Total Annual Responses: 14,287. documents. The proposed launches public controversy related to Average Time per Response: would occur from existing launch environmental issues. Reporting: facilities at CCAFS, Florida, VAFB, Payloads that fall within the Routine WECEP Application—2 hours. California, the United States Army Payload Checklist would utilize Written Training Agreement—1 Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site materials, quantities of materials, hour. (USAKA/RTS) in the Republic of the launch vehicles, and operational Recordkeeping: Marshall Islands (RMI), NASA’s characteristics that are consistent with Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), Virginia, normal and routine payload preparation WECEP Program Information—1 and the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC), and flight activities at these specified hour. Alaska. The Cooperating Agencies on launch sites. Therefore, the Filing of WECEP Record and this Draft EA include the Federal environmental impacts of launching Training Agreement—One-half minute. Aviation Administration (FAA), the Air routine payloads would fall within the Total Burden Hours: 14,145. Force Space and Missile Systems range of routine, ongoing, and Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): Center, the U.S. Army Space and previously documented impacts $0. Missile Defense Command, and the associated with approved programs that Total Burden Cost (operating/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric have been determined not to be maintenance): $3.29. Administration (NOAA). significant. The purpose and need for

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52695

this proposed action is to fulfill NASA’s (n) Government Information Center, and environmental impacts of this mission for Earth exploration, space Davidson Library, University of group of spacecraft. Preparation and exploration, technology development, California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, launch of all spacecraft that are defined and scientific research. The scientific CA 93106–9010 (805–893–8803). as routine payloads would have missions associated with NASA routine (o) Vandenberg Air Force Base potential environmental impacts that payloads could not be accomplished Library, 100 Community Loop, Building fall within the range of routine, ongoing, without launching orbital and 10343A, Vandenberg AFB, CA 93437 and previously documented impacts interplanetary spacecraft. (805–606–6414). associated with approved missions that DATES: Interested parties are invited to (p) Hampton Library, 4207 Victoria have been determined not to be submit comments on the Draft EA in Blvd., Hampton, VA 23669 (757–727– significant. Alternative spacecraft writing no later than 45 days from the 1154). designs that exceed the limitations of date of publication of this notice in the Limited hard copies of the Draft EA the Routine Payload Checklist may have Federal Register. are available, on a first request basis, by new or substantial environmental ADDRESSES: Comments should be contacting Mr. Tahu at the address or impacts or hazards and would be submitted via electronic mail to: telephone number indicated herein. subjected to additional environmental [email protected]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: analysis. Foreign launch vehicles would Comments may also be submitted via George Tahu, Program Executive at the require individual consideration, postal mail addressed to: George Tahu, Science Mission Directorate, NASA review, and separate environmental NASA Program Executive, Science Headquarters, telephone 202–358–0723 analysis, and were not considered to be Mission Directorate, Planetary Science or via electronic mail at routine- reasonable alternatives for the purpose Division, Mail Stop 3V71, NASA [email protected]. of this NASA routine payload Draft EA. The No-Action Alternative would mean Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: U.S. space that specific criteria and thresholds Washington, DC 20546. and Earth exploration is integral to presented in the 2002 Final The Draft EA is available for review NASA’s strategic plan for carrying out Environmental Assessment for Launch at http://www.nasa.gov/green/nepa/ its mission. NASA is also committed to of NASA Routine Payloads on routinepayloadea.html. the further development of advanced, Expendable Launch Vehicles from The Draft EA may also be reviewed at low-cost technologies for exploring and CCAFS Florida and VAFB California the following locations: utilizing space. To fulfill these would be used to determine a (a) NASA Headquarters, Library, objectives, a continuing series of spacecraft’s eligibility to be considered Room 1J20, 300 E Street, SW., scientific spacecraft would need to be a NASA Routine Payload launching on Washington, DC 20546 (202–358–0167). designed, built, and launched into Earth the Pegasus, Taurus, Atlas and Delta (b) Central Brevard Library and orbit or towards other bodies in the Reference Center, 308 Forrest Ave., families of the vehicles from CCAFS and Solar System. These spacecraft would VAFB. The No-Action alternative would Cocoa, FL 32922 (321–633–1792). flyby, encounter, orbit about, land on, or (c) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Visitors mean that NASA would not launch impact with these Solar System bodies scientific and technology demonstration Lobby, Building 249, 4800 Oak Grove to collect various scientific data that Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 (818–354– spacecraft missions defined as routine would be transmitted to Earth via radio payloads on the Falcon and Minotaur 5179). for analysis. The scientific missions (d) NASA, Goddard Space Flight families of launch vehicles from any of associated with NASA routine payloads the launch sites, nor would NASA Visitor’s Center, 8463 Greenbelt Road, could not be accomplished without Greenbelt, MD 20771 (301–286–8981). launch payloads from USAKA, WFF, or launching such scientific spacecraft. KLC, without individual mission NEPA (e) Chincoteague Island Library, 4077 The proposed action is comprised of Main Street, Chincoteague, VA 23336 review and documentation. preparing and launching missions If the No-Action alternative were (757–336–3460). designated as NASA routine payloads. (f) NASA WFF Technical Library, selected, NASA would revert to The design and operational Building E–105, Wallops Island, VA publishing individual NEPA characteristics and, therefore, the 23337 (757–824–1065). documentation for each mission. (g) Eastern Shore Public Library, potential environmental impacts of Duplicate analyses and redundant 23610 Front Street, Accomac, VA 23301 routine payloads would be rigorously documentation for spacecraft missions (757–787–3400). bounded. NASA routine payloads that meet the limitations of the Routine (h) Kodiak Library, 319 Lower Mill would utilize materials, launch Payload Checklist, however, would not Bay Road, Kodiak, AK 99615 (907–486– vehicles, facilities, and operations that present any new information or identify 8680). are normally and customarily used at all any substantially different (i) NASA Ames Research Center, proposed launch sites. The routine environmental impacts. Moffett Field, CA 94035 (650–604– payloads would use these materials, The launch vehicles proposed for 3273). launch vehicles, facilities, and launching the routine payload (j) Grace Sherwood and Roi-Namur operations only within the scope of spacecraft represent all presently or Libraries, P.O. Box 23, Kwajalein, activities already approved or soon to be available domestic (U.S.) Marshall Islands APO, A.P. 96555. permitted. The scope of this Draft EA vehicles that would be suitable for (805–355–2015). includes all spacecraft that would meet launching the routine payloads, would (k) Alele Public Library, P.O. Box 629, specific criteria on their construction likely be available, have documented Majuro, Republic of the Marshall and launch, would accomplish the environmental impacts demonstrating Islands 96960. (692–625–3372). requirements of NASA’s research NEPA compliance, and would use either (l) Lompoc Public Library, 501 E. objectives, and would not present new existing launch facilities or launch North Avenue, Lompoc, CA 93436 (850– or substantial environmental impacts or facilities for which environmental 875–8775). hazards. These spacecraft would meet impacts have been examined in NEPA (m) Santa Maria Public Library, 420 the limitations set forth in the Routine documents, or will be in the future. The South Broadway, Santa Maria, CA Payload Checklist, which was expendable launch vehicles specifically 93454–5199 (805–925–0994). developed to delimit the characteristics included in this action include the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

following: the Athena I and II, Atlas V mitigation measures beyond those Objections submitted in response to family, the Delta family, the Falcon already existing, or in coordination, for this notice will not be made available to family, the Minotaur family, the Pegasus launches. the public for inspection and, to the XL, and Taurus family. These launch There are no direct or substantial extent permitted by law, will not be vehicles would accommodate the environmental impacts, including released under the Freedom of desired range of payload masses, would cumulative impacts, associated with the Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. provide the needed trajectory proposed action that have not already ADDRESSES: Objections relating to the capabilities, and would provide highly been covered by NEPA documentation prospective license may be submitted to reliable launch services. Individual for the existing launch sites, launch Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, launch vehicles would be carefully vehicles, launch facilities, and payload NASA Johnson Space Center, 2101 matched to the launch requirements of processing facilities. NASA Parkway, Houston, Texas 77058, each particular NASA routine payload. Olga M. Dominguez, Mail Code AL; Phone (281) 483–3021; In the event that other launch vehicles Fax (281) 483–6936. become available after final publication Assistant Administrator for Strategic FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt of this Draft EA, they could be NEPA Infrastructure. G. Hammerle, Intellectual Property compliant under this Draft EA if they [FR Doc. 2011–21419 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, meet the following criteria: (1) NASA BILLING CODE 7510–13–P NASA Johnson Space Center, 2101 has been a cooperating agency with the NASA Parkway, Houston, Texas 77058, Department of Defense (DoD) or FAA on Mail Code AL; Phone (281) 483–1001; the launch vehicle for that given launch NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND Fax (281) 483–6936. Information about site; (2) NASA has published NEPA SPACE ADMINISTRATION other NASA inventions available for documentation for that specific launch [Notice (11–077)] licensing can be found online at vehicle at that specific launch site; or (3) http://technology.nasa.gov/. NASA formally adopts another agency’s Notice of Intent To Grant Partially NEPA documentation. In addition, Exclusive License Dated: August 17, 2011. launch vehicles covered in this Draft EA Richard W. Sherman, AGENCY: National Aeronautics and could be eligible for launch from Deputy General Counsel. Space Administration. commercial spaceports or DoD [FR Doc. 2011–21417 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] ACTION: Notice of intent to grant installations not covered by this BILLING CODE P document if: (1) NASA is a cooperating partially exclusive license. agency on the NEPA documents SUMMARY: This notice is issued in developed by the DoD or FAA for that accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG site; (2) NASA formally adopts those CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives CONTROL POLICY NEPA documents as its own pursuant to notice of its intent to grant a partially CEQ regulations; or (3) NASA completes exclusive license in the United States to Paperwork Reduction Act; Proposed its own NEPA documentation on a practice the inventions described and Collection; Comment Request specific launch site. For the NASA routine payload claimed in USPN 6,133,036, AGENCY: Office of National Drug Control missions, the potentially affected Preservation of Liquid Biological Policy. environment for normal launches Samples, NASA Case No. MSC- 22616– ACTION: 30-Day notice and request for includes the areas at and in the vicinity 2 and USPN 6,716,392, Preservation of comments. New Information Collection of the proposed launch sites, CCAFS, Liquid Biological Samples, NASA Case Request: Drug Free Communities Florida, VAFB, California, USAKA/RTS, No. MSC- 22616–3 to Quest Diagnostics Support Program National Evaluation. RMI, WFF, Virginia, and KLC, Alaska. Incorporated having its principal place Because propellants are typically the of business in Madison, New Jersey. The SUMMARY: The Office of National Drug largest contributors to potential patent rights in these inventions have Control Policy (ONDCP) intends to environmental impacts of a NASA been assigned to the United States of submit the following information Routine Payload launch, the total America as represented by the collection request to the Office of propellant load for a payload is Administrator of the National Management and Budget for review and considered in this Draft EA. If the Aeronautics and Space Administration. approval under the Paperwork payload propellant load exceeds the The prospective partially exclusive Reduction Act. EPC defined in the Draft EA, then license will comply with the terms and DATES: ONDCP encourages and will additional NEPA analysis and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR accept public comments until documentation would be required. For 404.7. September 22, 2011. normal launches of NASA routine DATES: The prospective partially ADDRESSES: Address all comments in payloads under the proposed action, the exclusive license may be granted unless writing within 30 days to Mr. Patrick environmental impacts would be within fifteen (15) days from the date of Fuchs. Facsimile and e-mail are the associated principally with the exhaust this published notice, NASA receives most reliable means of communication. emissions from the launch vehicles. written objections including evidence Mr. Fuchs facsimile number is (202) These effects would include short-term and argument that establish that the 395–5167, and his e-mail address is impacts on air quality within the grant of the license would not be [email protected]. Mailing address is exhaust cloud and near the launch pads, consistent with the requirements of 725 17th Street, NW., Washington DC and the potential for acidic deposition 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. 20503. For further information contact on the vegetation and surface water Competing applications completed and Mr. Fuchs at (202) 395–3897. bodies at and near each launch received by NASA within fifteen (15) Abstract: ONDCP directs the Drug complex, particularly if a rain storm days of the date of this published notice Free Communities (DFC) Program in occurred. NASA routine payload will also be treated as objections to the partnership with the Substance Abuse processing and launch activities would grant of the contemplated partially and Mental Health Services not require any additional permits or exclusive license. Administration’s Center for Substance

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52697

Abuse Prevention. The DFC Program Estimated Burden: ONDCP expects FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: has two primary goals: To reduce youth that the time required to complete each Michael P. McDonald, Advisory substance abuse, and to support semi-annual report via COMET will be Committee Management Officer, community anti-drug coalitions by approximately five hours, and each CCT National Endowment for the establishing, strengthening, and report will take approximately one hour Humanities, Washington, DC 20506; fostering collaboration among public to complete. Face to face interviews will telephone (202) 606–8322. Hearing- and private agencies. take 1.5–2 hours and surveys will take impaired individuals are advised that Under reauthorization legislation approximately .25 hours each to information on this matter may be (21 U.S.C. 1702), Congress mandated an complete. The estimated total amount of obtained by contacting the evaluation of the DFC Program to time required by all respondents over Endowment’s TDD terminal on (202) determine its effectiveness in meeting one year, including Program Directors 606–8282. objectives. In 2009, a contract was and grantees to complete COMET, CCT, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The awarded to evaluate the DFC Program. surveys, and interviews, is 9,680 hours. proposed meetings are for the purpose This evaluation builds upon the results Goals: ONDCP intends to use the data of panel review, discussion, evaluation of an earlier evaluation and makes use of the DFC National Evaluation to assess and recommendation on applications of an existing web-based performance the DFC Program’s effectiveness in for financial assistance under the system, called the Coalition Online preventing and reducing youth National Foundation on the Arts and the Management and Evaluation Tool substance use. Two primary objectives Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, (COMET) and the Coalition of the evaluation are to: (1) Support an including discussion of information Classification Tool (CCT), to gather effective grant monitoring mechanism given in confidence to the agency by the information from DFC grantees. COMET that provides the Federal government grant applicants. Because the proposed and CCT are being revised to reduce the with the expertise, system, functions, meetings will consider information that burden of information collection on and products to collect, analyze, and is likely to disclose trade secrets and grantees, increase the quality of the report data collectively, and (2) commercial or financial information data, and facilitate the monitoring and regularly monitor and measure data in obtained from a person and privileged tracking of grantee progress. Revisions order to demonstrate the progress of the or confidential and/or information of a to the core outcome measures of DFC DFC program and its grantees. personal nature the disclosure of which are also proposed to bring this data Comment Request: ONDCP especially would constitute a clearly unwarranted collection in line with the National invites comments on: whether the invasion of personal privacy, pursuant Outcome Measures (NOMS). Proposed proposed data are proper for the to authority granted me by the changes include the addition of a peer functions of the agency; whether the Chairman’s Delegation of Authority to disapproval measure, the removal of the information will have practical utility; Close Advisory Committee meetings, age of first use measure, and a revision the accuracy of ONDCP’s estimate of the dated July 19, 1993, I have determined to the perception of risk measure for burden of the proposed collection of that these meetings will be closed to the alcohol to focus on binge drinking. information, including the validity of public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), Moreover, prescription drug use is the methodology and assumptions; ways and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United proposed to be tracked as a core to enhance the quality, utility, and States Code. substance of abuse in this study. clarity of the information to be 1. Date: September 7, 2011. In addition to the information collected; and, ways to ease the burden Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. collected from the COMET and CCT on proposed respondents, including the Location: Room 315. system, the new evaluation will include use of automated collection techniques Program: This meeting will review a case study component to document or other forms of information applications for Humanities Initiatives coalition practices. This element of the technology. Comments will be accepted at Historically Black Colleges and evaluation will involve interviews with for thirty days. Universities, High Hispanic Enrollment, coalition leaders and surveys of Dated: August 18, 2011. and Tribal Colleges and Universities, coalition partners from a number of Daniel R. Petersen, submitted to the Division of Education agencies. Each year, nine DFC grantees Deputy General Counsel. Programs at the June 30, 2011 deadline. will be evaluated and the information [FR Doc. 2011–21548 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 2. Date: September 8, 2011. from the case studies will be shared Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. other grantees. BILLING CODE 3180–W1–P Place: Worburn House Conference Type of Information Collection: Web- Centre, 20 Tavistock Square, London, based data collection, surveys and United Kingdom WC1H9HQ. interviews of DFC and Sober Truth on NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE Program: This meeting will review Preventing Underage Drinking (STOP) ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES applications for Digging into Data Act grantees. Challenge in Digging into Data Program, Meetings of Humanities Panel Title: Drug Free Communities Support submitted to the Office of Digital Program National Evaluation. AGENCY: The National Endowment for Humanities at the June 16, 2011 Frequency: Semi-annually by DFC the Humanities. deadline. and Stop Act Program Directors via ACTION: Notice of meetings. 3. Date: September 8, 2011. COMET, and annually for DFC Program Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Directors and selected coalition SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of Place: Joint Information Systems members via the CCT. Interviews and the Federal Advisory Committee Act Committee, London Offices, Brettenham electronic surveys of Program Directors (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), notice is House, 5 Lancaster Place, Conference and electronic surveys of selected hereby given that the following Room 1, London, United Kingdom coalition members will be accomplished meetings of Humanities Panels will be WC2E7EN. one time. held at the Old Post Office, 1100 Program: This meeting will review Affected Public: DFC and STOP Act Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., applications for Digging into Data grantees. Washington, DC 20506. Challenge in Digging into Data Program,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

submitted to the Office of Digital Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Preservation and Access at the July 20, Humanities at the June 16, 2011 Location: Room 421. 2011 deadline. deadline. Program: This meeting will review 17. Date: September 29, 2011. 4. Date: September 8, 2011. applications for ‘‘Civility and Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Democracy’’ or ‘‘The Muslim World and Location: Room 415. Location: Room 315. the Humanities’’ in the Bridging Program: This meeting will review Program: This meeting will review Cultures Implementation Grants for applications for World Studies I (The applications for Humanities Initiatives Public Programs, submitted to the Office Americas) in Preservation and Access at Historically Black Colleges and of the Chairman and the Division of Humanities Collections and Reference Universities, High Hispanic Enrollment, Public Programs at the August 2, 2011 Resources, submitted to the Division of and Tribal Colleges and Universities, deadline. Preservation and Access at the July 20, submitted to the Division of Education 11. Date: September 13, 2011. 2011 deadline. Programs at the June 30, 2011 deadline. Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Location: Room 421. Michael P. McDonald, 5. Date: September 8, 2011. Advisory Committee Management Officer. Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Program: This meeting will review Location: Room 421. applications for the Americas in [FR Doc. 2011–21445 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Program: This meeting will review Bridging Cultures through Film Grants BILLING CODE 7536–01–P applications for Africa and the Middle Program, submitted to the Division of East in Bridging Cultures through Film Public Programs at the June 29, 2011 Grants Program, submitted to the deadline. NUCLEAR REGULATORY Division of Public Programs at the 12. Date: September 13, 2011. COMMISSION June 29, 2011 deadline. Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. [Docket No. NRC–2011–0181] 6. Date: September 9, 2011. Location: Room 315. Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Program: This meeting will review Agency Information Collection Place: Joint Information Systems applications for Humanities Initiatives Activities: Proposed Collection; Committee, London Offices, Brettenham at Historically Black Colleges and Comment Request House (South Entrance), 5 Lancaster Universities, High Hispanic Enrollment, Place, Conference Room 2, London, and Tribal Colleges and Universities, AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory United Kingdom WC2E7EN. submitted to the Division of Education Commission (NRC). Program: This meeting will review Programs at the June 30, 2011 deadline. ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to applications for Digging into Data 13. Date: September 15, 2011. submit an information collection Challenge in Digging into Data Program, Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. request to the Office of Management and submitted to the Office of Digital Location: Room 421. Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public Humanities at the June 16, 2011 Program: This meeting will review comment. deadline. applications for Europe in Bridging SUMMARY: The NRC invites public Cultures through Film Grants Program, 7. Date: September 9, 2011. comment about our intention to request Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. submitted to the Division of Public the OMB’s approval for renewal of an Place: Joint Information Systems Programs at the June 29, 2011 deadline. existing information collection that is Committee, London Offices, Brettenham 14. Date: September 26, 2011. summarized below. We are required to House, 5 Lancaster Place, Conference Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. publish this notice in the Federal Room 1, London, United Kingdom Location: Room 315. Register under the provisions of the WC2E7EN. Program: This meeting will review Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Program: This meeting will review applications for Request for Proposals (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). applications for Digging into Data for A Cooperative Agreement with NEH Information pertaining to the Challenge in Digging into Data Program, to Support Bridging Cultures at requirement to be submitted: submitted to the Office of Digital Community Colleges, submitted to the 1. The title of the information Humanities at the June 16, 2011 Division of Education Programs at the collection: NRC Form 483, Registration deadline. August 23, 2011 deadline. Certificate—In Vitro Testing with 8. Date: September 9, 2011. 15. Date: September 27, 2011. Byproduct Material Under General Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. License. Location: Room 421. Location: Room 315. 2. Current OMB approval number: Program: This meeting will review Program: This meeting will review 3150–0038. applications for Asia in Bridging applications for Request for Proposals 3. How often the collection is Cultures through Film Grants Program, for A Cooperative Agreement with NEH required: There is a one-time submittal submitted to the Division of Public to Support Bridging Cultures at of information to receive a validated Programs at the June 29, 2011 deadline. Community Colleges, submitted to the copy of NRC Form 483 with an assigned 9. Date: September 12, 2011. Division of Education Programs at the registration number. In addition, any Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. August 23, 2011 deadline. changes in the information reported on Location: Room 315. 16. Date: September 27, 2011. NRC Form 483 must be reported in Program: This meeting will review Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. writing to the NRC within 30 days after applications for Humanities Initiatives Location: Room 415. the effective date of such change. at Historically Black Colleges and Program: This meeting will review 4. Who is required or asked to report: Universities, High Hispanic Enrollment, applications for History of Science, Any physician, veterinarian in the and Tribal Colleges and Universities, Technology, and Medicine in practice of veterinary medicine, clinical submitted to the Division of Education Preservation and Access Humanities laboratory or hospital which desires a Programs at the June 30, 2011 deadline. Collections and Reference Resources, general license to receive, acquire, 10. Date: September 12, 2011. submitted to the Division of possess, transfer, or use specified units

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52699

of byproduct material in certain in vitro NRC–2011–0181. You may submit your any identifying or contact information, clinical or laboratory tests. comments by any of the following the NRC cautions you against including 5. The number of annual respondents: methods: Electronic comments: Go to any information in your submission that 87 (7 NRC licensees + 80 Agreement http://www.regulations.gov and search you do not want to be publicly State licensees). for Docket No. NRC–2011–0181. Mail disclosed. 6. The number of hours needed comments to NRC Clearance Officer, annually to complete the requirement or The NRC requests that any party Tremaine Donnell (T–5 F53), U.S. soliciting or aggregating comments request: 12.87 hours (1 hour for NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission, received from other persons for licensees + 10.7 hours for Agreement Washington, DC 20555–0001. Direct submission to the NRC inform those State licensees + 1.17 hours questions about the information persons that the NRC will not edit their recordkeeping). collection requirements to the NRC comments to remove any identifying or 7. Abstract: Section 31.11 of 10 CFR Clearance Officer, Tremaine Donnell contact information, and therefore, they establishes a general license authorizing (T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory any physician, clinical laboratory, Commission, Washington, DC 20555– should not include any information in veterinarian in the practice of veterinary 0001, by telephone at 301–415–6258, or their comments that they do not want medicine, or hospital to possess certain by e-mail to publicly disclosed. small quantities of byproduct material [email protected]. You may submit comments by any for in vitro clinical or laboratory tests Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day one of the following methods. not involving the internal or external of August, 2011. • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to administration of the byproduct For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. http://www.regulations.gov and search material or the radiation there from to Tremaine Donnell, for documents filed under Docket ID human beings or animals. Possession of NRC–2011–0187. Address questions byproduct material under 10 CFR 31.11 NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher is not authorized until the physician, 301–492–3668; e-mail clinical laboratory, veterinarian in the [FR Doc. 2011–21433 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] [email protected]. practice of veterinary medicine, or BILLING CODE 7590–01–P hospital has filed NRC Form 483 and • Mail comments to: Chief, Rules, received from the Commission a Announcements, and Directives Branch NUCLEAR REGULATORY (RADB), Office of Administration, Mail validated copy of NRC Form 483 with COMMISSION a registration number. Stop: TWB–05–B01M, U.S. Nuclear Submit, by October 24, 2011, [NRC–2011–0187] Regulatory Commission, Washington, comments that address the following DC 20555–0001. questions: Biweekly Notice; Applications and • Amendments to Facility Operating Fax comments to: RADB at 301– 1. Is the proposed collection of 492–3446. information necessary for the NRC to Licenses Involving No Significant properly perform its functions? Does the Hazards Considerations You can access publicly available documents related to this notice using information have practical utility? Background 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? the following methods: 3. Is there a way to enhance the Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the • NRC’s Public Document Room quality, utility, and clarity of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (PDR): The public may examine and information to be collected? (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory have copied, for a fee, publicly available 4. How can the burden of the Commission (the Commission or NRC) documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room information collection be minimized, is publishing this regular biweekly O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 including the use of automated notice. The Act requires the Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland collection techniques or other forms of Commission publish notice of any 20852. amendments issued, or proposed to be information technology? • The public may examine and have issued and grants the Commission the NRC’s Agencywide Documents copied for a fee publicly available authority to issue and make Access and Management System documents, including the draft immediately effective any amendment (ADAMS): Publicly available documents supporting statement, at the NRC’s to an operating license upon a created or received at the NRC are Public Document Room, Room O–1F21, determination by the Commission that accessible electronically through One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville such amendment involves no significant ADAMS in the NRC Library at http:// Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. OMB hazards consideration, notwithstanding www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. clearance requests are available at the the pendency before the Commission of From this page, the public can gain NRC Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/ a request for a hearing from any person. entry into ADAMS, which provides text public-involve/doc-comment/omb/ This biweekly notice includes all and image files of the NRC’s public index.html. The document will be notices of amendments issued, or documents. If you do not have access to available on the NRC home page site for proposed to be issued from July 28, ADAMS or if there are problems in 60 days after the signature date of this 2011, to August 10, 2011. The last accessing the documents located in notice. Comments submitted in writing biweekly notice was published on ADAMS, contact the NRC’s PDR or in electronic form will be made August 9, 2011 (76 FR 48908). reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, available for public inspection. Because ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to your comments will not be edited to NRC–2011–0187 in the subject line of [email protected]. remove any identifying or contact your comments. Comments submitted in • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: information, the NRC cautions you writing or in electronic form will be Public comments and supporting against including any information in posted on the NRC Web site and on the materials related to this notice can be your submission that you do not want Federal rulemaking Web site http:// found at http://www.regulations.gov by to be publicly disclosed. Comments www.regulations.gov. Because your searching on Docket ID: NRC–2011– submitted should reference Docket No. comments will not be edited to remove 0187.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of accordance with the Commission’s applicant on a material issue of law or Amendments to Facility Operating ‘‘Rules of Practice for Domestic fact. Contentions shall be limited to Licenses, Proposed No Significant Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10 CFR part matters within the scope of the Hazards Consideration Determination, 2. Interested person(s) should consult a amendment under consideration. The and Opportunity for a Hearing current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is contention must be one which, if The Commission has made a available at the NRC’s PDR, located at proven, would entitle the requestor/ proposed determination that the One White Flint North, Room O1–F21, petitioner to relief. A requestor/ following amendment requests involve 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), petitioner who fails to satisfy these no significant hazards consideration. Rockville, Maryland 20852. NRC requirements with respect to at least one Under the Commission’s regulations in regulations are accessible electronically contention will not be permitted to from the NRC Library on the NRC Web participate as a party. Title 10 of the Code of Federal site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ Those permitted to intervene become Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a parties to the proceeding, subject to any this means that operation of the facility hearing or petition for leave to intervene limitations in the order granting leave to in accordance with the proposed is filed by the above date, the intervene, and have the opportunity to amendment would not (1) involve a Commission or a presiding officer participate fully in the conduct of the significant increase in the probability or designated by the Commission or by the hearing. consequences of an accident previously Chief Administrative Judge of the If a hearing is requested, the evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Commission will make a final a new or different kind of accident from Panel, will rule on the request and/or determination on the issue of no any accident previously evaluated; or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief significant hazards consideration. The (3) involve a significant reduction in a Administrative Judge of the Atomic final determination will serve to decide margin of safety. The basis for this Safety and Licensing Board will issue a when the hearing is held. If the final proposed determination for each notice of a hearing or an appropriate determination is that the amendment amendment request is shown below. order. request involves no significant hazards The Commission is seeking public As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a consideration, the Commission may comments on this proposed petition for leave to intervene shall set issue the amendment and make it determination. Any comments received forth with particularity the interest of immediately effective, notwithstanding within 30 days after the date of the petitioner in the proceeding, and the request for a hearing. Any hearing publication of this notice will be how that interest may be affected by the held would take place after issuance of considered in making any final results of the proceeding. The petition the amendment. If the final determination. should specifically explain the reasons determination is that the amendment Normally, the Commission will not why intervention should be permitted request involves a significant hazards issue the amendment until the with particular reference to the consideration, any hearing held would expiration of 60 days after the date of following general requirements: (1) The take place before the issuance of any publication of this notice. The name, address, and telephone number of amendment. Commission may issue the license the requestor or petitioner; (2) the All documents filed in NRC amendment before expiration of the 60- nature of the requestor’s/petitioner’s adjudicatory proceedings, including a day period provided that its final right under the Act to be made a party request for hearing, a petition for leave determination is that the amendment to the proceeding; (3) the nature and to intervene, any motion or other involves no significant hazards extent of the requestor’s/petitioner’s document filed in the proceeding prior consideration. In addition, the property, financial, or other interest in to the submission of a request for Commission may issue the amendment the proceeding; and (4) the possible hearing or petition to intervene, and prior to the expiration of the 30-day effect of any decision or order which documents filed by interested comment period should circumstances may be entered in the proceeding on the governmental entities participating change during the 30-day comment requestor’s/petitioner’s interest. The under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in period such that failure to act in a petition must also identify the specific accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule timely way would result, for example, contentions which the requestor/ (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007). The E- in derating or shutdown of the facility. petitioner seeks to have litigated at the Filing process requires participants to Should the Commission take action proceeding. submit and serve all adjudicatory prior to the expiration of either the Each contention must consist of a documents over the Internet, or in some comment period or the notice period, it specific statement of the issue of law or cases to mail copies on electronic will publish in the Federal Register a fact to be raised or controverted. In storage media. Participants may not notice of issuance. Should the addition, the requestor/petitioner shall submit paper copies of their filings Commission make a final No Significant provide a brief explanation of the bases unless they seek an exemption in Hazards Consideration Determination, for the contention and a concise accordance with the procedures any hearing will take place after statement of the alleged facts or expert described below. issuance. The Commission expects that opinion which support the contention To comply with the procedural the need to take this action will occur and on which the requestor/petitioner requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 very infrequently. intends to rely in proving the contention days prior to the filing deadline, the Within 60 days after the date of at the hearing. The requestor/petitioner participant should contact the Office of publication of this notice, any person(s) must also provide references to those the Secretary by e-mail at whose interest may be affected by this specific sources and documents of [email protected], or by telephone action may file a request for a hearing which the petitioner is aware and on at 301–415–1677, to request (1) a digital and a petition to intervene with respect which the requestor/petitioner intends identification (ID) certificate, which to issuance of the amendment to the to rely to establish those facts or expert allows the participant (or its counsel or subject facility operating license. opinion. The petition must include representative) to digitally sign Requests for a hearing and a petition for sufficient information to show that a documents and access the E-Submittal leave to intervene shall be filed in genuine dispute exists with the server for any proceeding in which it is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52701

participating; and (2) advise the General Counsel and any others who requested not to include personal Secretary that the participant will be have advised the Office of the Secretary privacy information, such as social submitting a request or petition for that they wish to participate in the security numbers, home addresses, or hearing (even in instances in which the proceeding, so that the filer need not home phone numbers in their filings, participant, or its counsel or serve the documents on those unless an NRC regulation or other law representative, already holds an NRC- participants separately. Therefore, requires submission of such issued digital ID certificate). Based upon applicants and other participants (or information. With respect to this information, the Secretary will their counsel or representative) must copyrighted works, except for limited establish an electronic docket for the apply for and receive a digital ID excerpts that serve the purpose of the hearing in this proceeding if the certificate before a hearing request/ adjudicatory filings and would Secretary has not already established an petition to intervene is filed so that they constitute a Fair Use application, electronic docket. can obtain access to the document via participants are requested not to include Information about applying for a the E-Filing system. copyrighted materials in their digital ID certificate is available on A person filing electronically using submission. NRC’s public Web site at http:// the agency’s adjudicatory E-Filing Petitions for leave to intervene must www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/ system may seek assistance by be filed no later than 60 days from the apply-certificates.html. System contacting the NRC Meta System Help date of publication of this notice. Non- requirements for accessing the E- Desk through the ‘‘Contact Us’’ link timely filings will not be entertained Submittal server are detailed in NRC’s located on the NRC Web site at http:// absent a determination by the presiding ‘‘Guidance for Electronic Submission,’’ www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- officer that the petition or request which is available on the agency’s submittals.html, by e-mail at should be granted or the contentions public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/ [email protected], or by a toll- should be admitted, based on a site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants free call at 1–866–672–7640. The NRC balancing of the factors specified in may attempt to use other software not Meta System Help Desk is available 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)–(viii). listed on the Web site, but should note between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern For further details with respect to this that the NRC’s E-Filing system does not Time, Monday through Friday, license amendment application, see the support unlisted software, and the NRC excluding government holidays. application for amendment which is Meta System Help Desk will not be able Participants who believe that they available for public inspection at the to offer assistance in using unlisted have a good cause for not submitting NRC’s PDR, located at One White Flint software. documents electronically must file an North, Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville If a participant is electronically exemption request, in accordance with Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland submitting a document to the NRC in 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper 20852. Publicly available documents accordance with the E-Filing rule, the filing requesting authorization to created or received at the NRC are participant must file the document continue to submit documents in paper accessible electronically through using the NRC’s online, Web-based format. Such filings must be submitted ADAMS in the NRC Library at http:// submission form. In order to serve by: (1) First class mail addressed to the www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. documents through the Electronic Office of the Secretary of the Persons who do not have access to Information Exchange System, users Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ADAMS or who encounter problems in will be required to install a Web Commission, Washington, DC 20555– accessing the documents located in browser plug-in from the NRC Web site. 0001, Attention: Rulemaking and ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Further information on the Web-based Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, Reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, submission form, including the express mail, or expedited delivery 301–415–4737, or by e-mail to installation of the Web browser plug-in, service to the Office of the Secretary, [email protected]. is available on the NRC’s public Web Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 382, Waterford Steam Electric Station, submittals.html. Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking Once a participant has obtained a and Adjudications Staff. Participants Unit 3, St. Charles Parish, Louisiana digital ID certificate and a docket has filing a document in this manner are Date of amendment request: April 13, been created, the participant can then responsible for serving the document on 2011. submit a request for hearing or petition all other participants. Filing is Description of amendment request: for leave to intervene. Submissions considered complete by first-class mail The proposed amendment would should be in Portable Document Format as of the time of deposit in the mail, or modify the Technical Specifications (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance by courier, express mail, or expedited (TSs) as a result of a revised Fuel available on the NRC public Web site at delivery service upon depositing the Handling Accident analysis. The new http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e- document with the provider of the analysis determined that the current TSs submittals.html. A filing is considered service. A presiding officer, having may not be conservative for all complete at the time the documents are granted an exemption request from scenarios. The proposed amendment submitted through the NRC’s E-Filing using E-Filing, may require a participant would provide new applicability and/or system. To be timely, an electronic or party to use E-Filing if the presiding action language in the TSs that includes filing must be submitted to the E-Filing officer subsequently determines that the load movements over irradiated fuel system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern reason for granting the exemption from assemblies. Specifically, the amendment Time on the due date. Upon receipt of use of E-Filing no longer exists. would modify the following TSs: TS a transmission, the E-Filing system Documents submitted in adjudicatory 3.3.3.1 (Radiation Monitoring time-stamps the document and sends proceedings will appear in NRC’s Instrumentation); TS 3.7.6.1 (Control the submitter an e-mail notice electronic hearing docket which is Room Emergency Air Filtration System); confirming receipt of the document. The available to the public at http:// TS 3.7.6.3 (Control Room Air E-Filing system also distributes an e- ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded Temperature—Operating); TS 3.7.6.4 mail notice that provides access to the pursuant to an order of the Commission, (Control Room Air Temperature— document to the NRC Office of the or the presiding officer. Participants are Shutdown); TS 3.8.1.2 (A.C.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52702 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

[Alternating Current] Sources— 2. Does the proposed change create the alternate shutdown capability. Shutdown); TS 3.8.2.2 (DC Sources possibility of a new or different kind of Specifically, STP Nuclear Operating [Direct Current]—Shutdown); TS 3.8.3.2 accident from any accident previously Company (STPNOC) proposes to credit (On Site Power Distribution— evaluated? the following manual operator actions Response: No. Shutdown); TS 3.9.3 (Decay Time); TS The revised spent fuel handling analyses in the control room prior to evacuation 3.9.4 (Containment Building demonstrate that the impacted fuel due to a fire for meeting the alternate Penetrations); and TS 3.9.7 (Crane assemblies may be damaged as the result of shutdown capability: Travel—Fuel Handling Building). a dropped fuel assembly, dummy assembly, • Main steam line isolation. Basis for proposed no significant or load. The existing Technical • Closing the pressurizer power- hazards consideration determination: Specifications regarding movement of fuel operated relief valves block valves. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the assemblies are not applicable for movement • Securing all reactor coolant pumps. • licensee has provided its analysis of the of non-irradiated fuel assemblies or other Feedwater isolation. loads. A drop of these loads could cause • Securing the startup feedwater issue of no significant hazards radiological consequences during periods consideration, which is presented pump. when the equipment required to mitigate • Letdown isolation. below: those consequences is not required to be • Securing the charging pumps. 1. Does the proposed change involve a OPERABLE in accordance with the existing In addition, STPNOC proposes to significant increase in the probability or Technical Specifications. credit the automatic trip of the main consequences of an accident previously The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications applicability language turbine upon the initiation of a manual evaluated? reactor trip for meeting the alternate Response: No. regarding the movement of these loads in This proposed change revises Technical containment and the fuel storage pool ensure shutdown capability. A thermal- Specifications applicability wording that Limiting Conditions of Operation and hydraulic analysis will demonstrate that regarding the movement of fuel assemblies in appropriate Required Actions for required these operations will ensure that the containment and the fuel storage pool to equipment are in effect during fuel reactor coolant system (RCS) process include load movements over irradiated fuel movement. This provides assurance that the variables remain within those values assemblies. The proposed applicability is Fuel Handling Accident will remain within predicted for a loss of normal more comprehensive than the current the initial assumptions of accident analyses. alternating current (a-c) power, as Applicability. This change was driven by an Consequently, there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident due to this required by Section III.L.1 of Appendix analysis change and was not due to fuel R of Title 10 of the Code of Federal handling equipment or fuel movement change. methods. Expanding the applicability of the 3. Does the proposed change involve a Regulations (10 CFR) part 50. relevant Technical Specifications is significant reduction in a margin of safety? Basis for proposed no significant necessary to account for updated fuel drop Response: No. hazards consideration determination: analyses which demonstrate that the The proposed Technical Specifications As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the impacted spent fuel assemblies may be change will not affect protection criterion for licensee has provided its analysis of the damaged. plant equipment and will not reduce the issue of no significant hazards Consequently, dropping of a non-irradiated margin of safety. By extending the consideration, which is presented Applicability to the movement of non- fuel assembly, dummy fuel assembly, or below: other load could result in a Fuel Handling irradiated fuel assemblies, the current margin Accident that has radiological consequences. of safety is maintained. 1. Does the proposed amendment involve Changing the applicability of the relevant Consequently, there is no significant a significant increase in the probability or Technical Specifications does not affect the reduction in a margin of safety due to this consequences of an accident previously probability of a Fuel Handling Accident. The change. evaluated? expanded applicability provides assurance The NRC staff has reviewed the Response: No. The design function of structures, systems that equipment designed to mitigate a Fuel licensee’s analysis and, based on this Handling Accident is capable of performing and component are not impacted by the review, it appears that the three proposed change. The proposed change its specified safety function. standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are The dose consequences due to failure of involves crediting operations in the control two assemblies remain within the Regulatory satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff room prior to evacuation in the event of a fire Guide 1.183 and 10 CFR 50.67 acceptance proposes to determine that the in order to meet safe shutdown performance criteria limits. The Exclusion Area Boundary amendment request involves no criteria. The proposed action will not initiate (EAB), Low Population Zone (LPZ), and Main significant hazards consideration. an event. The proposed actions do not Control Room (MCR) dose results and Attorney for licensee: Joseph A. increase the probability of occurrence of a associated regulatory limits are presented Aluise, Associate General Council— fire or any other accident previously below. Nuclear, Entergy Services, Inc., 639 evaluated. The proposed operations are feasible and Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana reliable and demonstrate that the unit can be Regu- 70113. latory 10 CFR safely shutdown in the event of a fire. No New guide 50.67 NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. significant consequences result from the analysis 1.183 limit Markley. performance of the proposed operations. limit STP Nuclear Operating Company, Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the EAB ...... 4.56 rem <6.3 rem <25 rem Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South probability or consequences of an accident TEDE. TEDE. TEDE. Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda previously evaluated. LPZ ...... 0.70 rem <6.3 rem <25 rem County, Texas 2. Does the proposed amendment create TEDE. TEDE. TEDE. Date of amendment request: June 2, the possibility of a new or different kind of MCR ...... 0.824 <5 rem <5 rem 2011, as supplemented by letter dated accident from any accident previously rem TEDE. TEDE. evaluated? TEDE. August 1, 2011. Response: No. Description of amendment request: The design function of structures, systems Consequently, this change does not involve The proposed amendment would and component are not impacted by the a significant increase in the probability or approve revision to the South Texas proposed amendment. The proposed change consequences of an accident previously Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, Fire involves operations in response to a fire. evaluated. Protection Program related to the They do not involve new failure mechanisms

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52703

or malfunctions that can initiate a new Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket in compliance with Nuclear Regulatory accident. Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah Commission (NRC) regulations. The new CSL Therefore, the proposed change does not Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton limits will ensure DNBR and the peak fuel create the possibility of a new or different County, Tennessee centerline temperature is maintained for kind of accident from any previously protecting the fuel. The addition of DNBR evaluated. Date of amendment request: June 17, limits or fuel pin centerline temperature limits, or changes to the CSL lines do not 3. Does the proposed amendment involve 2011 (TS–SQN–2011–07). Description of amendment request: impact the initiation or the mitigation of an a significant reduction in a margin of safety? accident. Response: No. The proposed amendment would revise the licensing basis and the Technical The proposed change Technical Thermal-hydraulic analysis demonstrates Specification Table 2.2–1 and Figure 3.2–1 that the proposed operations to be performed Specifications to permit the use of a are revised to present a new loop flow and in the control room will ensure that the RCS more robust AREVA Advanced W17 total core flow design limit based on the new process variables remain within those values high thermal performance (HTP) fuel at AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel and the predicted for a loss of normal a-c power, as Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN), Units 1 new steam generators (now installed for SQN required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section and 2. This new fuel has been selected Unit 1 and that will be installed concurrently III.L.1. The analysis demonstrates that a to address fuel assembly distortion and with the introduction of the new Advanced single spurious operation before control of its resultant fuel handling issues. The W17 HTP fuel for SQN Unit 2). Core flow is not an accident initiator and does not play the plant is achieved through the alternative proposed AREVA Advanced W17 HTP or dedicated shutdown system will not a role in accident mitigation. fuel assembly design consists of The core operating limits to be developed adversely impact the results of the analysis. standard uranium dioxide fuel pellets using the new methodologies will be After control of the plant is achieved by the with gadolinium oxide burnable poison established in accordance with the applicable alternative or dedicated shutdown system, and M5TM cladding. The new fuel limitations as documented in the appropriate circuits subjected to fire-induced circuit design ensures mechanical NRC Safety Evaluation reports. The proposed failures are isolated from the control stations compatibility with the existing fuel, change to add and remove various topical such that the safe shutdown operations will reports cited in Technical Specification not be compromised. reactor core, control rods, steam supply 6.9.1.14.a (including adding revision The need to perform the proposed system, and fuel handling system. The numbers and revision dates to current cited operations can be readily diagnosed and the transition from the existing fuel topical reports) enables the use of operations can be performed in rapid (AREVA Mark-BW) to new fuel (AREVA appropriate methodologies to re-analyze succession by control room operators at their Advanced W17 HTP) is planned to certain events. The proposed methodologies normal control station. The actions are occur over two refueling cycles for each will ensure that the plant continues to meet straightforward and familiar to the operators. SQN unit. applicable design criteria and safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change to The actions have been verified that they can Basis for proposed no significant the list of NRC-approved methodologies be performed through demonstration. The hazards consideration determination: listed in Technical Specification 6.9.1.14.a is operations are backed up outside the control As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the administrative in nature and has no impact room such that assurance exists they should licensee has provided its analysis of the on any plant configuration or system not be negated by subsequent spurious issue of no significant hazards performance relied upon to mitigate the actuation signals from a postulated fire. consideration, which is presented consequences of an accident. The proposed The automatic turbine trip action can below: change will update the listing of NRC- reasonably be assumed to occur with the approved methodologies consistent with the credited manual reactor trip action that is 1. Does the proposed change involve a transition to AREVA Advanced W17 HTP part of the current licensing basis. significant increase in the probability or fuel. Changes to the calculated core operating Considerable defense-in-depth features consequences of an accident previously limits may only be made using NRC- evaluated? exist in Fire Area 1 [control room is part of approved methods, must be consistent with Response: No. Fire Area 1] such that it is extremely unlikely all applicable safety analysis limits and are The reactor fuel and the analyses that a fire would result in evacuation of the controlled by the 10 CFR 50.59 process. The associated with it are not accident initiators. control room. list of methodologies in the Technical The response of the fuel to an accident is Specifications does not impact either the The proposed operations are feasible and analyzed using conservative techniques and reliable and demonstrate that the unit can be initiation of an accident or the mitigation of the results are compared to approved its consequences. safely shutdown in the event of a fire. The acceptance criteria. These evaluation results Therefore, the proposed change does not operations ensure that performance goals of will show that the fuel response to an involve a significant increase in the Appendix R, Section III.L.2 are met. The accident is within approved acceptance probability or consequences of an accident achievement of these goals provide adequate criteria for cores loaded with the new previously evaluated. margin from challenging any safety limits. AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel and cores 2. Does the proposed change create the Therefore, the proposed change does not loaded with both AREVA Advanced W17 possibility of a new or different kind of involve a significant reduction in a margin of HTP and AREVA Mark-BW fuel. Therefore, accident from any accident previously safety. the change in fuel design does not affect evaluated? accident or transient initiation or Response: No. The NRC staff has reviewed the consequences. Use of AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel in licensee’s analysis and, based on this The addition of limits on DNBR [departure the SQN, Units 1 and 2, reactor cores does review, it appears that the standards of from nucleate boiling ratio] and maximum not adversely affect any fission product 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, local fuel pin centerline temperature to barrier, nor does it alter the safety function the NRC staff proposes to determine that Safety Limit Technical Specification 2.1.1 or of safety systems, structures, or components, the request for amendments involves no the proposed change to the Safety Limit or their roles in accident prevention or Technical Specification Figure 2.1–1 does mitigation. The operational characteristics of significant hazards consideration. not require any physical change to any plant AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel are Attorney for licensee: A. H. system, structure, or component. Specifying bounded by the safety analyses. The AREVA Gutterman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & DNBR and maximum local fuel pin Advanced W17 HTP fuel design performs Bockius, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, centerline temperature and the change to the within fuel design limits and does not create NW., Washington, DC 20004. CSL [core safety limit] lines are consistent the possibility of a new or different type of with the Standard Review Plan (SRP) for accident. NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. ensuring that the fuel design limits are met. The addition of limits on DNBR and Markley. Operations and analysis will continue to be maximum local fuel pin centerline

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52704 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

temperature to Safety Limit Technical temperature is maintained for protecting the would: (1) Delete MODES 5 and 6 from Specification 2.1.1 or the proposed change to fuel. The addition of DNBR limits or fuel pin the Limiting Condition for Operation the Safety Limit Technical Specification centerline temperature limits, or changes to (LCO) Applicability for the CREVS and Figure 2.1–1 does not require any physical the CSL lines do not impact licensed safety its actuation instrumentation (TS 3.7.10 change to any plant system, structure, or margins. component. Specifying DNBR and maximum The proposed change Technical and TS 3.3.7, respectively); (2) delete local fuel pin centerline temperature and the Specification Table 2.2–1 and Figure 3.2–1 the Required Action from TS 3.7.10 and change to the CSL lines are consistent with are revised to present a new loop flow and TS 3.7.11 that requires verifying that the the SRP for ensuring that the fuel design total core flow design limit based on the new OPERABLE CREVS/CRACS train is limits are met. Operations and analysis will AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel and the capable of being powered by an continue to be in compliance with NRC new steam generators (now installed for SQN emergency power source; (3) revise TS regulations. The new CSL limits will ensure Unit 1 and that will be installed concurrently 3.7.13 by incorporating a 7-day DNBR and the peak fuel centerline with the introduction of the new Advanced Completion Time for restoring an temperature is maintained for protecting the W17 HTP fuel for SQN Unit 2). The proposed inoperable EES train to OPERABLE fuel. The addition of DNBR limits or fuel pin changes to core flow are provided to ensure centerline temperature limits, or changes to licensed safety margins are maintained. status during shutdown conditions; (4) the CSL lines do not affect any accident The proposed change to the list of topical adopt NRC-approved Technical initiators that would create a new accident. reports in Technical Specification 6.9.1.14.a Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change The proposed change Technical does not amend the cycle specific parameters Traveler TSTF–36–A, Revision 4, Specification Table 2.2–1 and Figure 3.2–1 presently required by the Technical ‘‘Addition of LCO 3.0.3 N/A [not are revised to present a new loop flow and Specifications. The individual Technical applicable] to shutdown electrical total core flow design limit based on the new Specifications continue to require operation power specifications,’’ for TSs 3.3.8, AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel and the of the plant within the bounds of the limits new steam generators (now installed for 3.7.13, 3.8.2, 3.8.5, 3.8.8, and 3.8.10; specified in the COLR [core operating limits and (5) add a more restrictive change to SQN, Unit 1, and that will be installed report]. The proposed change to the list of concurrently with the introduction of the analytical methods referenced in the COLR is the LCO Applicability for TSs 3.8.2, new Advanced W17 HTP fuel for SQN, Unit administrative in nature and does not impact 3.8.5, 3.8.8, and 3.8.10 such that these 2). Core flow is not an accident initiator and the margin of safety. LCOs apply not only during MODES 5 does not play a role in accident mitigation Therefore, the proposed change does not and 6, but also during the movement of and cannot create the possibility of a new or involve a significant reduction in the margin irradiated fuel assemblies regardless of different kind of accident. of safety. the MODE in which the plant is The proposed change to the list of topical The NRC staff has reviewed the operating. reports used to determine the core operating Basis for proposed no significant limits is administrative in nature and has no licensee’s analysis and, based on this impact on any plant configuration or on review, it appears that the three hazards consideration determination: system performance. It updates the list of standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the NRC-approved topical reports used to Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to licensee has provided its analysis of the develop the core operating limits. There is no determine that the amendment request issue of no significant hazards change to the parameters within which the involves no significant hazards consideration, which is presented plant is normally operated. The possibility of below: a new or different accident is not created. consideration. Therefore, the proposed change does not Attorney for licensee: General 1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or create the possibility of a new or different Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, consequences of an accident previously kind of accident from any accident 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 6A West evaluated? previously evaluated. Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. Response: No. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Deleting MODES 5 and 6 from the LCO a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Broaddus. Applicability of TSs 3.3.7 and 3.7.10 does not Response: No. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating significantly increase the consequences of Use of AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel any accident since it has been demonstrated does not adversely affect any fission product Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf that the radiological consequences to control barrier, nor does it alter the safety function Creek Generating Station, Coffey room occupants from a waste gas decay tank of safety systems, structures, or components, County, Kansas rupture will remain much less than the or their roles in accident prevention or Date of amendment request: February regulatory limits with no mitigation from the mitigation. The operational characteristics of CREVS in MODES 5 and 6. The acceptance AREVA Advanced W17 HTP fuel are 23, 2011. criteria for this event will continue to be met. bounded by the safety analyses. The AREVA Description of amendment request: Incorporation of a 7-day Completion Time Advanced W17 HTP fuel design performs The proposed amendment would revise for restoring an inoperable EES train during within fuel design limits. The proposed the Wolf Creek Generating Station shutdown conditions (i.e., during movement changes do not result in exceeding design Technical Specifications (TSs) 3.3.7, of irradiated fuel assemblies in the fuel basis limits. Therefore, the licensed safety ‘‘Control Room Emergency Ventilation building) and the deletion of Required margins are maintained. Actions for verifying the availability of an The addition of limits on DNBR and System (CREVS) Actuation Instrumentation,’’ 3.3.8, ‘‘Emergency emergency power source when a CREVS/ maximum local fuel pin centerline CRACS train is inoperable during the same temperature to Safety Limit Technical Exhaust System (EES) Actuation conditions, are operational provisions that Specification 2.1.1 or the proposed change to Instrumentation,’’ 3.7.10, ‘‘Control have no impact on the frequency of the Safety Limit Technical Specification Room Emergency Ventilation System occurrence of the event for which the EES, Figure 2.1–1 does not require any physical (CREVS),’’ 3.7.11, ‘‘Control Room Air CREVS and CRACS are designed to mitigate. change to any plant system, structure, or Conditioning System (CRACS),’’ 3.7.13, These systems have no bearing on the component. Specifying DNBR and maximum ‘‘Emergency Exhaust System (EES),’’ occurrence of a fuel handling accident local fuel pin centerline temperature and the 3.8.2, ‘‘AC [Alternating Current] [(FHA)] as the systems themselves are not change to the CSL lines are consistent with Sources—Shutdown,’’ 3.8.5, ‘‘DC [Direct associated with any of the potential initiating the SRP for ensuring that the fuel design sequences, mechanisms or occurrences— limits are met. Operations and analysis will Current] Sources—Shutdown,’’ 3.8.8, such as a failure of a lifting device or crane, continue to be in compliance with NRC ‘‘Inverters—Shutdown,’’ and 3.8.10, or an operator error—that could cause an regulations. The new CSL limits will ensure ‘‘Distribution Systems—Shutdown.’’ FHA. Since these systems are designed only DNBR and the peak fuel centerline Specifically, the proposed amendment to respond to an FHA as accident mitigators

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52705

after the accident has occurred, and they maintained. There will be no changes to any temperature (LOCA PCT), peak local power have no bearing on the occurrence of such an design or operating limits. density, or any other margin of safety. The event themselves, the proposed changes to The proposed changes will not adversely applicable radiological dose consequence the CREVS, CRACS, and EES Technical affect accident initiators or precursors nor acceptance criteria will continue to be met. Specifications have no impact on the adversely alter the design assumptions, It has been demonstrated that the CREVS and probability of an accident previously conditions, and configuration of the facility its actuation instrumentation are not required evaluated. or the manner in which the plant is operated to mitigate the control room radiological With respect to deleting the noted and maintained. The proposed changes will consequences of a waste gas decay tank Required Actions in TS 3.7.10 and TS 3.7.11 not alter or prevent the ability of structures, rupture. (for verifying that the OPERABLE CREVS/ systems, and components (SSCs) from The proposed changes do not eliminate CRACS train is capable of being powered performing their intended functions to any surveillances or alter the frequency of from an emergency power source when one mitigate the consequences of an initiating surveillances required by the Technical CREVS/CRACS train is inoperable), such a event within the assumed acceptance limits. Specifications. None of the acceptance change does not change the LCO requirement The proposed changes do not physically criteria for any accident analysis will be for both CREVS/CRACS trains to be alter safety-related systems nor affect the way changed. OPERABLE, nor to the LCO requirements of in which safety related systems perform their Therefore, the proposed changes do not the TS requirements pertaining to electrical functions. The proposed changes do not alter involve a significant reduction in a margin of power sources/support for shutdown plant design or operation; therefore, these safety. conditions. The change to the Required changes will not increase the probability of Actions would thus not be expected to have any accident. The NRC staff has reviewed the a significant impact on the availability of the All accident analysis acceptance criteria licensee’s analysis and, based on this CREVS and CRACS. That is, adequate will continue to be met with the proposed review, it appears that the three availability may be still assumed such that changes. The proposed changes will not standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are these systems would continue to be available affect the source term, containment isolation, satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff to provide their assumed function for or radiological release assumptions used in proposes to determine that the limiting the dose consequences of an FHA in evaluating the radiological consequences of amendment request involves no accordance with the accident analysis an accident previously evaluated. After a significant hazards consideration. currently described in the [Updated Safety postulated release from a waste gas decay Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., Analysis Report]. tank rupture no CREVS mitigation is Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, With respect to the Completion Time for an required. The applicable radiological dose inoperable EES train, the consequences of a criteria will continue to be met. 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC postulated accident are not affected by Therefore, the proposed changes will not 20037. equipment Completion Times as long as increase the probability or consequences of NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. adequate equipment availability is an accident previously evaluated. Markley. maintained. The proposed EES Completion 2. Does the proposed amendment create Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Time is based on the Completion Time the possibility of a new or different kind of specified in the Standard Technical accident from any accident previously Corporation, Docket No. 50–482, Wolf Specifications (STS) for which it may be evaluated? Creek Generating Station, Coffey presumed that the specified Completion Response: No. County, Kansas Time is acceptable and supports adequate There are no proposed design changes nor Date of amendment request: April 22, EES availability. As noted in the STS Bases, are there any changes in the method by 2011. the 7-day Completion Time for restoring an which any safety related plant SSC performs Description of amendment request: inoperable EES train takes into account the its specified safety function. The proposed availability of the other train. Since the STS- changes will not affect the normal method of The proposed amendment would revise support Completion Time supports adequate plant operation or change any operating the Wolf Creek Generating Station EES availability, it may be assumed that the parameters. Equipment performance Technical Specification (TS) 5.3, ‘‘Unit EES function would be available for necessary to fulfill safety analysis missions Staff Qualifications,’’ by making two mitigation of an FHA, thus limiting offsite will be unaffected. The proposed changes administrative changes to TS 5.3.1.1. dose to within the currently calculated will not alter any assumptions required to Specifically, these changes will remove values based on the current accident meet the safety analysis acceptance criteria. the operator license applicants’ analysis. On this basis, the consequences of No new accident scenarios, transient education and experience eligibility applicable, analyzed accidents (i.e., the FHA) precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting requirements, and correct inadvertent are not increased by the proposed change. single failures will be introduced as a result The adoption of TSTF–36–A will not affect of this amendment. There will be no adverse omissions in previous amendments the equipment and LCOs needed to mitigate effect or challenges imposed on any safety relative to the Licensed Operators’ and the consequences of a[n] FHA in the fuel related system as a result of this amendment. Senior Operators’ qualification building; however, this change will reduce The proposed amendment will not alter the requirements. the chances of an unnecessary plant design or performance of the 7300 Process Basis for proposed no significant shutdown due to activities in the fuel Protection System, Nuclear Instrumentation hazards consideration determination: building that have no bearing on the System, or Solid State Protection System As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the operation of the rest of the plant and the used in the plant protection systems. licensee has provided its analysis of the reactor core inside the containment building. Therefore, the proposed changes do not issue of no significant hazards [redundant paragraph omitted] create the possibility of a new or different consideration, which is presented The changes to the shutdown electrical kind of accident from any accident specifications will add an additional previously evaluated. below: restriction that is consistent with the 3. Does the proposed amendment involve 1. Does the proposed change involve a objective of being able to mitigate a fuel a significant reduction in a margin of safety? significant increase in the probability or handling accident during all situations, Response: No. consequences of an accident previously including a full core offload, in which such There will be no effect on those plant evaluated? an accident could occur. systems necessary to assure the Response: No. Overall protection system performance will accomplishment of protection functions. The proposed change is an administrative remain within the bounds of the previously There will be no impact on the overpower change to reinstate the qualification performed accident analyses since there are limit, departure from nucleate boiling ratio requirements for Licensed Operators and no design changes. All design, material, and (DNBR) limits, heat flux hot channel factor Senior Licensed Operators that were construction standards that were applicable [ ], nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor inadvertently eliminated through the prior to this amendment request will be [ ], loss of coolant accident peak cladding issuance of Amendment No. 150 [issued

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52706 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

November 26, 2002] and Amendment No. rulemaking process, and by promulgation of items are available for public inspection 159 [issued January 31, 2005], and to remove the revised 10 CFR Part 55 rule, determined at the NRC’ Public Document Room an unnecessary reference to a [National that this impact remains acceptable when (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Academy for Nuclear Training] NANT licensees maintain a licensed operator Room O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike guideline. The proposed change does not training program that is accredited and based directly impact accidents previously on a systems approach to training. (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. evaluated. [Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Therefore, the proposed change does not Publicly available documents created or Company’s (WCNOC’s)] licensed operator involve a significant reduction in a margin of received at the NRC are accessible training program is accredited by the NANT safety. electronically through the Agencywide and is based on a systems approach to Documents Access and Management The NRC staff has reviewed the training consistent with the requirements of System (ADAMS) in the NRC Library at licensee’s analysis and, based on this 10 CFR Part 55. Although licensed operator http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ review, it appears that the three qualifications and training may have an adams.html. If you do not have access indirect impact on accidents previously standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are to ADAMS or if there are problems in evaluated, the NRC considered this impact satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff accessing the documents located in during the rulemaking process, and by proposes to determine that the ADAMS, contact the PDR Reference promulgation of the revised 10 CFR Part 55 amendment request involves no staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 rule, concluded that this impact remains significant hazards consideration. acceptable as long as the licensed operator or by e-mail to [email protected]. training program is certified to be accredited Attorney for licensee: Jay Silberg, Esq., and is based on a systems approach to Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Arizona Public Service Company, et al., training. 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC Docket Nos. STN 50–528, STN 50–529, Therefore, the proposed change will not 20037. and STN 50–530, Palo Verde Nuclear increase the probability or consequences of NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, an accident previously evaluated. Markley. Maricopa County, Arizona 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Date of application for amendment: accident from any accident previously Facility Operating Licenses July 22, 2010, as supplemented by letter evaluated? During the period since publication of dated April 8, 2011. Response: No. Brief description of amendment: The The proposed change is an administrative the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendment revised an element of the change to reinstate the qualification methodology used in evaluating the requirements for Licensed Operators and amendments. The Commission has Senior Licensed Operators that were determined for each of these radiological consequences of design inadvertently eliminated through the amendments that the application basis steam generator tube rupture issuance of Amendment No. 150 and complies with the standards and (SGTR) accidents. Specifically, the Amendment No. 159, and to remove an requirements of the Atomic Energy Act amendment revised the Palo Verde unnecessary reference to a NANT guideline. of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) WCNOC’s licensed operator training program Commission’s rules and regulations. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report is accredited by the National Academy for Section 15.6.6, ‘‘Steam Generator Tube Nuclear Training and is based on a systems The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Rupture,’’ to reflect a lower iodine approach to training consistent with the spiking factor assumed for the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55. Although Commission’s rules and regulations in licensed operator qualifications and training 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in coincident event Generated Iodine may have an indirect impact on accidents the license amendment. Spike (GIS) and the resulting reduction previously evaluated, the NRC considered Notice of Consideration of Issuance of in the radiological consequences for the this impact during the rulemaking process, Amendment to Facility Operating Limiting SGTRLOPSF [Steam Generator and by promulgation of the revised 10 CFR License, Proposed No Significant Tube Rupture with Loss of Offsite Part 55 rule, concluded that this impact Hazards Consideration Determination, Power and Single Failure] Event. remains acceptable as long as the licensed and Opportunity for a Hearing in Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. operator training program is certified to be connection with these actions was Effective date: As of the date of accredited and is based on a systems issuance and shall be implemented approach to training. published in the Federal Register as Therefore, the proposed change does not indicated. within 90 days from the date of create the possibility of a new or different Unless otherwise indicated, the issuance. kind of accident from any accident Commission has determined that these Amendment No.: Unit 1—186; Unit previously evaluated. amendments satisfy the criteria for 2—186; Unit 3—186. 3. Does the proposed change involve a categorical exclusion in accordance Renewed Facility Operating License significant reduction in a margin of safety? with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant Nos. NPF–41, NPF–51, and NPF–74: The Response: No. to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental amendment revised the Operating The proposed change is an administrative Licenses and the Updated Final Safety change to reinstate the qualification impact statement or environmental requirements for Licensed Operators and assessment need be prepared for these Analysis Report. Senior Licensed Operators that were amendments. If the Commission has Date of initial notice in Federal inadvertently eliminated through the prepared an environmental assessment Register: December 28, 2010 (75 FR issuance of Amendment No. 150 and under the special circumstances 81669). Amendment No. 159, and to remove an provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has The supplemental letter dated April 8, unnecessary reference to a NANT guideline. made a determination based on that 2011, provided additional information As noted previously, WCNOC’s licensed assessment, it is so indicated. that clarified the application, did not operator training program is accredited and For further details with respect to the expand the scope of the application as is based on a systems approach to training consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR action see (1) the applications for originally noticed, and did not change Part 55. Licensed operator qualifications and amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the staff’s original proposed no training can have an indirect impact on the the Commission’s related letter, Safety significant hazards consideration margin of safety. However, the NRC Evaluation and/or Environmental determination as published in the considered this impact during the Assessment as indicated. All of these Federal Register.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52707

The Commission’s related evaluation and records retention and handling, and Effective date: This license of the amendments is contained in a deviations from NEI 08–09, Revision 6. amendment is effective as of the date of Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. its issuance. The implementation of the No significant hazards consideration Effective date: The license CSP, including the key intermediate comments received: No. amendments are effective as of the date milestone dates and the full of their issuance. The implementation of Carolina Power and Light Company, implementation date, shall be in the CSP, including the key intermediate Docket Nos. 50–325 and 50–324, accordance with the implementation milestone dates and the full Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1 schedule submitted by the licensee on implementation date, shall be in and 2, Brunswick County, North July 27, 2010, as supplemented by accordance with the implementation Carolina letters dated September 29, 2010, schedule submitted by the licensees on November 22, 2010, and March 30, Carolina Power & Light Company, April 7, 2011, and approved by the NRC 2011, and approved by the NRC staff Docket No. 50–261, H. B. Robinson staff with the license amendments. All with this license amendment. All Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Darlington subsequent changes to the NRC- subsequent changes to the NRC- County, South Carolina approved CSP implementation schedule approved CSP implementation schedule Carolina Power & Light Company, et al., will require prior NRC approval will require prior NRC approval Docket No. 50–400, Shearon Harris pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Amendment Nos.: Brunswick 1: 258, Amendment No.: 185. Chatham Counties, North Carolina Brunswick 2: 286, Robinson 2: 226, Facility Operating License No. NPF– Shearon Harris 1: 136, and Crystal River 43: Amendment revised the License. Florida Power Corporation, et al., 3: 238. Date of initial notice in Federal Docket No. 50–302, Crystal River Unit 3 Renewed Facility Operating License Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR Nuclear Generating Plant Citrus County, Nos. DPR–71, DPR–62, DPR–23, and 76043). Florida NPF–63; and Facility Operating License The supplemental letters contained Date of application for amendments: No. DPR–72.: Amendments changed the clarifying information and did not July 8, 2010, as supplemented by letters facility operating licenses. change the initial no significant hazards dated September 23 and November 30, Date of initial notice in Federal consideration determination, and did 2010; February 28 and April 7, 2011. Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR not expand the scope of the original Brief description of amendments: The 62595). application. amendments establish a fleet Cyber The supplements dated September 23 The Commission’s related evaluation Security Plan (CSP) in accordance with and November 30, 2010; February 28, of the amendment is contained in a Title 10 of the Code of Federal 2011, and the Updated No Significant Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2011. Regulations (10 CFR), Section 73.54, Hazards Consideration in Enclosure 5 of No significant hazards consideration ‘‘Protection of digital computer and the letter dated April 7, 2011, provided comments received: No. communication systems and networks,’’ additional information that clarified the and in conformance with the model CSP application, did not expand the scope of Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Docket contained in Appendix A of Nuclear the application as originally noticed, No. 50–305, Kewaunee Power Station, Energy Institute (NEI) document NEI and did not change the staff’s original Kewaunee County, Wisconsin 08–09, ‘‘Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear proposed no significant hazards Date of application for amendment: Power Reactors,’’ Revision 6, dated consideration determination as June 1, 2010, as supplemented by letters April 2010. The licensees’ submittals published in the Federal Register. dated January 18, 2011, March 14, 2011, included the fleet CSP for Brunswick The Commission’s related evaluation and June 27, 2011. Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, H. of the amendments is contained in a Brief description of amendment: The B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit safety evaluation dated July 29, 2011. amendment revised the Kewaunee No. 2, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power No significant hazards consideration licensing basis, approving the licensee Plant, Unit 1, and Crystal River Unit 3 comments received: No. to operate the load tap changers (LTCs) Nuclear Generating Plant, the licensees’ on two new transformers in the Detroit Edison Company, Docket No. proposed changes to the facility automatic mode. The LTCs are designed 50–341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, operating licenses, and a proposed CSP to compensate for potential offsite Michigan implementation schedule for each power voltage variations and will facility. Date of application for amendment: provide added assurance that acceptable The licensees’ submittals dated July 27, 2010, as supplemented by voltage is maintained for safety-related November 30, 2010, and April 7, 2011, letters dated September 29, 2010, equipment. supplemented the licensees’ CSP to November 22, 2010, and March 30, Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. address: (1) Scope of systems in 2011. Effective date: As of the date of response to the October 21, 2010, the Brief description of amendment: The issuance and shall be implemented Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, amendment approves the cyber security within 60 days. Commission) decision; (2) records plan and associated implementation Amendment No.: 209. retention; and (3) implementation schedule, and revises Paragraph 2.E of Renewed Facility Operating License schedule. The licensee provided, in its Facility Operating License No. NPF–43 No. DPR–43: Amendment did not revise letter dated April 7, 2011, a revised for Fermi 2, to provide a license the Technical Specifications. copy of the Carolina Power & Light condition to require the licensee to fully Date of initial notice in Federal Company and Florida Power implement and maintain in effect all Register: August 10, 2010 (75 FR Corporation, Cyber Security Plan, provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber 48374). Revision 0 that incorporated all of the Security Plan. The proposed change is The supplements dated January 18, changes that the licensee had made to consistent with Nuclear Energy Institute 2011, March 14, 2011, and June 27, the following sections of their CSP: (NEI) 08–09, Revision 6, Cyber Security 2011, provided additional information Scope and purpose, defense-in-depth Plan for Nuclear Power Reactors. that clarified the application, did not protective strategies, document control Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. expand the scope of the application, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52708 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

did not change the Commission’s No significant hazards consideration Effective date: As of the date of proposed no significant hazards comments received: No. issuance and shall be implemented consideration determination. within 90 days from the date of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket The Commission’s related evaluation issuance. of the amendment is contained in a Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Amendment Nos.: Catawba 1 and 2– Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 265/261. No significant hazards consideration 3, Oconee County, South Carolina Renewed Facility Operating License comments received: No. Date of application of amendments: Nos. NPF–35 and NPF–52: Amendments Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., et June 10, 2009, as supplemented by revised the licenses and emergency al., Docket No. 50–423, Millstone Power letters dated December 18, 2009, and plan. Station, Unit 3, New London County, August 25, 2010. Amendment Nos.: McGuire 1 and 2— Brief description of amendments: The Connecticut 263/243 amendments change the Technical Renewed Facility Operating License Date of amendment request: July 21, Specifications (TSs) and authorize Nos. NPF–9 and NPF–17: Amendments 2010. changes to the ‘‘Updated Final Safety revised the licenses and emergency Description of amendment request: Analysis Report’’ (UFSAR) to allow the plan. The amendment relocates Millstone use of CASMO–4/SIMULATE–3 Amendment Nos. Oconee 1, 2 and 3— Power Station, Unit No. 3 (MPS3) methodology for application to reactor 376/378/377 Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.7.14, core designs containing low enrichment Renewed Facility Operating License ‘‘Area Temperature Monitoring,’’ and uranium fuel bearing lumped burnable Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: the associated Table 3.7–6, ‘‘Area and/or gadolinia integral absorbers. Amendments revised the licenses and Temperature Monitoring,’’ to the MPS3 Date of Issuance: August 2, 2011. emergency plan. Technical Requirements Manual. Effective date: As of the date of Date of initial notice in Federal Date of issuance: July 27, 2011. issuance and shall be implemented Register: September 7, 2010 (75 FR Effective date: As of its date of within 30 days from the date of 54393). issuance, and shall be implemented issuance. The supplement dated March 3, 2011, within 60 days. Amendment Nos.: 377, 379, and 378. provided additional information that Amendment No.: 250. Renewed Facility Operating License clarified the application, did not expand Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: the scope of the application as originally No. NPF–49: The amendment revised Amendments revised the licenses and noticed, and did not change the staff’s the License and Technical the TSs and authorized UFSAR changes. original proposed no significant hazards Specifications. consideration determination. Date of initial notice in Federal Date of initial notice in Federal Register: March 19, 2010 (75 FR 13314). The Commission’s related evaluation Register: March 22, 2011 (76 FR 16007). of the amendments is contained in a The Commission’s related evaluation The supplements dated December 15, Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. of the amendment is contained in a 2009, and August 25, 2010, provided No significant hazards consideration Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2011. additional information that clarified the comments received: No. No significant hazards consideration application, did not expand the scope of comments received: No. the application as originally noticed, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, and and did not change the staff’s original Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket proposed no significant hazards Nos. 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, 458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West consideration determination. Feliciana Parish, Louisiana Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and The Commission’s related evaluation 3, Oconee County, South Carolina of the amendments is contained in a Date of amendment request: July 22, Date of application of amendments: Safety Evaluation dated August 2, 2011. 2010, as supplemented by letters dated July 14, 2010. No significant hazards consideration September 23 and November 30, 2010, Brief description of amendments: The comments received: No. and February 15 and April 4, 2011. amendments revised the Technical Brief description of amendment: The Duke Power Company, LLC, et al., amendment approved the cyber security Specifications related to the adoption of Docket Nos. 50–413 and 50–414, technical specification task force plan (CSP) and associated Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, implementation schedule, and added technical change Traveler 52, Revision York County, South Carolina 3, to implement option B of Appendix new Paragraph 2.E to Facility Operating J to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Duke Power Company, LLC, Docket Nos. License No. NPF–47 to provide a license Regulations (10 CFR), part 50. 50–369 and 50–370, McGuire Nuclear condition to require the licensee to fully Date of Issuance: July 28, 2011. Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg implement and maintain in effect all Effective date: As of the date of County, North Carolina provisions of the NRC-approved Cyber issuance and shall be implemented Security Plan. The proposed change is Duke Power Company, LLC, Docket Nos. generally consistent with Nuclear within 90 days from the date of 50–269, 50–270, and 50–287, Oconee issuance. Energy Institute (NEI) 08–09, Revision 6, Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, ‘‘Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear Power Amendment Nos.: 375, 377, and 376. Oconee County, South Carolina Renewed Facility Operating License Reactors.’’ Nos. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55: Date of application of amendments: Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. Amendments revised the licenses and July 28, 2010, as supplemented March 3, Effective date: This license the technical specifications. 2011. amendment is effective as of the date of Date of initial notice in Federal Brief description of amendments: The its issuance. The implementation of the Register: December 14, 2010 (75 FR amendments approve changes to each CSP, including the key intermediate 77909). station emergency plans to allow milestone dates and the full The Commission’s related evaluation changes to the minimum staffing implementation date, shall be in of the amendments is contained in a requirement during emergencies. accordance with the implementation Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. Date of Issuance: July 29, 2011. schedule submitted by the licensee on

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52709

April 4, 2011, and approved by the NRC Notice, Final Rule 10 CFR Part 73, Date of issuance: July 27, 2011. staff with this license amendment. All Power Reactor Security Requirements, Effective date: This license subsequent changes to the NRC- published on March 27, 2009 (74 FR amendment is effective as of the date of approved CSP implementation schedule 13926). its issuance. The implementation of the will require prior NRC approval Date of issuance: August 2, 2011. CSP, including the key intermediate pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. Effective date: These license milestone dates and the full Amendment No.: 171. amendments are effective as of the date implementation date, shall be in Facility Operating License No. NPF– of their issuance. The implementation of accordance with the implementation 47: The amendment revised the Facility the CSP, including the key intermediate schedule submitted by the licensee on Operating License. milestone dates and the full July 26, 2010, as supplemented by Date of initial notice in Federal implementation date, shall be in letters dated September 27, 2010, Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR accordance with the implementation November 30, 2010, February 15, 2011, 62596). schedule submitted by the licensee on and April 4, 2011, and approved by the The supplemental letters dated July 8, 2010, as supplemented by letters NRC staff with this license amendment. September 23 and November 30, 2010, dated February 18, April 1, and June 29, All subsequent changes to the NRC- and February 15 and April 4, 2011, 2011, and approved by the NRC staff approved CSP implementation schedule provided additional information that with these license amendments. All will require prior NRC approval clarified the application, did not expand subsequent changes to the NRC- pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. the scope of the application as originally approved CSP implementation schedule Amendment No.: 243. noticed, and did not change the staff’s will require prior NRC approval Facility Operating License No. DPR– original proposed no significant hazards pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. 20: Amendment revised the Renewed consideration determination as Amendment Nos.: 55 for IP1, 266 for Facility Operating License. published in the Federal Register. IP2, and 243 for IP3, respectively. Date of initial notice in Federal The Commission’s related evaluation Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR of the amendment is contained in a 5, DPR–26, and DPR–64: The 76044). Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. amendment revised the Licenses. The supplemental letters contained No significant hazards consideration Date of initial notice in Federal clarifying information and did not comments received: No. Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR change the initial no significant hazards Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 62596). consideration determination, and did Docket Nos. 50–003, 50–247, and 50– The supplements dated February 18, not expand the scope of the original 286, Indian Point Nuclear Generating April 1, and June 29, 2011, provided application. Unit 1, 2 and 3, (IP1, IP2, and IP3), additional information that clarified the The Commission’s related evaluation Westchester County, New York application, did not expand the scope of of the amendment is contained in a the application as originally noticed, Safety Evaluation dated July 27, 2011. Date of application for amendment: and did not change the NRC staff’s No significant hazards consideration July 8, 2010, as supplemented by letters original proposed no significant hazards comments received: No. dated February 18, April 1, and June 29, consideration determination. 2011. The Commission’s related evaluation Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50– Brief description of amendment: The of the amendment is contained in a 313, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, licensee’s application for the proposed Safety Evaluation dated August 2, 2011. Pope County, Arkansas amendments to the Facility Operating No significant hazards consideration Date of amendment request: August Licenses (FOLs) includes: (1) The comments received: Yes. The Safety 10, 2010, as supplemented by letter proposed Cyber Security Plan (CSP), (2) Evaluation dated August 2, 2011, dated June 10, 2011. an implementation schedule, and (3) a provides the discussion of the Brief description of amendment: The proposed statement to be added to the comments received from New York amendment revised Technical existing FOL Physical Protection license State. Specification (TS) 3.9.3, ‘‘Reactor conditions requiring Entergy to fully Building Penetrations,’’ to allow reactor Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., implement and maintain in effect all building flow path(s) providing direct Docket No. 50–255, Palisades Nuclear provisions of the Commission-approved access from the reactor building Plant, Van Buren County, Michigan CSP as required by 10 CFR 73.54, atmosphere to the outside atmosphere to ‘‘Protection of digital computer and Date of application for amendment: be unisolated under administrative communication systems and networks.’’ July 26, 2011, supplemented by letters control, during movement of irradiated A Federal Register notice dated March dated September 27, 2010, November fuel assemblies. The proposed change is 27, 2009, issued the final rule that 30, 2010, February 15, 2011, and April consistent with Technical Specification amended 10 CFR Part 73. The 4, 2011. Task Force (TSTF) Technical Change regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, establish Brief description of amendment: The Traveler TSTF–312, Revision 1, the requirements for a CSP. This amendment approves the cyber security ‘‘Administratively Control Containment regulation specifically requires each plan and associated implementation Penetrations.’’ licensee currently licensed to operate a schedule, and revises Paragraph 2.E of Date of issuance: August 10, 2011. nuclear power plant under Part 50 of Facility Operating License No. DPR–20 Effective date: As of the date of this chapter to submit a CSP that for Palisades Nuclear Plant, to provide issuance and shall be implemented satisfies the requirements of the Rule. a license condition to require the within 90 days from the date of Each submittal must include a proposed licensee to fully implement and issuance. implementation schedule, and maintain in effect all provisions of the Amendment No.: 245. implementation of the licensee’s CSP NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan. The Renewed Facility Operating License must be consistent with the approved proposed change is generally consistent No. DPR–51: Amendment revised the schedule. The background for this with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 08– Technical Specifications/license. application is addressed by the NRC 09, Revision 6, Cyber Security Plan for Date of initial notice in Federal Notice of Availability, Federal Register Nuclear Power Reactors. Register: October 5, 2010 (75 FR 61526).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52710 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

The supplemental letter dated June The Commission’s related evaluation Effective date: These license 10, 2011, provided additional of the amendments is contained in a amendments are effective as of the date information that clarified the Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. of their issuance. The implementation of application, did not expand the scope of No significant hazards consideration the CSP, including the key intermediate the application as originally noticed, comments received: No. milestone dates and the full and did not change the staff’s original Exelon Generation Company, LLC, implementation date, shall be in proposed no significant hazards Docket Nos. STN 50–456 and STN 50– accordance with the implementation consideration determination as 457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, schedule submitted by the licensee on published in the Federal Register. Will County, Illinois November 23, 2009 as supplemented by The Commission’s related evaluation letters dated July 23, September 24, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, November 18, December 21, 2010, of the amendment is contained in a Docket Nos. STN 50–454 and STN 50– Safety Evaluation dated August 10, March 31, May 19, and July 11, 2011, 455, Byron Station, Unit 1 and 2, Ogle and approved by the NRC staff with 2011. County, Illinois No significant hazards consideration these license amendments. All comments received: No. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, subsequent changes to the NRC- Docket No. 50–461, Clinton Power approved CSP implementation schedule Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Station, Unit 1, DeWitt County, Illinois will require prior NRC approval Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 Docket Nos. 50–237 and 50–249, Amendment Nos.: 168, 168, 175, 175, and 2, Montgomery County, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 194, 238, 231, 203, 190, 204, 166, 280, Pennsylvania and 3, Grundy County, Illinois 281, 283, 249, 244, 275. Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– Date of application for amendment: Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 72, NPF–77, NPF–37, NPF–66, NPF–62, March 19, 2010, as supplemented by Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374, LaSalle DPR–19, DPR–25, NPF–11, NPF–18, letters dated June 16, 2010, October 29, County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle NPF–39, NPF–85, DPR–16, DPR–44, 2010, December 3, 2010, January 14, County, Illinois DPR–56, DPR–29, DPR–30, DPR–50: The 2011, and March 23, 2011. Exelon Generation Company, LLC, amendments revised the Licenses. Brief description of amendment: The Docket No. 50–352 and No. 50–353, Date of initial notice in Federal changes implement an extension of the Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 and Register: April 12, 2011 (75 FR 20379). Technical Specification (TS) allowed 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania The July 23, September 24, November outage time (AOT) for the Unit 1 and 18, December 21, 2010, March 31, May Unit 2 Suppression Pool Cooling (SPC) Exelon Generation Company, LLC, et al., Docket No. 50–219, Oyster Creek 19, and July 11, 2011, supplements mode of the Residual Heat Removal contained clarifying information and (RHR) system, the Residual Heat Nuclear Generating Station, Ocean County, New Jersey did not change the NRC staff’s initial Removal Service Water (RHRSW) proposed finding of no significant system, the Emergency Service Water Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and hazards consideration. (ESW) system, and the A.C. Sources— PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–277 The Commission’s related evaluation Operating (Emergency Diesel and 50–278, Peach Bottom Atomic of the amendments is contained in a Generators) from 72 hours to seven (7) Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Safety Evaluation dated August 10, days in order to allow for repairs of the Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania 2011. RHRSW system piping. The AOT Exelon Generation Company, LLC, No significant hazards consideration extension would only be allowed once Docket Nos. 50–254 and 50–265, Quad comments received: No. every other calendar year, for each unit, Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating with the opposite unit shutdown, and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois Company, et al., Docket Nos. 50–334 reactor vessel head removed, reactor Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and 50–412, Beaver Valley Power cavity flooded, and certain other Docket No. 50–289, Three Mile Island Station, Unit 1 and 2 (BVPS–1 and 2), specific compensatory measures, in Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI–1), Beaver County, Pennsylvania effect. Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. Date of application for amendments: Date of application for amendments: Effective date: As of the date of July 22, 2010, as supplemented by November 23, 2009, as supplemented by issuance and shall be implemented letters dated September 28, 2010, letters dated July 23, September 24, within 60 days of issuance. November 29, 2010, February 3, 2011, November 18, December 21, 2010, and April 6, 2011. Amendment Nos.: 203 and 165. March 31, May 19, and July 11, 2011. Brief description of amendments: The Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– Brief description of amendments: The amendments to the Renewed Facility 39 and NPF–85: These amendments amendments were submitted in Operating Licenses (FOL) include: (1) revised the license and the technical accordance with the provisions of Title The proposed BVPS–1 and 2 Cyber specifications. 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Security Plan (CSP), (2) an Date of initial notice in Federal (10 CFR) 50.4 and 10 CFR 50.90 and implementation schedule, and (3) a Register: May 18, 2010 (75 FR 27828). requests NRC approval of the Exelon proposed sentence to be added to the The supplements dated June 16, 2010, Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) existing renewed FOL Physical October 29, 2010, December 3, 2010, Cyber Security Plan (CSP), provides an Protection license condition for BVPS– January 14, 2011, and March 23, 2011, Implementation Schedule, and adds a 1 and 2 requiring FirstEnergy Nuclear provided additional information that sentence to the existing Physical Operating Company to fully implement clarified the application, did not expand Protection license condition to require and maintain in effect all provisions of the scope of the application as originally Exelon to fully implement and maintain the Commission-approved BVPS–1 and noticed and did not change the NRC in effect all provisions of the 2 CSP as required by Title 10 of the staff’s original proposed no significant Commission approved CSP. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) hazards determination. Date of issuance: August 10, 2011. 73.54, ‘‘Protection of digital computer

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52711

and communication systems and Florida Power and Light Company Indiana Michigan Power Company networks.’’ A Federal Register notice (FPL), Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251, (IandM), Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50– dated March 27, 2009, issued the final Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, 316, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, rule that amended 10 CFR Part 73. The Miami-Dade County, Florida Units 1 and 2, Berrien County, Michigan regulations in 10 CFR 73.54, establish Date of application for amendments: Date of application for amendment: the requirements for a CSP. This July 28, 2010, as supplemented by July 19, 2010, as supplemented by regulation specifically requires each letters dated September 27 and letters dated September 28, 2010, licensee currently licensed to operate a November 19, 2010, and April 5 and November 30, 2010, and April 8, 2011. nuclear power plant under part 50 of June 30, 2011. Brief description of amendment: The this chapter to submit a CSP that amendments approve the Cyber Security satisfies the requirements of the Rule. Brief description of amendments: The Plan and associated implementation amendment includes three parts: The Each submittal must include a proposed schedule, and revises License Condition proposed plan, an implementation implementation schedule and 2.D of the Renewed Facility Operating schedule, and a sentence added to the implementation of the licensee’s CSP Licenses for Units 1 and 2. The existing Physical Protection license must be consistent with the approved amendments specify that the licensee condition to require FPL to fully fully implement and maintain in effect schedule. The background for this implement and maintain in effect all application is addressed by the NRC all provisions of the Commission provisions of the Commission approved approved CSP as required by 10 CFR Notice of Availability, Federal Register cyber security plan (CSP) as required by Notice, Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 73, 73.54. amended Title 10 of the Code of Federal Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. Power Reactor Security Requirements, Regulations (10 CFR) part 73. The published on March 27, 2009 (74 FR Effective date: These license proposed CSP was submitted in amendments are effective as of the date 13926). accordance with 10 CFR 73.54, of issuance. The implementation of the Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. ‘‘Protection of digital computer and CSP, including the key intermediate communication systems and networks.’’ Effective date: These license milestone dates and the full amendments are effective as of the date Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. implementation date, shall be in of its issuance. The implementation of Effective date: These license accordance with the implementation the CSP, including the key intermediate amendments are effective as of the date schedule submitted by the licensee on milestone dates and the full of their issuance. The implementation of April 8, 2011, and approved by the NRC implementation date, shall be in the CSP, including the key intermediate staff with these license amendments. All accordance with the implementation milestone dates and the full subsequent changes to the NRC- schedule submitted by the licensee on implementation date, shall be in approved CSP implementation schedule July 22, 2010, as supplemented by accordance with the implementation will require prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. letters dated September 28, 2010, schedule submitted by the licensee on Amendment Nos.: 315 (for Unit 1) and November 29, 2010, February 3, 2011, July 28, 2010, as supplemented by letters dated September 27 and 299 (for Unit 2). and April 6, 2011, and approved by the Facility Operating License No. DPR– Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) November 19, 2010, and April 5 and June 30, 2011, and approved by the NRC 74: Amendments revised the Renewed staff with this license amendment. All staff with these license amendments. All Facility Operating Licenses. subsequent changes to the NRC- subsequent changes to the NRC- Date of initial notice in Federal approved CSP implementation schedule approved CSP implementation schedule Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR will require prior NRC approval will require prior NRC approval 62600). pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. The supplemental letters contain clarifying information, did not change Amendment Nos.: 287 for BVPS–1 Amendment Nos: Unit 3—245 and the scope of the license amendment and 174 for BVPS–2. Unit 4—241. request, did not change the NRC staff’s Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– Renewed Facility Operating License initial proposed finding of no significant 66 and NPF–73: The amendments Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41: Amendments hazards consideration determination, revised the License. revised the licenses. and did not expand the scope of the Date of initial notice in Federal Date of initial notice in Federal original Federal Register notice. Register: October 12, 2010, 75 FR 62599. Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR The Commission’s related evaluation The supplements dated September 28, 76045). of the amendment is contained in a 2010, November 29, 2010, February 3, The supplements dated September 27 Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. 2011, and April 6, 2011, provided and November 19, 2010, and April 5 No significant hazards consideration additional information that clarified the and June 30, 2011, provided additional comments received: No. application, did not expand the scope of information that clarified the NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, the application as originally noticed, application, did not expand the scope of Docket No. 50–331, Duane Arnold and did not change the NRC staff’s the application as originally noticed, Energy Center, Linn County, Iowa original proposed no significant hazards and did not change the staff’s original proposed no significant hazards Date of application for amendment: consideration determination as July 14, 2010, as supplemented by published in the Federal Register. consideration determination as published in the Federal Register. letters dated September 27, 2010, The Commission’s related evaluation November 17, 2010, April 5, 2011, and of the amendments is contained in a The Commission’s related evaluation June 22, 2011. Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. of the amendments is contained in a Brief description of amendment: The Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. amendment approves the Cyber Security No significant hazards consideration No significant hazards consideration Plan and associated implementation comments received: No. comments received: No. schedule, and revises License Condition

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52712 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

2.C.(5) of the Renewed Facility Date of initial notice in Federal No significant hazards consideration Operating License. The amendment Register: November 30, 2010 (75 FR comments received: No. specifies that the licensee fully 74096). Northern States Power Company— implement and maintain in effect all The August 30, 2010, and May 3, Minnesota, Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50– provisions of the Commission approved 2011, supplements did not change the 306, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating CSP, as required by 10 CFR 73.54. NRC staff’s initial proposed finding of Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. no significant hazards consideration. Minnesota Effective date: This license The Commission’s related evaluation amendment is effective as of the date of of the amendments is contained in a Date of application for amendment: its issuance. The implementation of the Safety Evaluation dated August 4, 2011. July 20, 2010, and supplemented by CSP, including the key intermediate No significant hazards consideration letters dated September 24, 2010, milestone dates and the full comments received: No. November 30, 2010, February 21, 2011, implementation date, shall be in April 1, 2011, and May 26, 2011. accordance with the implementation Northern States Power Company— Brief description of amendment: The schedule submitted by the licensee on Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50–263, amendments approve the Cyber Security April 5, 2011, and approved by the NRC Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Plan (CSP) and associated staff with this license amendment. All Wright County, Minnesota implementation schedule, and revise subsequent changes to the NRC- Date of application for amendment: License Condition 2.C.(3) of the Facility approved CSP implementation schedule July 20, 2010, and supplemented by Operating Licenses for each unit at will require prior NRC approval letters dated September 24, 2010, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. November 30, 2010, February 21, 2010, The amendments specify that the Amendment No.: 278. April 1, 2011, and May 26, 2011. licensee fully implement and maintain Renewed Facility Operating License Brief description of amendment: The in effect all provisions of the No. DPR–49: The amendment revised amendment approves the Cyber Security Commission-approved CSP as required the Renewed Facility Operating License. Plan (CSP) and associated by 10 CFR 73.54. Date of initial notice in Federal implementation schedule, and revises Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. Register: November 9, 2010 (75 FR License Condition 2.C.3 of the Renewed Effective date: These license 68836). Facility Operating License DPR–22 for amendments are effective as of the date The supplemental letters contain Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. of their issuance. The implementation of clarifying information, did not change The amendment specifies that the the CSP, including the key intermediate the scope of the license amendment licensee fully implement and maintain milestone dates and the full request, did not change the NRC staff’s in effect all provisions of the implementation date, shall be in initial proposed finding of no significant Commission approved CSP as required accordance with the implementation hazards consideration determination, by 10 CFR 73.54. schedule submitted by the licensee on and did not expand the scope of the Date of issuance: August 2, 2011. April 1, 2011, and approved by the NRC original Federal Register notice. Effective date: This license staff with these license amendments. All The Commission’s related evaluation amendment is effective as of the date of subsequent changes to the NRC- of the amendment is contained in a its issuance. The implementation of the approved CSP implementation schedule Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. CSP, including the key intermediate will require prior NRC approval No significant hazards consideration milestone dates and the full pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. comments received: No. Amendment Nos.: 202 (for Unit 1) and implementation date, shall be in 189 (for Unit 2). NextEra Energy, Point Beach, LLC, accordance with the implementation Facility Operating License Nos. DPR– Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301, Point schedule submitted by the licensee on 42 and DPR–60. Amendments revised Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, April 1, 2011, and approved by the NRC the Facility Operating Licenses Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc staff with this license amendment. All Date of initial notice in Federal County, Wisconsin subsequent changes to the NRC- Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR Date of application for amendments: approved CSP implementation schedule 62604). January 27, 2010, as supplemented by will require prior NRC approval The Commission’s related evaluation letters dated August 30, 2010, and May pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. of the amendment is contained in a 3, 2011. Amendment No.: 166. Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. Brief description of amendments: The Facility Operating License No. DPR– No significant hazards consideration amendments revise Technical 22. Amendment revised the Renewed comments received: No. Specification 3.8.3, ‘‘Diesel Fuel Oil and Facility Operating License. PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50–354, Starting Air,’’ to specify an increased Date of initial notice in Federal 50–272, and 50–311, Hope Creek minimum diesel fuel oil storage volume Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR Generating Station and Salem Nuclear and associated surveillance requirement 62604). Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, for the Emergency Diesel Generators. The licensee’s supplemental letters Salem County, New Jersey Date of issuance: August 4, 2011. contained clarifying information, did Effective date: This license not change the scope of the original Date of application for amendments: amendment is effective as of the date of license amendment request, did not July 14, 2010, as supplemented by issuance and shall be implemented change the NRC staff’s initial proposed letters dated September 28, 2010, April within 60 days of the date of issuance. finding of no significant hazards 1, 2011, June 6, 2011, and July 6, 2011. Amendment Nos.: 244 (for Unit 1) and consideration determination, and did Brief description of amendments: The 248 (for Unit 2). not expand the scope of the original amendments approve the Cyber Security Renewed Facility Operating License Federal Register notice. Plan (CSP) and associated Nos. DPR–24 and DPR–27: Amendments The Commission’s related evaluation implementation schedule for Hope revised the Technical Specifications and of the amendment is contained in a Creek Generating Station and Salem Renewed Facility Operating License. Safety Evaluation dated August 2, 2011. Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52713

and 2. In addition, the amendments provide a license condition to require the cyber security plan (CSP), including revise the existing license condition the licensee to fully implement and key intermediate milestone dates and regarding physical protection in the maintain in effect all provisions of the the full implementation date, shall be in each of the three facility operating NRC-approved Cyber Security Plan. The accordance with the implementation licenses (FOLs) to require the licensee to proposed change is consistent with schedule submitted by the licensee by fully implement and maintain in effect Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 08–09, letter dated April 11, 2011, and all provisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Revision 6, ‘‘Cyber Security Plan for approved by the NRC staff with these Commission (NRC)-approved CSP. The Nuclear Power Reactors.’’ license amendments. All subsequent amendment was submitted pursuant to Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. changes to the NRC-approved CSP Title 10 of the Code of Federal Effective date: These license implementation schedule will require Regulations (10 CFR) 73.54, which amendments are effective as of the date prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 CFR requires licensees currently licensed to of issuance. The implementation of the 50.90. operate a nuclear power plant under 10 CSP, including the key intermediate Amendment Nos: Farley 1 and 2— CFR part 50 to submit a CSP for NRC milestone dates and the full 186/181; Hatch 1 and 2—265/209; review and approval. implementation date, shall be in Vogtle 1 and 2—162/144. Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. accordance with the implementation Facility Operating License (Farley) Effective date: The license schedule submitted by the licensee on NPF–2 and NPF–8; (Hatch) DPR–57 and amendments are effective as of the date March 31 and June 16, 2011, and NPF–5; (Vogtle) NPF–68 and NPF–81: of issuance. The implementation of the approved by the NRC staff with these The amendments changed the licenses CSP, including the key intermediate license amendments. All subsequent and the technical specifications. milestone dates and the full changes to the NRC-approved CSP Date of initial notice in Federal implementation date, shall be in implementation schedule will require Register: April 12, 2011 (76 FR 20381) accordance with the implementation prior NRC approval pursuant to 10 CFR The Commission’s related evaluation schedule submitted by the licensee by 50.90. of the amendments is contained in a letter dated June 6, 2011, and approved Amendment Nos.: Unit 2—225; Unit Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. by the NRC staff with these license 3—218. No significant hazards consideration amendments. All subsequent changes to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– comments received: No. the NRC-approved CSP implementation 10 and NPF–15: The amendments Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket schedule will require prior NRC revised the Facility Operating Licenses. Nos. 50–259, 50–260, and 50–296, approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. Date of initial notice in Federal Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, Amendment Nos.: 189, 300 and 283. Register: November 9, 2010 (75 FR and 3, Limestone County, Alabama Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 68836). 57, DPR–70 and DPR–75: The The supplemental letters dated Date of application for amendments: amendments revised the FOLs. September 29 and November 30, 2010, November 23, 2009, as supplemented on Date of initial notice in Federal and March 31 and June 16, 2011, December 18, 2009; July 23 and October Register: October 12, 2010 (75 FR provided additional information that 1, 2010; April 7 and July 15, 2011 (TS– 62606). clarified the application, did not expand 470). The letters dated September 28, 2010, the scope of the application as originally Description of amendment request: April 1, 2011, June 6, 2011, and July 6, noticed, and did not change the staff’s On March 27, 2009, the Federal Register 2011, provided clarifying information original proposed no significant hazards Notice (74 FR 13926) published the final that did not change the initial proposed consideration determination as rule that amended Title 10 of the Code no significant hazards consideration published in the Federal Register. of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 73, determination or expand the application The Commission’s related evaluation ‘‘Physical Protection of Plants and beyond the scope of the original Federal of the amendments is contained in a Materials.’’ Specifically, the regulations Register notice. Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. in 10 CFR 73.54 ‘‘Protection of Digital The Commission’s related evaluation No significant hazards consideration Computer and Communication Systems of the amendments is contained in a comments received: No. and Networks,’’ establish the Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. requirements for a cyber security No significant hazards consideration Southern Nuclear Operating Company, program to protect digital computer and comments received: No. Inc., Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, communication systems and networks Units 1 and 2, Docket Nos. 50–348 and against cyber attacks. The proposed Southern California Edison Company, et 50–364, Houston County, Alabama; amendment included the proposed al., Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 Cyber Security Plan, its implementation San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and 2, Docket Nos. 50–321 and 50–366, schedule, and a revised Physical Units 2 and 3, San Diego County, Appling County, Georgia; Vogtle Electric Protection license condition for Browns California Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Docket Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 to Date of application for amendments: Nos. 50–424 and 50–425, Burke County, fully implement and maintain in effect July 22, 2010, as supplemented by Georgia all provisions of the Nuclear Regulatory letters dated September 29 and Date of amendment request: July 16, Commission approved Cyber Security November 30, 2010, and March 31 and 2010, as supplemented March 28 and Plan as required by 10 CFR 73.54. June 16, 2011. April 11, 2011. Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. Brief description of amendments: The Brief description of amendment Effective date: This license amendments approved the cyber request: The amendments approve the amendment is effective as of the date of security plan (CSP) and associated licensee’s Cyber Security Plan and issuance. The implementation of the implementation schedule, and revised Implementation Schedule. cyber security plan (CSP), including the Paragraph 2.E of Facility Operating Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. key intermediate milestone dates and License Nos. NPF–10 and NPF–15, Effective date: These license the full implementation date, shall be in respectively, for San Onofre Nuclear amendments are effective as of the date accordance with the implementation Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, to of their issuance. The implementation of schedule submitted by the licensee on

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52714 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

April 7, 2011, and approved by the NRC key intermediate milestone dates and and November 4, 2010, and February 23, staff with this license amendment. All the full implementation date, shall be in 2011, provided additional information subsequent changes to the NRC- accordance with the implementation that clarified the application, did not approved CSP implementation schedule schedule submitted by the licensee on expand the scope of the application as will require prior NRC approval April 7, 2011, and approved by the NRC originally noticed, and did not change pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. staff with this license amendment. All the staff’s original proposed no Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—279, Unit subsequent changes to the NRC- significant hazards consideration 2—306, and Unit 3—265. approved CSP implementation schedule determination as published in the Renewed Facility Operating License will require prior NRC approval Federal Register. Nos. DPR–33, DPR–52, and DPR–68: pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90. The Commission’s related evaluation Amendments revised the licenses. Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—329 and of the amendment is contained in a Date of initial notice in Federal Unit 2—322. Safety Evaluation dated July 28, 2011. Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR Facility Operating License DPR–77 No significant hazards consideration 76046). and DPR–79: Amendments revised the comments received: No. The above Federal Register notice licenses. was based on the supplement dated Date of initial notice in Federal Union Electric Company, Docket No. December 18, 2009. The supplements Register: December 7, 2010 (75 FR 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, dated July 23 and October 1, 2010; April 76046). Callaway County, Missouri 7 and July 15, 2011, provided additional The above Federal Register notice Date of application for amendment: information that clarified the was based on the supplement dated August 5, 2010, as supplemented by application, did not expand the scope of December 18, 2009. The supplements letters dated March 23, May 3, and July the application as originally noticed, dated July 23 and October 1, 2010; April 25, 2011. and did not change the staff’s original 7 and July 15, 2011, provided additional proposed no significant hazards information that clarified the Brief description of amendment: The consideration determination. application, did not expand the scope of amendment revised the Technical The Commission’s related evaluation the application as originally noticed, Specifications (TSs) by relocating of the amendment is contained in a and did not change the staff’s original specific surveillance frequencies to a safety evaluation dated July 29, 2011. proposed no significant hazards licensee-controlled program with the No significant hazards consideration consideration determination. guidance of Nuclear Energy Institute comments received: No. The Commission’s related evaluation (NEI) 04–10, ‘‘Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 5b, Risk- Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket of the amendment is contained in a safety evaluation dated July 29, 2011. Informed Method for Control of Nos. 50–327 and 50–328, Sequoyah Surveillance Frequencies.’’ The Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton No significant hazards consideration comments received: No. amendment adopted NRC-approved County, Tennessee Technical Specification Task Force Date of application for amendment: Union Electric Company, Docket No. (TSTF)-425, Revision 3, ‘‘Relocate November 23, 2009, as supplemented on 50–483, Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee December 11 and December 18, 2009; Callaway County, Missouri Control—RITSTF [Risk-Informed TSTF] July 23 and October 1, 2010; April 7 and Date of application for amendment: Initiative 5b.’’ When implemented, July 15, 2011 (TS 09–06). November 25, 2009, as supplemented by TSTF–425 relocates most periodic Brief description of amendment: On letters dated April 22, May 14, August frequencies of TS surveillances to a March 27, 2009, the Federal Register 24, September 29, and November 4, licensee-controlled program, the Notice (74 FR 13926) published the final 2010, and February 23, 2011. Surveillance Frequency Control rule that amended Title 10 of the Code Brief description of amendment: The Program (SFCP), and provides of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 73, amendment revised Technical requirements for the new program in the ‘‘Physical Protection of Plants and Specification 3.3.2, ‘‘Engineered Safety Administrative Controls section of the Materials.’’ Specifically, the regulations Feature Actuation System (ESFAS) TSs. in 10 CFR 73.54 ‘‘Protection of Digital Instrumentation,’’ to provide a 24-hour Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. Computer and Communication Systems Completion Time (CT) for restoration of Effective date: As of its date of and Networks,’’ establish the an inoperable Balance of Plant (BOP) issuance and shall be implemented requirements for a cyber security ESFAS train and extends the CTs within 180 days from the date of program to protect digital computer and associated with individual instrument issuance. communication systems and networks channels in the BOP ESFAS train to Amendment No.: 202. against cyber attacks. The proposed maintain overall consistency of related amendment included the proposed Facility Operating License No. NPF– TS actions. 30: The amendment revised the Cyber Security Plan, its implementation Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. Operating License and Technical schedule, and a revised physical Effective date: As of its date of Specifications. protection license condition for issuance and shall be implemented Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 within 90 days from the date of Date of initial notice in Federal to fully implement and maintain in issuance. Register: January 11, 2011 (76 FR 1649). effect all provisions of the Nuclear Amendment No.: 201. The supplemental letters dated March Regulatory Commission approved Cyber Facility Operating License No. NPF– 23, May 3, and July 25, 2011, provided Security Plan as required by 10 CFR 30: The amendment revised the additional information that clarified the 73.54. Operating License and Technical application, did not expand the scope of Date of issuance: July 29, 2011. Specifications. the application as originally noticed, Effective date: This license Date of initial notice in Federal and did not change the staff’s original amendment is effective as of the date of Register: May 18, 2010 (75 FR 27833). proposed no significant hazards issuance. The implementation of the The supplemental letters dated April consideration determination as Cyber Security Plan (CSP), including the 22, May 14, August 24, September 29, published in the Federal Register.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52715

The Commission’s related evaluation Wednesday, September 7, 2011—1:30 240–888–9835) to be escorted to the of the amendment is contained in a p.m. until 5:30 p.m. meeting room. Safety Evaluation dated July 29, 2011. The Subcommittee will review Draft Dated: August 16, 2011. No significant hazards consideration Final Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.93, Cayetano Santos, comments received: No. ‘‘Availability of Electric Power Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Virginia Electric and Power Company, et Sources,’’ Revision 1 and new Draft Committee on Reactor Safeguards. al., Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281, Final RG 1.218, ‘‘Condition Monitoring [FR Doc. 2011–21488 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Surry Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Techniques for Electric Cables Used in BILLING CODE 7590–01–P Surry County, Virginia Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs).’’ The Subcommittee will hear presentations Date of application for amendments: NUCLEAR REGULATORY July 12, 2010. by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and other interested persons COMMISSION Brief Description of amendments: regarding this matter. The These amendments revise the Technical Advisory Committee on Reactor Subcommittee will gather information, Specifications (TSs) to: (1) Correct an Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the analyze relevant issues and facts, and error in TS 3.12.E.5, (2) delete ACRS Subcommittee on Digital formulate proposed positions and duplicative requirements in TS 3.12.E.2 Instrumentation and Control Systems; actions, as appropriate, for deliberation and TS 3.12.E.4, (3) relocate the Notice of Meeting by the Full Committee. shutdown margin value in TS 3.12 and the TS 3.12 Basis to the Core Operating Members of the public desiring to The ACRS Subcommittee on Digital Limits Report (COLR), and 4) expand provide oral statements and/or written Instrumentation and Control Systems the TS 6.2 list of parameters defined in comments should notify the Designated (DI&C) will hold a meeting on the COLR. Federal Official (DFO), Mrs. Christina September 7, 2011, Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Date of issuance: July 28, 2011. Antonescu (Telephone 301–415–6792 or E-mail: [email protected]) The entire meeting will be open to Effective date: As of the date of public attendance. issuance and shall be implemented five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate The agenda for the subject meeting within 30 days. shall be as follows: Amendment Nos.: 275 and 275. arrangements can be made. Thirty-five Renewed Facility Operating License hard copies of each presentation or Wednesday, September 7, 2011—8:30 Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: Amendments handout should be provided to the DFO a.m. until 12 p.m. thirty minutes before the meeting. In change the licenses and the technical The Subcommittee will review Draft addition, one electronic copy of each specifications. Final Standard Review Plan (SRP) BTP presentation should be e-mailed to the Date of initial notice in Federal 7–19, Revision 6, ‘‘Guidance for DFO one day before the meeting. If an Register: May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28477). Evaluation of Diversity on Defense-In- electronic copy cannot be provided The Commission’s related evaluation Depth in Digital Computer-Based I&C within this timeframe, presenters of the amendments is contained in a Systems,’’ and other related activities on should provide the DFO with a CD safety evaluation dated July 28, 2011. diversity defense-in-depth (D3). The containing each presentation at least Subcommittee will hear presentations No significant hazards consideration thirty minutes before the meeting. by and hold discussions with the NRC comments received: No. Electronic recordings will be permitted staff and other interested persons Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day only during those portions of the regarding this matter. The of August 2011. meeting that are open to the public. Subcommittee will gather information, For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Detailed procedures for the conduct of analyze relevant issues and facts, and Joseph G. Giitter, and participation in ACRS meetings formulate proposed positions and were published in the Federal Register Director, Division of Operating Reactor actions, as appropriate, for deliberation Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor on October 21, 2010 (75 FR 65038– Regulation. by the Full Committee. 65039). Members of the public desiring to [FR Doc. 2011–21212 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Detailed meeting agendas and meeting provide oral statements and/or written BILLING CODE 7590–01–P transcripts are available on the NRC comments should notify the Designated Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- Federal Official (DFO), Mrs. Christina rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information Antonescu (Telephone 301–415–6792 or NUCLEAR REGULATORY regarding topics to be discussed, COMMISSION E-mail: [email protected]) changes to the agenda, whether the five days prior to the meeting, if Advisory Committee on Reactor meeting has been canceled or possible, so that appropriate Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the rescheduled, and the time allotted to arrangements can be made. Thirty-five ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory present oral statements can be obtained hard copies of each presentation or Policies and Practices; Notice of from the Web site cited above or by handout should be provided to the DFO Meeting contacting the identified DFO. thirty minutes before the meeting. In Moreover, in view of the possibility that addition, one electronic copy of each The ACRS Subcommittee on the schedule for ACRS meetings may be presentation should be e-mailed to the Regulatory Policies and Practices will adjusted by the Chairman as necessary DFO one day before the meeting. If an hold a meeting on September 7, 2011, to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, electronic copy cannot be provided Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, persons planning to attend should check within this timeframe, presenters Rockville, Maryland. with these references if such should provide the DFO with a CD The entire meeting will be open to rescheduling would result in a major containing each presentation at least public attendance. inconvenience. thirty minutes before the meeting. The agenda for the subject meeting If attending this meeting, please Electronic recordings will be permitted shall be as follows: contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone only during those portions of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52716 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

meeting that are open to the public. regarding the Near-Term Task Force (Luminant) regarding selected Detailed procedures for the conduct of report on the events at the Fukushima chapters of the SER with Open Items and participation in ACRS meetings Dai-Ichi site in Japan. associated with the US–APWR Design were published in the Federal Register 10:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m.: Technical Basis Certification and the COLA. [Note: A on October 21, 2010 (75 FR 65038– and Rulemaking Language Associated portion of this session may be closed 65039). with Low-Level Waste Disposal and in order to discuss and protect Detailed meeting agendas and meeting Site-Specific Analysis (Open)—The information designed as proprietary transcripts are available on the NRC Committee will hear presentations by by MHI and Luminant pursuant to 5 Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- and hold discussions with U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).] rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information representatives of the NRC staff 10:45 a.m.–12:15 p.m.: Future ACRS regarding topics to be discussed, regarding technical basis and Activities/Report of the Planning and changes to the agenda, whether the rulemaking language associated with Procedures Subcommittee (Open/ meeting has been canceled or low-level waste disposal and site- Closed)—The Committee will discuss rescheduled, and the time allotted to specific analysis. the recommendations of the Planning present oral statements can be obtained 1:15 p.m.–3:15 p.m.: Safety Evaluation and Procedures Subcommittee from the Web site cited above or by Report (SER) Associated with Revision regarding items proposed for contacting the identified DFO. 19 of the AP1000 Design Control consideration by the Full Committee Moreover, in view of the possibility that Document (DCD) Amendment (Open/ during future ACRS Meetings, and the schedule for ACRS meetings may be Closed)—The Committee will hear matters related to the conduct of adjusted by the Chairman as necessary presentations by and hold discussions ACRS business, including anticipated to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, with representatives of the NRC staff workload and member assignments. persons planning to attend should check and Westinghouse regarding the SER [Note: A portion of this meeting may with these references if such associated with Revision 19 of the be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b rescheduling would result in a major AP1000 DCD amendment. [Note: A (c) (2) and (6) to discuss inconvenience. portion of this session may be closed organizational and personnel matters If attending this meeting, please in order to discuss and protect that relate solely to internal personnel contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone information designed as proprietary rules and practices of ACRS, and 240–888–9835) to be escorted to the by Westinghouse pursuant to 5 U.S.C. information the release of which meeting room. 552b(c)(4).] would constitute a clearly 3:30 p.m.–5 p.m.: Draft Final Revision 2 unwarranted invasion of personal Dated: August 16, 2011. to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.115, privacy.] Cayetano Santos, ‘‘Protection Against Turbine Missiles 12:15 p.m.–12:30 p.m.: Reconciliation of Chief, Reactor Safety Branch, Advisory (Open) The Committee will hear ACRS Comments and Committee on Reactor Safeguards. presentations by and hold discussions Recommendations (Open)—The [FR Doc. 2011–21492 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] with representatives of the NRC staff Committee will discuss the responses BILLING CODE 7590–01–P regarding Draft Final Revision 2 to RG from the NRC Executive Director for 1.115. 5 p.m.–7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Operations to comments and NUCLEAR REGULATORY Reports (Open/Closed)—The recommendations included in recent COMMISSION Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports and letters. ACRS reports on matters discussed 1:30 p.m.–2 p.m.: Draft Report on the Advisory Committee on Reactor Biennial ACRS Review of the NRC Safeguards; Notice of Meeting during this meeting. [NOTE: A portion of this session may be closed Safety Research Program (Open)— In accordance with the purposes of in order to discuss and protect The Committee will discuss the draft Sections 29 and 182b of the Atomic information designed as proprietary report on the biennial ACRS review of Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the by Westinghouse pursuant to 5 U.S.C. the NRC Safety Research Program. Advisory Committee on Reactor 552b(c)(4).] 2 p.m.–2:30 p.m.: Assessment of the Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting Quality of Selected NRC Research Friday, September 9, 2011, Conference on September 8–10, 2011, 11545 Projects (Open)—The Committee will Room T2–B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. discuss the panels performing the Rockville, Maryland The date of this meeting was previously quality assessment of NRC research published in the Federal Register on 8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks projects on NUREG/CR–6969, Thursday, October 21, 2010 (75 FR by the ACRS Chairman (Open)—The ‘‘Analysis of Experimental Data for 65038–65039). ACRS Chairman will make opening High Burnup Power Water Reactors remarks regarding the conduct of the (PWR) Spent Fuel Isotopic Thursday, September 8, 2011, meeting. Validation—ARIANE and REBUS Conference Room T2–B1, 11545 8:35 a.m.–10:30 a.m.: Selected Chapters Programs (UO2 Fuel)’’ and NUREG/ Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) CR–7027, ‘‘Degradation of Light Water 8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks with Open Items Associated with the Reactor (LWR) Core Internal Materials by the ACRS Chairman (Open)–The US Advanced Pressurized Water Due to Neutron Irradiation.’’ ACRS Chairman will make opening Reactor (US–APWR) Design 2:30 p.m.–7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS remarks regarding the conduct of the Certification and the Comanche Peak Reports (Open)—The Committee will meeting. Combined License Application continue its discussion of proposed 8:35 a.m.–10:30 a.m.: Near-Term Task (COLA) (Open/Closed)—The ACRS reports. [Note: A portion of this Force Report Regarding the Events at Committee will hear presentations by session may be closed in order to the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Site in Japan and hold discussions with discuss and protect information (Open)–The Committee will hear representatives of the NRC staff, designed as proprietary by presentations by and hold discussions Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), Westinghouse, MHI, and Luminant with representatives of the NRC staff and Luminant Generation Company pursuant to 5 U.S.C 552b(c)(4)]

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52717

Saturday, September 10, 2011 available through the NRC Public and actions, as appropriate, for Conference Room T2–B1, 11545 Document Room at deliberation by the Full Committee. Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland [email protected], or by calling the Members of the public desiring to 8:30 a.m.–1 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS PDR at 1–800–397–4209, or from the provide oral statements and/or written Reports (Open/Closed)—The Publicly Available Records System comments should notify the Designated Committee will continue its (PARS) component of NRC’s document Federal Official (DFO), Mrs. Ilka Berrios discussion of proposed ACRS reports. system (ADAMS) which is accessible (Telephone 301–415–3179 or E-mail: [Note: A portion of this session may from the NRC Web site at http:// [email protected]) five days prior to be closed in order to discuss and www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or the meeting, if possible, so that protect information designed as http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc- appropriate arrangements can be made. proprietary by Westinghouse, MHI, collections/ACRS/. Thirty-five hard copies of each and Luminant pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Video teleconferencing service is presentation or handout should be 552b(c)(4).] available for observing open sessions of provided to the DFO thirty minutes 1 p.m.–1:30 p.m.: Miscellaneous ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use before the meeting. In addition, one (Open)—The Committee will continue this service for observing ACRS electronic copy of each presentation its discussion related to the conduct meetings should contact Mr. Theron should be e-mailed to the DFO one day of Committee activities and specific Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician before the meeting. If an electronic copy issues that were not completed during (301–415–8066), between 7:30 a.m. and cannot be provided within this previous meetings. 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before timeframe, presenters should provide the meeting to ensure the availability of Procedures for the conduct of and the DFO with a CD containing each this service. participation in ACRS meetings were presentation at least thirty minutes Individuals or organizations before the meeting. Electronic published in the Federal Register on requesting this service will be October 21, 2010, (75 FR 65038–65039). recordings will be permitted only responsible for telephone line charges during those portions of the meeting In accordance with those procedures, and for providing the equipment and oral or written views may be presented that are open to the public. Detailed facilities that they use to establish the procedures for the conduct of and by members of the public, including video teleconferencing link. The representatives of the nuclear industry. participation in ACRS meetings were availability of video teleconferencing published in the Federal Register on Persons desiring to make oral statements services is not guaranteed. should notify Ms. Ilka Berrios, October 21, 2010, (75 FR 65038–65039). Detailed meeting agendas and meeting Cognizant ACRS Staff (Telephone: 301– Dated: August 17, 2011. transcripts are available on the NRC 415–3179, E-mail: [email protected]), Andrew L. Bates, Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading- five days before the meeting, if possible, Advisory Committee Management Officer. rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information so that appropriate arrangements can be [FR Doc. 2011–21493 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] regarding topics to be discussed, made to allow necessary time during the BILLING CODE 7590–01–P changes to the agenda, whether the meeting for such statements. In view of meeting has been canceled or the possibility that the schedule for rescheduled, and the time allotted to ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the NUCLEAR REGULATORY present oral statements can be obtained Chairman as necessary to facilitate the COMMISSION from the Web site cited above or by conduct of the meeting, persons contacting the identified DFO. planning to attend should check with Advisory Committee on Reactor Moreover, in view of the possibility that the Cognizant ACRS staff if such Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the the schedule for ACRS meetings may be rescheduling would result in major ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and adjusted by the Chairman as necessary inconvenience. Procedures; Notice of Meeting Thirty-five hard copies of each to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning persons planning to attend should check presentation or handout should be and Procedures will hold a meeting on provided 30 minutes before the meeting. with these references if such September 7, 2011, Room T–2B3, 11545 rescheduling would result in a major In addition, one electronic copy of each Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. presentation should be emailed to the inconvenience. The entire meeting will be open to If attending this meeting, please Cognizant ACRS Staff one day before public attendance, with the exception of contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be a portion that may be closed pursuant 240–888–9835) to be escorted to the provided within this timeframe, to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(2) and (6) to discuss meeting room. presenters should provide the Cognizant organizational and personnel matters ACRS Staff with a CD containing each that relate solely to the internal Dated: August 16, 2011. presentation at least 30 minutes before personnel rules and practices of the Cayetano Santos, the meeting. ACRS, and information the release of Chief, Reactor Safety Branch, Advisory In accordance with Subsection 10(d) which would constitute a clearly Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Public Law 92–463, and 5 U.S.C. unwarranted invasion of personal [FR Doc. 2011–21489 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 552b(c), certain portions of this meeting privacy. BILLING CODE 7590–01–P may be closed, as specifically noted The agenda for the subject meeting above. Use of still, motion picture, and shall be as follows: television cameras during the meeting NUCLEAR REGULATORY may be limited to selected portions of Wednesday, September 7, 2011—12 COMMISSION p.m. until 1 p.m. the meeting as determined by the [NRC–2011–0006] Chairman. Electronic recordings will be The Subcommittee will discuss permitted only during the open portions proposed ACRS activities and related Sunshine Federal Register Notice of the meeting. matters. The Subcommittee will gather ACRS meeting agenda, meeting information, analyze relevant issues and AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear transcripts, and letter reports are facts, and formulate proposed positions Regulatory Commission.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52718 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

DATE: Weeks of August 22, 29, The NRC provides reasonable information for advice on alternatives to September 5, 12, 19, 26, 2011. accommodation to individuals with electronic filing. PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference disabilities where appropriate. If you FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, need a reasonable accommodation to Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, Maryland. participate in these public meetings, or at 202–789–6820 (case-related STATUS: Public and Closed. need this meeting notice or the information) or [email protected] transcript or other information from the (electronic filing assistance). Week of August 22, 2011 public meetings in another format (e.g. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: braille, large print), please notify Bill There are no meetings scheduled for I. Introduction the week of August 22, 2011. Dosch, Chief, Work Life and Benefits II. Postal Service Pleadings Branch, at 301–415–6200, TDD: 301– Week of August 29, 2011—Tentative III. Statutory Alternatives for Commission 415–2100, or by e-mail at Action Tuesday, August 30, 2011 [email protected]. Determinations IV. Analysis and Written Determination 8:55 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public on requests for reasonable V. Ordering Paragraphs Meeting) (Tentative) accommodation will be made on a case- I. Introduction Final Rule: Enhancements to by-case basis. Emergency Preparedness * * * * * A. Procedural Context Regulations (10 CFR parts 50 and 10 This notice is distributed The instant Complaint was filed with CFR part 52) (RIN—3150–Al10) electronically to subscribers. If you no the Commission on May 18, 2011.1 It (Tentative) longer wish to receive it, or would like involves two statutory claims about the This meeting will be webcast live at to be added to the distribution, please mode of delivery the Postal Service the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. contact the Office of the Secretary, provides to residents of single-room 9 a.m. Information Briefing on Washington, DC 20555 (301–415–1969), occupancy buildings (SROs) in San Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and or send an e-mail to Francisco, California. Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC), [email protected]. The impetus for the Complaint stems Related Activities (Public Meeting) from three developments that span more August 18, 2011. (Contact: Aida Rivera-Varona, 301– than 5 years. The first was a growing 415–4001) Rochelle C. Bavol, concern, on the part of the City and This meeting will be webcast live at Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary. County of San Francisco (San Francisco the Web address—http://www.nrc.gov. [FR Doc. 2011–21626 Filed 8–19–11; 4:15 pm] or Complainant) about the reliability BILLING CODE 7590–01–P and security of mail delivery to Week of September 5, 2011—Tentative residents of SROs. Delivery to SROs There are no meetings scheduled for generally occurs under Postal Service the week of September 5, 2011. POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION regulations specifying the ‘‘single- point’’ mode of delivery for hotels, Week of September 12, 2011—Tentative [Docket No. C2011–2; Order No. 808] schools and similar places. This means There are no meetings scheduled for Complaint About Postal Services a letter carrier typically leaves a mail the week of September 12, 2011. bag at or in the building, such as at the AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. doorstep, in the lobby or at a central Week of September 19, 2011—Tentative ACTION: Notice. desk.2 Building management is There are no meetings scheduled for responsible for delivering the mail to the week of September 19, 2011. SUMMARY: San Francisco, in its residents and for handling other tasks, Week of September 26, 2011—Tentative municipal capacity, has filed a formal such as forwarding. This contrasts with complaint alleging that there centralized delivery, where a letter Tuesday, September 27, 2011 deficiencies in the Postal Service’s carrier delivers mail pursuant to a 9 a.m. Mandatory Hearing—Southern delivery of mail to residents of certain regulation covering the residents of a Nuclear Operating Co., et al.; multi-unit buildings, and that the Postal multi-unit building, such as an Combined Licenses for Vogtle Service is therefore not acting in apartment building, via individual, Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 conformance with statutory locked mailboxes.3 and 4, and Limited Work requirements. This document identifies 2006 ordinance. The second Authorizations (Public Meeting) the grounds for the complaint, reviews development was San Francisco’s (Contact: Rochelle Bavol, 301–415– key developments, and addresses adoption, in 2006, of an ordinance 1651) certain procedural matters, including aimed at addressing its concerns about This meeting will be webcast live at authorization of settlement negotiations. SRO mail delivery. Complaint at 2. The the Web address—www.nrc.gov. DATES: The settlement coordinator’s ordinance required SRO owners to * * * * * report is due September 15, 2011. install (by the end of 2007) individual, secure, Postal Service-compliant The schedule for Commission ADDRESSES: Submit comments mailboxes for each resident. San meetings is subject to change on short electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing notice. To verify the status of meetings, Francisco asserts that prior to adoption Online’’ link in the banner at the top of of the ordinance, there was at least one call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. the Commission’s Web site (http:// Contact person for more information: conversation with a Postal Service www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing employee indicating that installation of Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415–1651. the Commission’s Filing Online system * * * * * Postal Service-approved mailbox at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filing- installations in SROs would result in a The NRC Commission Meeting online/login.aspx. Commenters who Schedule can be found on the Internet cannot submit their views electronically 1 Complaint of the City and County of San at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ should contact the person identified in Francisco, May 18, 2011 (Complaint). public-meetings/schedule.html. the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 2 See POM § 615.2 (single-point delivery). * * * * * section as the source for case-related 3 See POM § 631.45 (centralized delivery).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52719

switch from single-point delivery to the Postal Service, as one of its general official had not been adopted pursuant centralized delivery. powers, the authority to adopt, amend, to Federal rulemaking procedures.7 This Following adoption of the ordinance, and repeal any rules and regulations disposition led to the filing of the Postal some SRO owners installed individual necessary to the execution of its Service’s Answer on August 8, 2011. mailboxes and the Postal Service statutory functions, to the extent such In its Answer, the Postal Service apparently began delivering mail to rules and regulations are not serially addresses each paragraph, residents of these SROs via centralized inconsistent with title 39. 39 U.S.C. providing responses that admit, deny, delivery. However, this practice was 401(2). Section 403(c) states that in disclaim sufficient knowledge to the later reviewed (as part of a broader providing services under title 39 ‘‘the assertion, or state no response is evaluation) and found to be contrary to Postal Service shall not, except as needed. With respect to points central to the postal regulation that establishes specifically authorized in this title, the Complaint, it denies that San single-point delivery as the appropriate make any undue or unreasonable Francisco has alleged any ‘‘deficiencies’’ mode of delivery for SROs. The Postal discrimination among users of the in mail delivery service and that ‘‘the Service informed a city official that it mails, nor shall it grant any undue or socioeconomic circumstances of would continue to deliver mail via unreasonable preferences to any such delivery customers matter when making centralized delivery to SROs where user.’’ 39 U.S.C. 403(c). decisions about the appropriate mode of individual mailboxes had been C. The Nexus Between Complainant’s delivery.’’ Answer at 1–2. The Postal installed, but would use single-point Assertions and Section 3662 Service also denies the applicability of delivery for all others, including those Jurisdiction POM 631.45, contending the controlling that installed individual mailboxes in regulation is POM 615.2, Mail the future. See id. Exh. 1 at 1–2. The asserted link to section 401(2). Addressed to Persons at Hotels, Schools, Federal lawsuit. The third San Francisco’s reading of postal and Similar Places. Id. at 4. It adds that development was San Francisco’s filing regulations leads it to conclude that San Francisco has not made any of a Federal lawsuit in 2009. The mail delivery to residents of SROs showing, as required under POM 631.6 grounds, in brief, were that the Postal should be provided under centralized (Conversion of Mode of Delivery) that Service’s post-ordinance actions raise delivery regulations, rather than under conversion to another mode of delivery constitutional questions and regulatory regulations for single-point delivery, is warranted. Id. (title 39) issues.4 The court dismissed assuming the SRO has individual, Significantly, the Postal Service also the regulatory issues (finding them locked mailboxes. It maintains that the states that it ‘‘would not object to within the Commission’s purview), but Postal Service erroneously classifies delivering mail at those locations by retained jurisdiction over the SROs under the delivery regulation for placing it into a locked receptacle constitutional claims. At this point, the hotels and schools, and is therefore * * *.’’ Id. at 3. record shows that the Federal lawsuit is failing to enforce its own regulations. still pending. A lengthy discovery phase Complaint at 16. III. Statutory Alternatives for is nearing an end; dispositive motions The asserted link to section 403(c). Commission Action are to be heard by October 13, 2011; and San Francisco asserts that the Postal The Commission has two affirmative a trial date has been set for January 9, Service’s decision to use single-point alternatives for handling a section 3662 2012. See Answer of the United States delivery for residents of SROs reflects complaint under section 3662(b). One is Postal Service, August 8, 2011, Exh. 1 their socioeconomic status, especially to begin proceedings upon a finding that (Answer). relative to apartment dwellers, and the complaint raises material issues of unfounded assumptions about the fact or law. 39 U.S.C. 3662(b)(1)(A)(i).8 B. The Commission’s Section 3662 transience of SRO residents, and Jurisdiction The other alternative is to issue an order therefore unduly discriminates against dismissing the complaint. 39 U.S.C. Commission jurisdiction over formal SRO residents and grants an undue 3662(b)(1)(A)(ii). Action under either complaints is set out in section 3662(a). preference to apartment dwellers in alternative is to be taken within 90 days This section provides: violation of 39 U.S.C. 403(c). Id. at 12. and supported by a written statement Any interested person * * * who believes II. Postal Service Pleadings setting forth the basis for the the Postal Service is not operating in On June 7, 2011, the Postal Service determination. 39 U.S.C. 3662(b)(1) and conformance with the requirements of the 3662(b)(1)(B). provisions of sections 101(d), 401(2), 403(c), filed a motion seeking dismissal of 404a, or 601, or this chapter (or regulations count 1 of the two-count Complaint.5 IV. Analysis and Written Determination promulgated under any of those provisions) The basis was lack of jurisdiction under The parties recognize that the Postal may lodge a complaint with the Postal section 401(2). The Postal Service did Regulatory Commission * * *. Service’s current delivery practices do not seek dismissal of count 2, stating differentiate between residents of many 39 U.S.C. 3662(a). instead that the Complainant arguably SROs in San Francisco and apartment San Francisco generally claims that set out a claim with respect to undue dwellers. Thus, the current issue before there are deficiencies in the Postal discrimination. Id. at 2. The the Commission is whether the Service’s delivery of mail to most SRO Complainant filed an opposition to the 6 pleadings indicate that there are residents in California, and that these Motion. The Commission granted the material questions of fact and law on deficiencies cause harm to the affected Motion, in part, by striking allegations this point. residents and to San Francisco. in count 1 that correspondence between In its Complaint, San Francisco Complaint at 1. For purposes of the San Francisco Postmaster and a city concludes that in light of the parties’ establishing Commission jurisdiction, it inability to resolve their dispute during 5 Motion of United States Postal Service for relies on two of the provisions mediation associated with the Federal identified in section 3662: sections Partial Dismissal of the Complaint, June 7, 2011 (Motion). 401(2) and 403(c). Section 401(2) grants 6 City and County of San Francisco’s Answer in 7 Order Granting, in Part, Postal Service Motion Opposition to Motion of United States Postal To Dismiss Count 1, July 29, 2011. 4 City of San Francisco, et al. v. United States Service for Partial Dismissal of the Complaint, June 8 The statute does not specify the precise nature Postal Service, N.D. Cal. (1964). 15, 2011. of the proceedings.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52720 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

lawsuit, it believes that additional steps for publication of this order in the either file a Participant Statement on to settle this matter prior to the filing of Federal Register. PRC Form 61 or file a brief with the this Complaint would have been futile. By the Commission. Commission no later than September 19, 2011. Complaint at 15–16. However, as Shoshana M. Grove, referenced above, the Postal Service Categories of issues apparently raised. Secretary. Answer contains what appears to be a Petitioner contends that the Postal good faith offer to address the concerns [FR Doc. 2011–21415 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Service failed to consider the effect of that initially motivated this controversy BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P the closing on the community. See 39 by providing a new delivery option for U.S.C. 404(d)(2)(A)(i). residents of most SROs in San After the Postal Service files the POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION Francisco: delivery of the mail to a administrative record and the locked receptacle, with management [Docket No. A2011–47; Order No. 805] Commission reviews it, the Commission continuing to be responsible from that may find that there are more legal issues point. The Commission views the Postal Post Office Closing than those set forth above, or that the Postal Service’s determination disposes Service’s offer as an attempt to AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. appropriately balance the concerns of of one or more of those issues. The ACTION: Notice. the Complainant (for more security and deadline for the Postal Service to file the applicable administrative record with reliability in mail delivery) and the SUMMARY: This document informs the the Commission is August 30, 2011. See Postal Service (for efficiency and public that an appeal of the closing of effectiveness, including the cost 39 CFR 3001.113. In addition, the due the Francitas, Texas post office has been date for any responsive pleading by the implications of adding numerous filed. It identifies preliminary steps and delivery points at an especially critical Postal Service to this notice is August provides a procedural schedule. 30, 2011. financial time).9 Publication of this document will allow The Commission therefore defers Availability; Web site posting. The the Postal Service, petitioners, and Commission has posted the appeal and action on this Complaint and directs others to take appropriate action. that the parties begin settlement supporting material on its Web site at DATES: Administrative record due (from negotiations based on the Postal http://www.prc.gov. Additional filings Postal Service): August 30, 2011; Service’s offer. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. in this case and participants’ deadline for notices to intervene: 505, the Commission designates James submissions also will be posted on the September 12, 2011. See the Procedural Waclawski as officer of the Commission Commission’s Web site, if provided in Schedule in the SUPPLEMENTARY (Public Representative) to represent the electronic format or amenable to INFORMATION section for other dates of interests of the public. The Public conversion, and not subject to a valid interest. Representative shall also serve as protective order. Information on how to settlement coordinator. The ADDRESSES: Submit comments use the Commission’s Web site is Commission strongly believes that all electronically by accessing the ‘‘Filing available online or by contacting the concerned would be best served by a Online’’ link in the banner at the top of Commission’s webmaster via telephone negotiated settlement of this matter. It the Commission’s Web site (http:// at 202–789–6873 or via electronic mail directs the Public Representative to file www.prc.gov) or by directly accessing at [email protected]. The appeal and all related documents a report on the progress of settlement the Commission’s Filing Online system are also available for public inspection within 30 days of the issuance of this at https://www.prc.gov/prc-pages/filing- in the Commission’s docket section. order. online/login.aspx. Commenters who cannot submit their views electronically Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 V. Ordering Paragraphs should contact the person identified in p.m., eastern time, Monday through It is ordered: the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Friday, except on Federal government 1. The Commission defers its decision section as the source for case-related holidays. Docket section personnel may on whether the Complaint of the City information for advice on alternatives to be contacted via electronic mail at prc- and County of San Francisco presents electronic filing. [email protected] or via telephone at 202–789–6846. material questions of fact and law, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: pending settlement discussions between Filing of documents. All filings of Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, documents in this case shall be made the parties. at 202–789–6820 (case-related 2. The Commission directs the using the Internet (Filing Online) information) or [email protected] pursuant to Commission rules 9(a) and Complainant and the Postal Service to (electronic filing assistance). immediately engage in settlement 10(a) at the Commission’s Web site, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: negotiations with the goal of Notice is http://www.prc.gov, unless a waiver is expeditiously resolving this controversy hereby given that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. obtained. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and based on the Postal Service’s offer. 404(d), on August 15, 2011, the 3001.10(a). Instructions for obtaining an 3. The Commission, pursuant to Commission received a petition for account to file documents online may be section 505, appoints James Waclawski review of the Postal Service’s found on the Commission’s Web site or to serve as Public Representative in this determination to close the post office in by contacting the Commission’s docket proceeding and to serve as settlement Francitas, Texas. The petition was filed section at [email protected] or via coordinator. by Carolina Jalufka (Petitioner) and is telephone at 202–789–6846. 4. The Commission directs the postmarked August 6, 2011. The The Commission reserves the right to settlement coordinator to file a report Commission hereby institutes a redact personal information which may within 30 days of the date of this order. proceeding under 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5) infringe on an individual’s privacy 5. The Commission directs the and establishes Docket No. A2011–47 to rights from documents filed in this Secretary of the Commission to arrange consider Petitioner’s appeal. If proceeding. Petitioner would like to further explain Intervention. Persons, other than 9 San Francisco states that 18,000 San Franciscans her position with supplemental Petitioner and respondent, wishing to be live in SROs. Id. at 6. information or facts, Petitioner may heard in this matter are directed to file

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52721

a notice of intervention. See 39 CFR expedition, in light of the 120-day 2. Any responsive pleading by the 3001.111(b). Notices of intervention in decision schedule, the Commission may Postal Service to this notice is due no this case are to be filed on or before request the Postal Service or other later than August 30, 2011. September 12, 2011. A notice of participants to submit information or 3. The procedural schedule listed intervention shall be filed using the memoranda of law on any appropriate below is hereby adopted. Internet (Filing Online) at the issue. As required by the Commission 4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Patricia Commission’s Web site unless a waiver rules, if any motions are filed, responses A. Gallagher is designated officer of the is obtained for hardcopy filing. See 39 are due 7 days after any such motion is Commission (Public Representative) to CFR 3001.9(a) and 3001.10(a). filed. See 39 CFR 3001.21. represent the interests of the general public. Further procedures. By statute, the It is ordered: Commission is required to issue its 5. The Secretary shall arrange for 1. The Postal Service shall file the publication of this notice and order in decision within 120 days from the date applicable administrative record the Federal Register. it receives the appeal. See 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5). A procedural schedule has regarding this appeal no later than By the Commission. been developed to accommodate this August 30, 2011. Shoshana M. Grove, statutory deadline. In the interest of Secretary.

PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE

August 15, 2011 ...... Filing of Appeal. August 30, 2011 ...... Deadline for the Postal Service to file the applicable administrative record in this appeal. August 30, 2011 ...... Deadline for the Postal Service to file any responsive pleading. September 12, 2011 ...... Deadline for notices to intervene (see 39 CFR 3001.111(b)). September 19, 2011 ...... Deadline for Petitioner’s Form 61 or initial brief in support of petition (see 39 CFR 3001.115(a) and (b)). October 10, 2011 ...... Deadline for answering brief in support of the Postal Service (see 39 CFR 3001.115(c)). October 25, 2011 ...... Deadline for reply briefs in response to answering briefs (see 39 CFR 3001.115(d)). November 1, 2011 ...... Deadline for motions by any party requesting oral argument; the Commission will schedule oral argument only when it is a necessary addition to the written filings (see 39 CFR 3001.116). December 5, 2011 ...... Expiration of the Commission’s 120-day decisional schedule (see 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5)).

[FR Doc. 2011–21414 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] scheduled to hear from speakers who The public comment period for this BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P will provide an overview of the National meeting will take place on September Oceanic Atmospheric Administration 16, 2011 at a time specified in the environmental observation and meeting agenda posted on the PCAST OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND prediction activities, and the Web site at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/ TECHNOLOGY POLICY Department of Veterans Affairs’ Million pcast. This public comment period is Veteran Program. In addition, several designed only for substantive President’s Council of Advisors on agencies will update PCAST on the commentary on PCAST’s work, not for Science and Technology; Notice of implementation status of the business marketing purposes. Meeting: Partially Closed Meeting of recommendations it made in its report Oral Comments: To be considered for the President’s Council of Advisors on on Health Information Technology. the public speaker list at the meeting, Science and Technology Additional information and the agenda, interested parties should register to including any changes that arise, will be speak at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/ ACTION: Public Notice. posted at the PCAST Web site at: pcast, no later than 12 p.m. Eastern http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. Time on September 8, 2011. Phone or e- SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the mail reservations will not be accepted. Closed Portion of the Meeting: PCAST schedule and summary agenda for a To accommodate as many speakers as may hold a closed meeting of partially closed meeting of the possible, the time for public comments approximately 1 hour with the President President’s Council of Advisors on will be limited to two (2) minutes per on September 16, 2011, which must take Science and Technology (PCAST), and person, with a total public comment place in the White House for the describes the functions of the Council. period of 30 minutes. If more speakers President’s scheduling convenience and Notice of this meeting is required under register than there is space available on the Federal Advisory Committee Act to maintain Secret Service protection. the agenda, PCAST will randomly select (FACA), 5 U.S.C., App. This meeting will be closed to the speakers from among those who DATES: September 16, 2011. public because such portion of the applied. Those not selected to present meeting is likely to disclose matters that ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at oral comments may always file written the Marriott Metro Center, 775 12th are to be kept secret in the interest of comments with the committee. Speakers Street, NW., Ballroom Salon A, national defense or foreign policy under are requested to bring at least 25 copies Washington, DC. 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). of their oral comments for distribution Type of Meeting: Open and Closed. Public Comments: It is the policy of to the PCAST members. Proposed Schedule and Agenda: The the PCAST to accept written public Written Comments: Although written President’s Council of Advisors on comments of any length, and to comments are accepted until the date of Science and Technology (PCAST) is accommodate oral public comments the meeting, written comments should scheduled to meet in open session on whenever possible. The PCAST expects be submitted to PCAST no later than 12 September 16, 2011 from 10 a.m. to 5 that public statements presented at its p.m. Eastern Time on September 1, p.m. meetings will not be repetitive of 2011, so that the comments may be Open Portion of Meeting: During this previously submitted oral or written made available to the PCAST members open meeting, PCAST is tentatively statements. prior to the meeting for their

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52722 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

consideration. Information regarding so that appropriate arrangements can be SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE how to submit comments and made. COMMISSION documents to PCAST is available at Ted Wackler, [Release No. 34–65147; File No. SR–CBOE– http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast in the 2011–075] section entitled ‘‘Connect with PCAST.’’ Deputy Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. 2011–21422 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Please note that because PCAST Self-Regulatory Organizations; operates under the provisions of FACA, BILLING CODE P Chicago Board Options Exchange, all public comments and/or Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed presentations will be treated as public Rule Change To Amend Certain documents and will be made available SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Registration and Qualification for public inspection, including being COMMISSION Requirements posted on the PCAST Web site. August 17, 2011. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sunshine Act Meeting Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Information regarding the meeting Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 agenda, time, location, and how to Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the U.S.C. 78s(b)(1), notice is hereby given register for the meeting is available on that on August 4, 2011, Chicago Board the PCAST Web site at: http:// Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, that the Securities and Exchange Options Exchange, Incorporated whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. A live video (‘‘CBOE’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with Webcast and an archive of the Webcast Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, August 25, 2011 at 2 p.m. the Securities and Exchange after the event are expected to be Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the available at http://whitehouse.gov/ostp/ Commissioners, Counsel to the proposed rule change as described in pcast. The archived video will be Commissioners, the Secretary to the Items I and II below, which Items have available within one week of the Commission, and recording secretaries been prepared by CBOE. The meeting. Questions about the meeting will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain Commission is publishing this notice to should be directed to Dr. Deborah D. staff members who have an interest in solicit comments on the proposed rule Stine, PCAST Executive Director, at the matters also may be present. change from interested persons. [email protected], (202) 456–6006. The General Counsel of the I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Please note that public seating for this Commission, or his designee, has Statement of the Terms of Substance of meeting is limited and is available on a certified that, in his opinion, one or the Proposed Rule Change first-come, first-served basis. more of the exemptions set forth in 5 Pursuant to the provisions of Section SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act President’s Council of Advisors on and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) of 1934 (the ‘‘Act’’),1 the Chicago Board Science and Technology (PCAST) is an and (10), permit consideration of the Options Exchange, Incorporated advisory group of the nation’s leading scheduled matters at the Closed (‘‘CBOE’’ or the ‘‘Exchange’’) proposes scientists and engineers, appointed by Meeting. to amend its rules regarding registration the President to augment the science Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, and qualification of individual Trading and technology advice available to him voted to consider the items listed for the Permit Holders and individual from inside the White House and from Closed Meeting in a closed session. associated persons. The text of the proposed rule change is availableon the cabinet departments and other Federal The subject matter of the Closed Exchange’s Web site (http:// agencies. See the Executive Order at Meeting scheduled for Thursday, www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange’s http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/pcast. August 25, 2011 will be: PCAST is consulted about and provides Office of the Secretary and at the Institution and settlement of analyses and recommendations Commission’s Public Reference Room. injunctive actions; concerning a wide range of issues where II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s understandings from the domains of Institution and settlement of Statement of the Purpose of, and science, technology, and innovation administrative proceedings; and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule may bear on the policy choices before Other matters relating to enforcement Change the President. PCAST is administered proceedings. A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s by the Office of Science and Technology At times, changes in Commission Statement of the Purpose of, and Policy (OSTP). PCAST is co-chaired by priorities require alterations in the Statutory Basis for, Proposed Rule Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the scheduling of meeting items. Change President for Science and Technology, For further information and to and Director, Office of Science and 1. Purpose ascertain what, if any, matters have been Technology Policy, Executive Office of CBOE is proposing to amend added, deleted or postponed, please the President, The White House; and Dr. Exchange Rule 3.6A to (i) exempt from contact: Eric S. Lander, President, Broad registration and qualification individual Institute of MIT and Harvard. The Office of the Secretary at (202) associated persons that are restricted 551–5400. from accessing the Exchange (physically Meeting Accommodations: and electronically) and that do not Dated: August 18, 2011. Individuals requiring special engage in the securities business of the accommodation to access this public Elizabeth M. Murphy, Trading Permit Holder or TPH meeting should contact Dr. Stine at least Secretary. organization related to activity that ten business days prior to the meeting [FR Doc. 2011–21583 Filed 8–19–11; 11:15 am] occurs at the Exchange; and (ii) adopt BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52723

language that would eliminate the need do not engage in the securities business Series 9/10 and the Series 23 6 to formally file a waiver request for the of the Trading Permit Holder or TPH (including any prerequisite appropriate category of registration if organization related to activity that examinations) to satisfy the the individual Trading Permit Holder or occurs on the Exchange. CBOE believes qualification component associated with individual associated person maintains that these individuals do not need to be registration as a Proprietary Trader a registration(s) in designated categories. registered with the Exchange because Principal. Pursuant to Rule 15b7–1,2 these individuals do not access the 3 CBOE is proposing to limit the time promulgated under the Exchange Act, Exchange directly and do not engage in period for which an automatic waiver of ‘‘No registered broker or dealer shall the securities business of the Trading the Series 56 would be granted for those effect any transaction in * * * any Permit Holder relating to activity that individuals that maintain a Series 7 security unless any natural person occurs on the Exchange. For example, registration. Any individual seeking an associated with such broker or dealer Firm XYZ (‘‘XYZ’’) is a CBOE TPH automatic waiver of the Series 56 who effects or is involved in effecting organization and a member of NYSE because they maintain a Series 7 such transaction is registered or AMEX, LLC (‘‘AMEX’’). XYZ employs a approved in accordance with the market-maker, ABC, who is an registration must complete all standards of training, experience, associated person of XYZ registered as registration requirements in WebCRD competence, and other qualification a market-maker with the AMEX (and for the Proprietary Trader designation standards * * * established by the rules subject to the registration and no later than December 31, 2011. In of any national securities exchange qualification requirements of AMEX). addition, CBOE is proposing that * * *. CBOE Rule 3.6A sets forth the ABC would not be required to because the Series 23 is not available in requirements for registration and separately register with CBOE if ABC WebCRD, each applicant must provide qualification of individual Trading (who does not have physical or documentation of a valid Series 23 Permit Holders and individual electronic access to CBOE) submits an license to the Registration Services associated persons. In response to a order for execution to Broker DEF, a Department upon request for the Series request by the Division of Trading and registered broker-dealer and CBOE 24 registration in WebCRD. Markets of the Securities and Exchange Trading Permit Holder, who executes 2. Statutory Basis Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’ or the order at CBOE. Broker DEF is subject ‘‘SEC’’), CBOE recently amended its to the registration requirements of The proposed rule change is rules to expand its registration and CBOE. consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,7 qualification requirements set forth in In conjunction with the registration in general, and furthers the objectives of CBOE Rule 3.6A to include individual requirements established by SR–CBOE– Section 6(b)(1) 8 of the Act in particular, Trading Permit Holders and individual 2010–084, three new qualification in that it is designed to enforce associated persons that are engaged or to examinations became available on June compliance by Exchange members and be engaged in the securities business of 20, 2011 in the Central Registration persons associated with its members a Trading Permit Holder or TPH Depository system (‘‘WebCRD’’), which with the rules of the Exchange. The organization.4 CBOE Rule 3.6A provides is operated by the Financial Industry Exchange also believes the proposed that these individuals must be registered Regulatory Authority, Incorporated rule change furthers the objectives of with the Exchange in the category of (‘‘FINRA’’). These registration categories Section 6(c)(3) 9 of the Act, which registration appropriate to the function include the following (the required authorizes CBOE to prescribe standards to be performed as prescribed by the qualification examinations and of training, experience and competence Exchange. Further, Rule 3.6A requires, prerequisites, as applicable, associated for persons associated with CBOE among other things, that an individual with each registration category are in Trading Permit Holders, in that this Trading Permit Holder or individual parentheses): PT—Proprietary Trader filing proposes to amend and clarify the associated person submit an application (Series 56), CT—Proprietary Trader registration and qualification for registration and pass the appropriate Compliance Officer (Series 14, Series 56 requirements set forth in Exchange Rule qualification examination before the prerequisite) and TP—Proprietary 3.6A. CBOE believes the proposed registration can become effective. The Trader Principal (Series 24, Series 56 changes are reasonable and set forth the revised requirements apply to both prerequisite). CBOE is proposing to appropriate qualifications for an CBOE and CBOE Stock Exchange adopt language that would eliminate the individual Trading Permit Holder and (‘‘CBSX’’) Trading Permit Holders and need to formally file a waiver request for individual associated person that is their associated persons. the appropriate category of registration required to register under Exchange CBOE Rule 3.6A(a)(2) sets forth the if the individual Trading Permit Holder Rule 3.6A, including, but not limited to, types of individuals that are exempt or individual associated person Market-Makers, proprietary traders and 5 from registration. CBOE is proposing to maintains designated registration individuals effecting transactions on amend this provision to also exempt categories. Specifically, CBOE is behalf of other broker-dealers. individual associated persons that are proposing to permit individuals that restricted from accessing the Exchange maintain a Series 7 to satisfy the 6 The Series 23 is designed to test a candidate’s (physically and electronically) and that qualification component associated with knowledge of the rules and statutory provisions registration as a Proprietary Trader. applicable to the management of a broker-dealer. It 2 17 CFR 240.15b7–1. Similarly, CBOE is proposing to accept is CBOE’s understanding that FINRA permits the 3 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. the Series 24 (including any prerequisite Series 23 as an alternative to the Series 24 for its 4 members who are registered as General Securities See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63314 examinations) to satisfy the (November 12, 2010), 75 FR 70957 (November 19, Sales Supervisors and who are seeking to register 2010) (SR–CBOE–2010–084). qualification component associated with and qualify as General Securities Principals. The 5 Even if an individual associated person is registration as a Proprietary Trader Series 23 examination covers material from the exempt from registration with the CBOE under Rule Compliance Officer. CBOE is also Series 24 examination not otherwise covered under the Series 9/10 examination. 3.6A, Rule 17.1 provides, in relevant part, ‘‘A proposing to allow individual Trading Trading Permit Holder or a person associated with 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). a Trading Permit Holder * * * shall be subject to Permit Holders and/or individual 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Exchange.’’ associated persons that maintain the 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52724 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Securities and Exchange Commission, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Statement on Burden on Competition 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC COMMISSION 20549–1090. CBOE does not believe that the [Release No. 34–65094; File No. SR– proposed rule change will impose any All submissions should refer to File NASDAQ–2011–115] burden on competition that is not Number SR–CBOE–2011–075. This file Self-Regulatory Organizations; the necessary or appropriate in furtherance number should be included on the of purposes of the Act. NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Commission process and review your Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Statement on Comments on the comments more efficiently, please use Pilot Period of the Trading Pause for Proposed Rule Change Received From only one method. The Commission will NMS Stocks Members, Participants or Others post all comments on the Commission’s No written comments were solicited Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ August 10, 2011. or received with respect to the proposed rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the Correction rule change. submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements In notice document 2011–20735 III. Date of Effectiveness of the with respect to the proposed rule appearing on pages 50779–50781 in the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for issue of August 16, 2011, make the Commission change that are filed with the Commission, and all written following correction: Because the foregoing proposed rule communications relating to the On page 50779, in the second column, change does not: (i) Significantly affect the File No. in the heading is corrected proposed rule change between the the protection of investors or the public to read as it appears above. Commission and any person, other than interest; (ii) impose any significant [FR Doc. C1–2011–20735 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] those that may be withheld from the burden on competition; and (iii) become BILLING CODE 1505–01–D operative for 30 days after the date of public in accordance with the the filing, or such shorter time as the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Commission may designate, it has available for Web site viewing and SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE become effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) printing in the Commission’s Public COMMISSION 10 11 Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., of the Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(6) [Release No. 34–65158; File No. SR–MSRB– thereunder. Washington, DC 20549, on official 2011–11] At any time within 60 days of the business days between the hours of filing of the proposed rule change, the 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing Self-Regulatory Organizations; Commission summarily may also will be available for inspection and Municipal Securities Rulemaking temporarily suspend such rule change if copying at the principal office of CBOE. Board; Notice of Filing of Amendments it appears to the Commission that such All comments received will be posted to Rule A–3, on Membership on the action is necessary or appropriate in the without change; the Commission does Board public interest, for the protection of not edit personal identifying August 18, 2011. investors, or otherwise in furtherance of information from submissions. You Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the the purposes of the Act. should submit only information that Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the you wish to make publicly available. All IV. Solicitation of Comments ‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 Interested persons are invited to submissions should refer to File notice is hereby given that on August submit written data, views, and Number SR–CBOE–2011–075 and 11, 2011, the Municipal Securities arguments concerning the foregoing, should be submitted on or before Rulemaking Board (‘‘Board’’ or including whether the proposed rule September 13, 2011. ‘‘MSRB’’) filed with the Securities and change is consistent with the Act. For the Commission, by the Division of Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’ or Comments may be submitted by any of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule the following methods: authority.12 change as described in Items I, II, and Electronic Comments Elizabeth M. Murphy, III below, which Items have been • Secretary. prepared by the MSRB. The Use the Commission’s Internet Commission is publishing this notice to [FR Doc. 2011–21465 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ solicit comments on the proposed rule rules/sro.shtml); or BILLING CODE 8011–01–P change from interested persons. • Send an e-mail to rule- [email protected]. Please include File I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Number SR–CBOE–2011–075 on the Statement of the Terms of Substance of subject line. the Proposed Rule Change Paper Comments The MSRB is filing with the SEC a • Send paper comments in triplicate proposed rule change consisting of to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, amendments to Rule A–3, on membership on the Board, in order to 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). establish a permanent Board structure of 11 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b– 21 Board members divided into three 4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give classes, each class being comprised of the Commission written notice of its intent to file seven members who would serve three the proposed rule change at least five business days year terms. The terms would be prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). requirement. 12 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52725

staggered and, each year, one class requirements of revised Section (a) of monitor the effectiveness of the would be nominated and elected to the Rule A–3 during such extension structure of the Board to determine to Board of Directors. periods. what extent, if any, proposed changes The text of the proposed rule change In an order approving changes to might be appropriate. Additionally, in is available on the MSRB’s Web site at MSRB Rule A–3 to comply with the its response to comment letters, the http://www.msrb.org/Rules-and- provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall MSRB suggested that, at the end of the Interpretations/SEC–Filings/2011– Street Reform and Consumer Protection transitional period, the MSRB would be Filings.aspx, at the MSRB’s principal Act (the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’) (Pub. L. in a better position to make long-term office, and at the Commission’s Public 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010)) decisions regarding representation, size Reference Room. requiring the Board to have a majority and related matters. of independent public members and While the transitional period has not II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s municipal advisor representation,3 the yet concluded, the Board believes it is Statement of the Purpose of, and Commission approved a transitional now in a position to establish a Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule provision of the rule that increased the permanent structure. The MSRB has Change Board from 15 to 21 members, 11 of now operated as an expanded, majority- In its filing with the Commission, the whom would be independent public public Board with representation of MSRB included statements concerning members and 10 of whom would be municipal advisors, as approved by the the purpose of and basis for the members representing regulated entities. Commission, for approximately one proposed rule change and discussed any Of the public members, at least one fiscal year. During this period, the Board comments it received on the proposed would be representative of municipal has engaged in the full range of MSRB rule change. The text of these statements entities, at least one would be activities. In a typical year, the Board may be examined at the places specified representative of institutional or retail meets quarterly but this year, due to the in Item IV below. The Board has investors, and at least one would be a requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act and prepared summaries, set forth in member of the public with knowledge of the new rulemaking authority over Sections A, B, and C below, of the most or experience in the municipal industry. municipal advisors, the Board met six significant aspects of such statements. Of the regulated members, at least one times in person and numerous times by would be representative of broker- phone. Additionally, Board members A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s dealers, at least one would be participated in committee meetings and Statement of the Purpose of, and representative of bank dealers, and at informal conversations. The Board has Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule least one, but not less than 30% of the undertaken many significant rulemaking Change regulated members, would be initiatives regulating the activities of 1. Purpose representative of municipal advisors brokers, dealers, municipal securities that are not associated with broker- dealers and municipal advisors that The purpose of the proposed rule dealers or bank dealers. would provide important protections for change is to make changes to MSRB The Commission also approved a investors, municipal entities, obligated Rule A–3 as are necessary and provision in MSRB Rule A–3 that persons and the public interest. In appropriate to establish a permanent defined an independent public member particular, notwithstanding its larger Board structure of 21 Board members as one with no material business size, the Board acted swiftly to propose divided into three classes, each class relationship with an MSRB regulated and, in many cases, adopt baseline rules being comprised of seven members who entity, meaning that, within the last two for municipal advisors, and also would serve three year terms. The terms years, the individual was not associated promulgate additional rules and would be staggered and, each year, one with a municipal securities broker, interpretive guidance applicable to class would be nominated and elected municipal securities dealer, or brokers, dealers and municipal to the Board of Directors. municipal advisor, and that the securities dealers. The insight of Board In order to facilitate the transition to individual has no relationship with any members with diverse backgrounds and three staggered classes, Rule A–3 would such entity, whether compensatory or viewpoints contributed considerably to include a transitional provision, Rule otherwise, that reasonably could affect the quality of the initiatives. In addition, A–3(h), applicable for the Board’s fiscal the independent judgment or decision the Board has continued to develop, years commencing October 1, 2012, and making of the individual. The rule operate and maintain information ending September 30, 2014, which further provided that the Board, or by systems critical to investors, municipal would provide that Board members who delegation, its Nominating and entities and market professionals. were elected prior to July 2011 and Governance Committee, could also Furthermore, the Board has made whose terms end on or after September determine that additional circumstances significant efforts to orient previously 30, 2012, may be considered for term involving the individual could unregulated municipal advisors to the extensions not exceeding two years, in constitute a material business realities of a regulated environment order to facilitate the transition to three relationship with an MSRB regulated through an unprecedented level of staggered classes of seven Board entity. outreach and education activities. members per class. The transitional In finding that the proposed rule Given the extensive interaction among provision would further provide that change was reasonable and consistent Board members, the Board was able to Board members would be nominated for with the requirements of the Securities evaluate its effectiveness, particularly in term extensions by a Special Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Exchange the development of a body of rules Nominating Committee formed pursuant Act’’) (15 U.S.C. 78o–4), in that it governing the activities of municipal to Rule A–6, on committees of the provided for fair representation of advisors while maintaining its prior Board, and that the Board would then public representatives and MSRB level of regulatory and other activities in vote on each proposed term extension. regulated entities, the Commission connection with brokers, dealers and The selection of Board members whose noted that the MSRB had committed to municipal securities dealers. The Board terms would be extended would be believes that it has acted effectively as consistent with ensuring that the Board 3 See SEC Release No. 34–63025, File No. SR– a regulator carrying out the functions is in compliance with the composition MSRB–2010–08 (September 30, 2010). contemplated by the Exchange Act and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52726 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

the Dodd-Frank Act and that its current dealers, and municipal advisors, a therefore, are less likely to have a size and composition have been Board of 21 members provides more personal interest in the nomination significant factors in the Board’s flexibility to provide representation process that could affect their efficient and effective operation during from various sectors of the market. For independent judgment. The class of this transition period. The Board further example, at a 21-member level, the 2011 is ineligible and, hence, believes there has been sufficient time Board would be in a position to appoint disinterested because the term to evaluate its effectiveness and has municipal entity representatives that extensions would commence as of fiscal determined to proceed at this time with serve large and small constituencies, year 2013, and these members would no this proposed rule change to ensure that such as states and state agencies, cities, longer be on the Board at that time. the federally mandated rule proposal and other municipal entities, while at Additionally, one public member from process necessary to obtain SEC the same time retaining the flexibility to the class of 2012 is disinterested approval can be completed in time for appoint academics and others with a because the transition plan does not the MSRB to undertake its Board broader view of the market. A smaller contemplate an extension for public member election process in a thorough Board would be constrained in this members from that class. Therefore, and orderly manner for the first class of regard. Moreover, at a 21-member level, there are six disinterested Board Board members to serve after the the Board would be similar in size to its members, five of whom comprise the conclusion of the transition period. counterpart, the Board of Governors of Special Nominating Committee, which In order to evaluate the effectiveness the Financial Industry Regulatory includes three public members and two of the Board, the Nominating and Authority (‘‘FINRA’’), the self-regulatory regulated members. The Chair of the Governance Committee developed a organization that works closely with the Committee was selected from amongst survey of the members of the Board that Board to enforce Board rules applicable the public members. The Board believes addressed various governance issues, to FINRA members. Consequently, a that a Special Nominating Committee of such as participation in Board Board of 21 members is appropriate and disinterested members, led by a public deliberations by individual Board consistent with industry norms. chair and with a public majority, is in members and constituencies, The survey results confirm the development of Board agendas, skills individual sentiments of Board the best position to nominate Board and experience of Board members, role members that the Board, as currently members for term extensions, in that of Board committees and staff, and constituted, is effective and provides these members are least likely to have management of Board meetings. The fair representation of public and personal interests regarding the term survey inquired as to the ability of industry members. Consequently, the extensions that could affect their industry and public Board members to Board voted to approve changes to independent judgments. participate in Board meeting MSRB Rule A–3 to make permanent a The Dodd-Frank Act provides that the discussions and debate, such as whether Board of 11 independent public Board shall be composed of 15 members the Board considers adequately the members and 10 regulated members, or more, provided that such number is interests of municipal advisors in its with at least 30% of the regulated an odd number, as specified by the rules deliberations, and whether discussions members being municipal advisors who of the Board. The Board has voted to on key issues include a balance of are not associated with brokers, dealers increase its membership to 21 and to perspectives. The survey results or municipal securities dealers (‘‘non- eliminate Rule A–3(b), which provides indicated that Board members believe dealer municipal advisors’’). The Board that the Board may increase or decrease the 21-member Board is working further voted to divide itself into three its membership by multiples of six, in effectively and that the Board, as classes of seven, serving staggered three- order to maintain an odd number, and constituted, can carry out its mission year terms. Each class would be as that the membership be equally divided and objectives. Board members also evenly divided as possible between among public members, bank dealers, believe that all constituents, industry public members and regulated members, and broker-dealers, so long as the and public, are appropriately and there would be at least one non- membership is not less than 15. This represented by Board members who are dealer municipal advisor in each of the section is no longer applicable, since the able to provide input into the three classes. The Board believes this Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the prior development of Board agendas and permanent structure is consistent with statutory requirement that the Board participate actively in deliberations. the Exchange Act and provides fair consist of five public members, five While the Board proposes a representation of public members, bank dealer representatives, and five composition greater than the statutory broker-dealers, bank dealers and broker-dealer representatives. Moreover, minimum of 15, the Board believes this municipal advisors. there is no necessity to specify in a membership level is appropriate, given Finally, the Board voted to permit Board rule that the membership may be the diversity of the municipal securities existing Board members to be greater than 15, provided that the marketplace and its constituencies, considered for extended terms of up to membership is set at an odd number, many of whom are required by statute two years, in order to transition to three since such a provision is incorporated to be represented on the Board. The staggered classes. A transition plan is Exchange Act requires the Board to have necessary to balance the classes with into the Exchange Act. Future changes at least one retail or institutional public and regulated representatives in size of the Board, if any, would be investor representative, at least one and to ensure there is at least one non- effected through the rule change process municipal entity representative, at least dealer municipal advisor per class. In consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act one member of the public with order to carry out the transition plan, provisions. Hence, section (b) is no knowledge of or experience in the the Board voted to create, by resolution, longer necessary. municipal securities industry, at least a Special Nominating Committee of five 2. Statutory Basis one broker-dealer representative, at least disinterested Board members to one bank dealer representative, and at nominate certain Board members for The MSRB has adopted the proposed least one municipal advisor extended terms. Disinterested Board rule change pursuant to Section representative. Given the diversity of members are those members who are 15B(b)(2)(B) of the Act, which provides municipal entities, broker-dealers, bank ineligible for a term extension and, that the MSRB’s rules shall:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52727

establish fair procedures for the nomination minimum number of non-dealer Securities and Exchange Commission, and election of members of the Board and municipal advisors—at least 30% of the 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC assure fair representation in such regulated representatives—is 20549–1090. nominations and elections of public reasonable, and consistent with the representatives, broker dealer All submissions should refer to File Exchange Act. representatives, bank representatives, and Number SR–MSRB–2011–11. This file advisor representatives. Such rules— B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s number should be included on the (i) Shall provide that the number of public Statement on Burden on Competition subject line if e-mail is used. To help the representatives of the Board shall at all times Commission process and review your exceed the total number of regulated The Board does not believe that the representatives and that the membership proposed rule change will impose any comments more efficiently, please use shall at all times be as evenly divided in burden on competition not necessary or only one method. The Commission will number as possible between public appropriate in furtherance of the post all comments on the Commission’s representatives and regulated representatives; purposes of the Act since it is solely Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/ (ii) Shall specify the length or lengths of concerned with the administration of sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all terms members shall serve; the MSRB and, in any event, provides subsequent amendments, all written (iii) May increase the number of members statements with respect to the proposed which shall constitute the whole Board, for fair representation on the Board of public representatives, broker dealer rule change that are filed with the provided that such number is an odd Commission, and all written number; and representatives, bank dealer (iv) Shall establish requirements regarding representatives and municipal advisor communications relating to the the independence of public representatives. representatives. proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than The MSRB believes the proposed rule C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s those that may be withheld from the change is consistent with the Exchange Statement on Comments on the public in accordance with the Act in that the proposal provides that Proposed Rule Change Received From provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be the number of public representatives of Members, Participants, or Others available for website viewing and the Board shall exceed the total number Written comments were neither printing in the Commission’s Public of regulated representatives by one so solicited nor received on the proposed Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., that the membership shall be as evenly rule change. Washington, DC 20549, on official divided as possible between public business days between the hours of 10 representatives and regulated III. Date of Effectiveness of the am and 3 pm. Copies of such filing also representatives—11 to 10. The proposal Proposed Rule Change and Timing for will be available for inspection and specifies the length of term that Board Commission Action copying at the MSRB’s offices. All members will serve—three years— Within 45 days of the date of comments received will be posted which is consistent with the length of publication of this notice in the Federal without change; the Commission does the terms served by Board members Register or within such longer period (i) not edit personal identifying prior to the adoption of the Dodd-Frank as the Commission may designate up to information from submissions. You Act. The proposal increases the size of 90 days of such date if it finds such should submit only information that the Board from 15 to 21, consistent with longer period to be appropriate and you wish to make available publicly. All the size of the Board during the publishes its reasons for so finding or submissions should refer to File transitional period that commenced on (ii) as to which the self-regulatory Number SR–MSRB–2011–11 and should October 1, 2010. For the reasons organization consents, the Commission be submitted on or before September 13, discussed earlier, the Board believes a will: 2011. 21-member Board is effective and fairly (A) By order approve or disapprove For the Commission, by the Division of represents all constituencies referenced such proposed rule change, or in the Exchange Act, including public Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated (B) institute proceedings to determine authority.4 representatives and regulated whether the proposed rule change Elizabeth M. Murphy, representatives. Finally, the proposed should be disapproved. rule change maintains the existing Secretary. requirement regarding the IV. Solicitation of Comments [FR Doc. 2011–21557 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] independence of public representatives. Interested persons are invited to BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Section 15B(b)(1) of the Exchange Act submit written data, views, and further sets forth minimum arguments concerning the foregoing, representation requirements for certain including whether the proposed rule SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE categories of public representatives, as change is consistent with the Act. COMMISSION well as for bank dealer, broker-dealer Comments may be submitted by any of and municipal advisor representatives. the following methods: [Release No. 34–65150; File No. SR– The proposed rule change complies NASDAQ–2011–113] with these requirements. The Exchange Electronic Comments Act does not, however, mandate the • Use the Commission’s Internet Self-Regulatory Organizations; The specific number of any class of comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of representative that should serve on the rules/sro.shtml); or Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Board, nor does it set forth maximum • Send an e-mail to rule- a Proposed Rule Change Regarding Board composition or representation [email protected]. Please include File Clerical Changes to Its Rules requirements. Thus, the MSRB believes Number SR–MSRB–2011–11 on the August 17, 2011. that its proposal does provide for fair subject line. representation of public representatives, Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the broker-dealers, bank dealers and Paper Comments Securities Exchange Act of 1934 municipal advisors under the Exchange • Send paper comments in triplicate Act, and it believes that providing a to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 4 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52728 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 typographic error in the Rule. The investors, or otherwise in furtherance of notice is hereby given that on August 5, Exchange is not making any substantive the purposes of the Act. 2011, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC changes to Rule 5710. (‘‘NASDAQ’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with IV. Solicitation of Comments 2. Statutory Basis the Securities and Exchange Interested persons are invited to Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the NASDAQ believes that the proposed submit written data, views, and proposed rule change as described in rule change is consistent with the 4 arguments concerning the foregoing, Items I and II, which Items have been provisions of Section 6 of the Act, in including whether the proposed rule prepared by NASDAQ. The Commission general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the change is consistent with the Act. Act,5 in particular, in that the proposal is publishing this notice to solicit Comments may be submitted by any of is designed to prevent fraudulent and comments on the proposed rule change the following methods: from interested persons. manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of Electronic Comments I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s trade, to foster cooperation and • Statement of the Terms of the Substance coordination with persons engaged in Use the Commission’s Internet of the Proposed Rule Change regulating, clearing, settling, processing comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ NASDAQ proposes to make clerical information with respect to, and rules/sro.shtml); or corrections to correct cross-references facilitating transactions in securities, to • Send an e-mail to rule- and a typographical error in Rule 5710 remove impediments to and perfect the [email protected]. Please include File of the NASDAQ rulebook. NASDAQ mechanism of a free and open market Number SR–NASDAQ–2011–113 on the proposes to implement the proposed and a national market system, and, in subject line. rule change immediately. general, to protect investors and the The text of the proposed rule change public interest. The proposed rule Paper Comments is available on NASDAQ’s Web site at change is consistent with these • http://www.nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, Send paper comments in triplicate provisions in that it will eliminate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, at NASDAQ’s principal office, on the confusion about NASDAQ rules by Securities and Exchange Commission, Commission’s Web site at http:// updating inaccurate cross-references to 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC www.sec.gov, and at the Commission’s rules that have been renumbered, 20549–1090. Public Reference Room. without changing the substance of the II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s rules. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–NASDAQ–2011–113. This Statement of the Purpose of, and B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s file number should be included on the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Statement on Burden on Competition Change subject line if e-mail is used. To help the NASDAQ does not believe that the Commission process and review your In its filing with the Commission, proposed rule change will result in any comments more efficiently, please use NASDAQ included statements burden on competition that is not only one method. The Commission will concerning the purpose of and basis for necessary or appropriate in furtherance post all comments on the Commission’s the proposed rule change and discussed of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ any comments it received on the rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the proposed rule change. The text of these C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s submission, all subsequent statements may be examined at the Statement on Comments on the amendments, all written statements places specified in Item IV below. Proposed Rule Change Received From with respect to the proposed rule NASDAQ has prepared summaries, set Members, Participants or Others change that are filed with the forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of Written comments were neither Commission, and all written the most significant aspects of such solicited nor received. communications relating to the statements. III. Date of Effectiveness of the proposed rule change between the A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission and any person, other than Statement of the Purpose of, and Commission Action those that may be withheld from the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule public in accordance with the Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be Change 6 7 Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(3) thereunder, available for Web site viewing and 1. Purpose NASDAQ has designated this proposal printing in the Commission’s Public NASDAQ proposes to make clerical as one that is concerned solely with the Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., corrections to update certain cross- administration of the self-regulatory Washington, DC 20549, on official references in Rule 5710 and correct a organization. Accordingly, NASDAQ business days between the hours of 10 typographic error. NASDAQ believes this proposal should become a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing inadvertently failed to change these immediately effective. also will be available for inspection and cross-references when the listing rules At any time within 60 days of the copying at the principal office of the were relocated from the Rule 4000 filing of such proposed rule change, the Exchange. All comments received will Series of the NASDAQ Rulebook to the Commission summarily may be posted without change; the Rule 5000 Series.3 This rule filing will temporarily suspend such rule change if Commission does not edit personal correct those cross-references. In it appears to the Commission that such identifying information from addition, this rule filing will correct a action is necessary or appropriate in the submissions. You should submit only public interest, for the protection of information that you wish to make 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). available publicly. All submissions 2 4 15 U.S.C. 78f. 17 CFR 240.19b–4. should refer to File No. SR–NASDAQ– 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59663 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). (March 31, 2009), 74 FR 15552 (April 6, 2009) (SR– 6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). 2011–113 and should be submitted on NASDAQ–2009–018). 7 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(3). or before September 13, 2011.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52729

For the Commission, by the Division of appreciation plus dividends over a following the listing of these Alpha Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated given evaluation period. Index options, options on each of the authority.8 The Alpha Index options that the component securities of the Alpha Elizabeth M. Murphy, Commission has previously approved Index must continue to meet the Secretary. for listing and trading on the Exchange continued listing standards set forth by [FR Doc. 2011–21466 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] are limited to specific Alpha Indexes the Exchange Rule 1010, Withdrawal of BILLING CODE 8011–01–P Target Component of which is a single Approval of Underlying Securities or stock.4 The Exchange proposes to Options. expand the number of Alpha Indexes on Position Limits SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE which options can be listed to include COMMISSION certain Alpha Indexes based on the The Exchange also proposes to amend following Alpha Pairs: DIA/SPY, EEM/ section (f) of Exchange Rule 1001A to [Release No. 34–65149; File No. SR–Phlx– SPY, EWJ/SPY, EWZ/SPY, FXI/SPY, establish a 15,000 contract position 2011–89] GLD/SPY, IWM/SPY, QQQ/SPY, SLV/ limit in options on Alpha Indexes in SPY, TLT/SPY, XLE/SPY and XLF/SPY. which the Target Component is an ETF Self-Regulatory Organizations; In these Alpha Indexes, the Target share. This 15,000 contract position NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Order Component as well as the Benchmark limit would apply not only to the Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Component is an ETF share. The specific Alpha Index options proposed Change Relating to Alpha Index proposed Alpha Index options will herein, but also to any options the Options enable investors to trade the relative Exchange may list in the future on performance of the market sectors Alpha Indexes in which the Target August 17, 2011. represented by the Target Components Component is an ETF share.6 For I. Introduction as compared with the overall market purposes of determining compliance with position limits, positions in Alpha On June 23, 2011, NASDAQ OMX performance represented by the Index options will be aggregated with PHLX LLC (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘Phlx’’) Benchmark Component SPY. As with each initial Alpha Index positions in equity options on the filed with the Securities and Exchange option, each proposed new Alpha Index underlying securities. All position limit Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’), option will meet the criteria set forth in hedge exemptions will apply. pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Exchange Rule 1009A(f).5 Further, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Clearing ‘‘Act’’),1 a proposed rule change to list 4 The Commission previously approved the Like the Alpha Index options that are and trade options on a number of new listing and trading of options on Alpha Indexes currently trading, the proposed new Alpha Indexes and to amend Exchange based on the following Alpha Pairs: AAPL/SPY, Alpha Index options are ‘‘Strategy Based Rule 1001A, Position Limits, with AMZN/SPY, CSCO/SPY, F/SPY, GE/SPY, GOOG/ SPY, HPQ/SPY, IBM/SPY, INTC/SPY, KO/SPY, Options’’ that will be cleared by the respect to certain Alpha Index options. MRK/SPY, MSFT/SPY, ORCL/SPY, PFE/SPY, Options Clearing Corporation. The proposed rule change was RIMM/SPY, T/SPY, TGT/SPY, VZ/SPY and WMT/ published for comment in the Federal SPY. See supra note 3. In connection with its Surveillance Register on July 8, 2011.2 The proposed rule change to list and trade this initial Surveillance for opening price set of Alpha Index options, the Exchange Commission received no comment represented that it would not list Alpha Index manipulation will be in place for the letters on the proposed rule change. options on any other Alpha Pairs without filing a launch of these new Alpha Index This order approves the proposed rule proposed rule change seeking Commission options and other existing surveillance change. approval. See id. patterns will be utilized to monitor 5 Rule 1009A(f) requires that options on Alpha trading in these options. The Exchange II. Description Indexes meet the following criteria: (1) Alpha Index options will be A.M.-settled. The exercise represents that these surveillance On February 7, 2011, the Commission settlement value will be based upon the opening procedures are adequate to monitor the approved the Exchange’s proposed rule prices of the individual stock or ETF from the primary listing market on the last trading day prior trading of the new Alpha Index options. change to list and trade options on a to expiration (usually a Friday); (2) at the time of For surveillance purposes, the Exchange number of Alpha Indexes.3 Alpha listing an Alpha Index option, options on each will have complete access to Indexes measure relative total returns of underlying component of an Alpha Index will also information regarding trading activity in be listed and traded on the Exchange and will meet one underlying stock or exchange traded the requirements of Rule 1009, Criteria for the pertinent underlying securities and fund (‘‘ETF’’) share against another Underlying Securities. Additionally, each options thereon. underlying stock or ETF share underlying component’s trading volume (in all Margin underlying options which are also markets in which the underlying security is traded) must have averaged at least 2,250,000 shares per traded on the Exchange (each such day in the preceding twelve months; (3) following The Exchange will set customer combination of two components is the listing of an Alpha Index option, options on margin levels for the new Alpha Index referred to as an ‘‘Alpha Pair’’). The first each of the component securities of the Alpha Index options at the higher of the margin will continue to meet the continued listing required for options on the Target component identified in an Alpha Pair standards set forth by Phlx Rule 1010, Withdrawal (the ‘‘Target Component’’) is measured of Approval of Underlying Securities or Options. Component or the margin required for against the second component identified Additionally, each underlying component’s trading options on the Benchmark Component. in the Alpha Pair (the ‘‘Benchmark volume (in all markets in which the underlying security is traded) must have averaged at least Systems Capacity Component’’). Total return measures 2,000,000 shares per day in the preceding twelve Additionally, the Exchange affirms performance (rate of return) of price months; and (4) no Alpha Index option will be listed unless and until options overlying each of the that it possesses the necessary systems Alpha Index component securities have been listed capacity to support new series that 8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). and traded on a national securities exchange with 1 would result from the introduction of 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). an average daily options trading volume during the 2 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64788 three previous months of at least 10,000 contracts. these new Alpha Index options. The (July 1, 2011), 76 FR 40415 (‘‘Notice’’). Following the listing of an Alpha Index option, 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63860 options on each of the component securities of the 6 The Exchange will not, however, list options on (February 7, 2011), 76 FR 7888 (February 11, 2011) Alpha Index must continue to meet this options any such Alpha Pairs without filing a proposed rule (SR–Phlx–2010–176). average daily volume standard. change seeking Commission approval.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52730 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

Exchange also has been informed that any Alpha Index option.11 Furthermore, For the Commission, by the Division of the Options Price Reporting Authority brokers opening accounts and Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated (‘‘OPRA’’) has the capacity to support recommending options transactions authority.15 such new series. must comply with relevant customer Elizabeth M. Murphy, suitability standards.12 Secretary. Customer Protection Exchange rules applicable to Alpha [FR Doc. 2011–21486 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Exchange rules designed to protect Index options will also apply to the BILLING CODE 8011–01–P public customers trading in options Alpha Index options proposed herein. would apply to the new Alpha Index As stated in the previous approval for options. Phlx Rule 1026 is designed to the listing and trading of Alpha Index ensure that options, including Alpha options, the Commission believes that SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Index options, are sold only to the listing rules for Alpha Index options customers capable of evaluating and are consistent with the Act. Further, the Reporting and Recordkeeping bearing the risks associated with trading Commission notes that Alpha Index Requirements Under OMB Review in the instruments. Phlx Rule 1024, options will be listed only on the AGENCY: Small Business Administration. applicable to the conduct of accounts, specific Alpha Indexes approved by the ACTION: Phlx Rule 1025 relating to the Commission.13 The Exchange has Notice of Reporting supervision of accounts, Phlx Rule 1028 represented that it will not list options Requirements Submitted for OMB relating to confirmations, and Phlx Rule on any new Alpha Indexes without Review. 1029 relating to the delivery of options filing a proposed rule change seeking SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the disclosure documents also apply to Commission approval. trading in Alpha Index options. Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. The Commission notes that the Chapter 35), agencies are required to Exchange Rules Applicable Exchange has represented that it will submit proposed reporting and All other Exchange rules applicable to have adequate surveillance procedures recordkeeping requirements to OMB for Alpha Index options will also apply to in place for trading in the new Alpha review and approval, and to publish a the Alpha Index options proposed Index options. Opening price notice in the Federal Register notifying herein. manipulation surveillance will be in the public that the agency has made place for the launch of the new options such a submission. III. Discussion on Alpha Indexes and other existing DATES: Submit comments on or before surveillance patterns will be utilized to The Commission finds that the September 22, 2011. If you intend to monitor trading in options on each new proposed rule change is consistent with comment but cannot prepare comments Alpha Index. In addition, for the requirements of the Act and the promptly, please advise the OMB surveillance purposes, the Exchange rules and regulations thereunder Reviewer and the Agency Clearance will have complete access to applicable to a national securities Officer before the deadline. 7 information regarding trading activity in exchange. Specifically, the Copies: Request for clearance (OMB the pertinent underlying securities and Commission finds that the proposal is 83–1), supporting statement, and other options thereon. Further, the consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the documents submitted to OMB for 8 Commission believes that the Act, which requires, among other review may be obtained from the Exchange’s proposed position and things, that the rules of a national Agency Clearance Officer. securities exchange be designed to exercise limits for the new Alpha Index ADDRESSES: Address all comments prevent fraudulent and manipulative options are appropriate and consistent concerning this notice to: Agency acts and practices, to promote just and with the Act. Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, equitable principles of trade, to remove Lastly, the Commission notes that the Small Business Administration, 409 3rd impediments to and perfect the Exchange has affirmed that it possesses Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, D.C. mechanism of a free and open market the necessary systems capacity to 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of and a national market system and, in support any new series that would Information and Regulatory Affairs, general, to protect investors and the result from the introduction of the new Office of Management and Budget, New public interest. Alpha Index options. Executive Office Building, Washington, As a national securities exchange, IV. Conclusion Phlx is required, under Section 6(b)(1) DC 20503. of the Act,9 to enforce compliance by its It is therefore ordered, pursuant to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: members, and persons associated with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,14 that the Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance its members, with the provisions of the proposed rule change (SR–Phlx–2011– Officer, (202) 205–7044. Act, Commission rules and regulations 89) be, and hereby is, approved. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: thereunder, and its own rules. In Title: ‘‘Personal Financial Statement’’. addition, brokers that trade the new 11 See Exchange Rule 1029. Frequency: On Occasion. Alpha Index options will also be subject 12 See Exchange Rule 1026. See also Exchange SBA Form Number: 413. Rules 1024 and 1025. to best execution obligations and FINRA 13 The Commission has previously approved the Description of Respondents: rules.10 Applicable Exchange rules also listing and trading of options on the following Participating Lenders. require that customers receive Alpha Indexes: AAPL/SPY, AMZN/SPY, CSCO/ Responses: 44,588. appropriate disclosure before trading SPY, F/SPY, GE/SPY, GOOG/SPY, HPQ/SPY, IBM/ Annual Burden: 66,882. SPY, INTC/SPY, KO/SPY, MRK/SPY, MSFT/SPY, ORCL/SPY, PFE/SPY, RIMM/SPY, T/SPY, TGT/ Title: Quarterly Reports file by 7 In approving this proposed rule change, the SPY, VZ/SPY and WMT/SPY. See supra note 3. The Grantees of the Drug Free Workplace Commission has considered the proposed rule’s Commission is now approving the listing and Program. impact on efficiency, competition, and capital trading of options on the following Alpha Indexes Frequency: On Occasion. formation. only: DIA/SPY, EEM/SPY, EWJ/SPY, EWZ/SPY, 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). FXI/SPY, GLD/SPY, IWM/SPY, QQQ/SPY, SLV/ SBA Form Number: N/A. 9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1). SPY, TLT/SPY, XLE/SPY and XLF/SPY. 10 See NASD Rule 2320. 14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52731

Description of Respondents: The Board serves the Global AIDS DATES: Comments on this notice must be Participants for the Drug Free Work Coordinator in a solely advisory received by October 24, 2011. Place. capacity concerning scientific, ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not Responses: 28. implementation, and policy issues duplicate your docket submissions, Annual Burden: 112. related to the global response to HIV/ please submit them by only one of the Jacqueline White, AIDS. These issues will be of concern as following means: they influence the priorities and Chief, Administrative Information Branch. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to direction of PEPFAR evaluation and http://www.regulations.gov and follow [FR Doc. 2011–21491 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] research, the content of national and BILLING CODE P the online instructions for submitting international strategies and comments. implementation, and the role of • Mail: Docket Management Facility, PEPFAR in the international discourse DEPARTMENT OF STATE U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 regarding appropriate and resourced New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building responses. Topics for the September 14– [Public Notice: 7564] Ground Floor Room W–12/140, 15th meeting will include an update on Washington, DC 20590–0001; Determination on Bilateral Assistance PEPFAR-funded evaluations, • Hand delivery: West Building Relating to the Government of the discussions on the policy relevance of Ground Floor, Room W–12/140, 1200 Russian Federation the recent results regarding treatment New Jersey Ave., SE., between 9 a.m. for prevention, and recommendations to Pursuant to the authority vested in me the Ambassador on the future direction and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, by the laws of the United States, of evaluation and research within except Federal holidays. The telephone including Section 7074(b) of the PEPFAR. number is 202–366–9329. Department of State, Foreign The public may attend this meeting as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Operations, and Related Programs seating capacity allows. Admittance to Blane Workie or Daeleen Chesley, Office Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, Pub. the meeting will be by means of a pre- of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant L. 111–117), as carried forward by the arranged clearance list. In order to be General Counsel for Aviation Full-Year Continuing Appropriations placed on the list, please register at Enforcement and Proceedings (C–70), Act, 2011 (Div. B., Pub. L. 112–10) (‘‘the https://www.team-psa.com/pepfar/2011. Department of Transportation, 1200 Act’’), I hereby determine that waiving While the meeting is open to public New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC the requirements of subsection (a) of attendance, the Board will determine 20590, 202–366–9342 (voice) or 202– Section 7074 of the Act is important to procedures for public participation. 366–7152 (fax) or at the national interests of the United For further information about the [email protected] or States, and I hereby so waive. meeting, please contact Charles Holmes, [email protected]. This Determination shall be published Chief Medical Officer, Office of the U.S. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in the Federal Register and transmitted Global AIDS Coordinator at (202) 663– to the Congress. 2440 or [email protected]. Title: Submission of Aviation Consumer Protection Division Webpage Dated: August 4, 2011. Dated: August 15, 2011. Hillary Rodham Clinton, On-Line Aviation Complaint Form. Charles B. Holmes, OMB Control Number: To Be Secretary of State. Chief Medical Officer, Office of the U.S. Determined. [FR Doc. 2011–21537 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Global AIDS Coordinator, Department of Type of Request: Request for approval BILLING CODE 4710–23–P State. of a new information collection. [FR Doc. 2011–21532 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Abstract: The Department of BILLING CODE 4710–10–P DEPARTMENT OF STATE Transportation’s (Department) Office of the Assistant General Counsel for [Public Notice 7548] Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Enforcement Office) has broad Notice of Public Meeting of the authority under 49 U.S.C., Subtitle VII, President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Office of the Secretary to investigate and enforce consumer Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory [Docket OST–2011–0022] protection and civil rights laws and Board regulations related to air transportation. SUMMARY: In accordance with the On-Line Complaint Form for Service- The Enforcement Office, including its Federal Advisory Committee Act Related Issues in Air Transportation Aviation Consumer Protection Division (FACA), the PEPFAR Scientific AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, (ACPD), monitors compliance with and Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to Department of Transportation. investigates violations of the Department of Transportation’s aviation as ‘‘the Board’’) will meet on September ACTION: Notice and request for 14–15, 2011 at the House of Sweden comments. economic, consumer protection, and Event Center, 2900 K Street, NW., civil rights requirements. Washington, DC 20007. The meeting SUMMARY: In accordance with the Among other things, the office is will last from 9 a.m. until approximately Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 responsible for receiving and 5 p.m. on the 14th and from 9 a.m. until U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended) this investigating service-related consumer approximately 3 p.m. on the 15th and is notice announces the Department of complaints filed against air carriers. open to the public. Transportation’s intention to request an Once received, the complaints are The meeting will be hosted by the OMB control number for the collection reviewed by the office to determine the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS of information from the public using an extent to which carriers are in Coordinator, Ambassador Eric Goosby, on-line complaint form. The on-line compliance with federal aviation who leads implementation of the complaint form allows the public to consumer protection and civil rights President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS electronically submit aviation service- laws and what, if any, action should be Relief (PEPFAR). related complaints against air carriers. taken.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52732 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

The key reason for this request is to All responses to this notice will be • Mail: Send comments to Docket enable consumers to file their summarized and included in the request Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of complaints to the Department using an for OMB approval. All comments will Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey on-line form. If the information also become a matter of public record on Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West collection form is not available, the the docket. Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC Department may receive fewer 20590–0001. Issued in Washington, DC on August 17, • complaints from consumers. The lack of 2011. Hand Delivery or Courier: Take information could inhibit the Patricia Lawton, comments to Docket Operations in Departments’ ability to improve airline Room W12–140 of the West Building DOT PRA Clearance Officer. consumer satisfaction, effectively Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey investigate individual complaints [FR Doc. 2011–21370 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between against an air carrier, and/or determine BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through patterns and practices that may develop Friday, except Federal holidays. with an air carrier’s services in violation • Fax: Fax comments to Docket DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION of our rules. The information collection Operations at 202–493–2251. also furthers the objectives of 49 U.S.C. Federal Aviation Administration Privacy: The FAA will post all 41712, 40101, 40127, 41702, and 41705 comments it receives, without change, to protect consumers from unfair or [Docket No. 2011–0435] to http://www.regulations.gov, including deceptive practices, to protect the civil any personal information the rights of air travelers, and to ensure safe Office of Commercial Space commenter provides. Using the search and adequate service in air Transportation Notice of Intent To function of the docket Web site, anyone transportation. Publish Current and Future Launch, can find and read the electronic form of Filing a complaint using a web-based Site, and Reentry Licenses and all comments received into any FAA form is voluntary and minimizes the Permits and Their Orders Online dockets, including the name of the burden on the public. Consumers can AGENCY: Federal Aviation individual sending the comment (or also choose to file a complaint with the Administration, DOT. signing the comment for an association, Department by sending a letter using ACTION: Notice. business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s regular mail or by phone message. The complete Privacy Act Statement can be type of information requested on the on- SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation found in the Federal Register published line form includes complainant’s name, Administration (FAA) is changing the on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), address, daytime phone number way the Office of Commercial Space as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. (including area code) and e-mail Transportation (AST) makes its permits, Docket: Background documents or address, name of the airline or company licenses, and all accompanying orders comments received may be read at about which she/he is complaining, (authorizations) available to the public. http://www.regulations.gov at any time. flight date, flight number, and origin The FAA intends to post all current and Follow the online instructions for and destination cities of complainant’s future authorizations online on the AST accessing the docket or Docket trip. A consumer may also use the form Web site 1 beginning on October 24, Operations in Room W12–140 of the to give a description of a specific 2011. The FAA will not publish license West Building Ground Floor at 1200 problem or to ask for air-travel related or permit applications or evaluations. New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, information from the ACPD. The The FAA has determined that posting DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday Department has limited its authorizations online will allow it to through Friday, except Federal holidays. informational request to only that more effectively and efficiently inform FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information necessary to meet its the public of its commercial space technical questions concerning this program and administrative monitoring transportation permit and license notice contact Charles P. Brinkman, and enforcement requirements. determinations. Licensing Program Lead, Commercial Respondents: Consumers that Choose DATES: Please submit any comments on Space Transportation—Licensing and to File an On-Line Complaint with the or before September 22, 2011. Evaluation Division, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection Division. Commercial Space Transportation, Estimated Number of Respondents: Comments received after this date will Federal Aviation Administration, 800 12,899 (based on CY 2010 data). be considered if it is practical to do so, Estimated Total Burden on but assurance of consideration cannot Independence Avenue, SW., Respondents: 3224.75 (hours), 193,485 be given except as to comments received Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) (minutes). The information collection is on or before this date. 267–7715; e-mail: available for inspection in ADDRESSES: Send comments identified [email protected]. For legal regulations.gov, as noted in the by Docket No. 2011–0435 using any of questions concerning this notice contact ADDRESSES section of this document. the following methods: Laura Montgomery, Senior Attorney for Comments are Invited on: (a) Whether • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to Commercial Space Transportation, the collection of information is http://www.regulations.gov and follow AGC–200, Office of the Chief Counsel, necessary for the proper performance of the online instructions for sending your Regulations Division, Federal Aviation the functions of the Department, comments electronically. Administration, 800 Independence including whether the information will Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 1 The AST website address is http://faa.gov/go/ telephone (202) 267–3150; e-mail: ast. The FAA proposes to post launch, reentry and [email protected]. the Department’s estimate of the burden site licenses in the Commercial Space Data—Active of the proposed information collection; Licenses section at http://www.faa.gov/about/ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/ The Secretary of Transportation has and clarity of the information to be current_licenses/. The FAA proposes to post the authority to issue commercial space permits in the Commercial Space Data—Active collected; and (d) ways to minimize the Permits section at http://www.faa.gov/about/ transportation permits and licenses for burden of the collection of information office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/launch_data/ commercial launch, reentry, and launch on respondents. current_permits/. and reentry site operations. 51 U.S.C.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52733

50901(b)(3). A license is required to provided in publicly available notices to clearly marked with an identifying launch a launch vehicle, reenter a airmen and mariners.2 legend, or cover sheet containing an reentry vehicle, or operate a launch or Information in a site license includes identifying legend. 14 CFR 413.9(b). reentry site within the United States or the site location, site activities, type of The FOIA exempts from mandatory by a U.S. citizen. 51 U.S.C. 50904(a)(1)– launch vehicle authorized for the site, disclosure trade secrets and privileged (4). The FAA issues permits for the and the term of the license. or confidential commercial or financial launch of reusable suborbital rockets Information provided in a reentry information. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). pursuant to the requirements of 51 license includes the term of the license, Information that ‘‘is designated as U.S.C. 50906. Title 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) the term of insurance coverage, and the confidential by the person or head of the applies to final authorizations the FAA nominal reentry locations. The executive agency providing the insurance information is publicly information’’ or that qualifies for an issues to an applicant, and the FAA available, now on the FAA’s Web site, exemption under FOIA can be disclosed should therefore make authorizations and the nominal reentry area locations by the Secretary of Transportation, an ‘‘available for public inspection, and are publicly available in notices to officer or employee of the United States copying.’’ 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2). airmen and mariners. Government, or a person making a In compliance with the Notices to airmen and mariners are contract with the Secretary under Administrative Procedure Act, as well publicly available documents, but they section 50906(b) of this title ‘‘if the as recent guidance from the White do not provide the same information Secretary decides that the withholding House, the FAA is planning to post all contained in a license. A notice to of the information or data is contrary to current and future authorizations online airmen and mariners will contain the public or national interest.’’ 51 in order to increase agency efficiency, coordinates for an area to alert airmen U.S.C. 50916; 14 CFR 413.9(d). effectiveness, and transparency. The and mariners of hazards during a In some cases, licenses contain FAA receives Freedom of Information specified time period for safety reasons. specific terms and conditions tailored Act (FOIA) requests for authorizations, For reentry, this area is calculated based for a particular licensee. Even so, terms and publishing this information online on the reentry vehicle’s possible impact and conditions typically do not contain would save the agency both the time points. While launch locations are confidential information, and the FAA and resources used to process and generally well-known because launches will publish these terms and conditions occur from established launch pads, respond to these FOIA requests. The online. The terms may have a useful reentry locations may be the result of an effect that others may want to be aware President’s recent memorandum on operator’s own calculations and of. In the event that the terms and regulatory compliance encourages decisions. Notices to airmen that restrict conditions contain confidential agencies to make readily accessible to air traffic during a reentry do not information, the licensee can follow the the public information concerning their provide the nominal reentry points that procedures to protect confidential regulatory compliance and enforcement the FAA currently includes in the information described above. The FAA activities. Presidential Memoranda— operator’s license. Therefore, operators will be providing the public with Regulatory Compliance (January 18, may have concerns about reverse potentially useful information by 2011); available at http:// engineering using the reentry data making this information more readily www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ provided in licenses. While the FAA available through online publication. 2011/01/18/presidential-memoranda- will continue to include nominal and Before implementing this new policy, regulatory-compliance. Publishing contingency reentry points in the FAA requests comment from the authorizations online furthers the FAA’s authorizations, operators will have the public, and is providing a period of 30 goal of transparency, openness, and opportunity to request that the days for comment. public access by making it easier and information be redacted from online Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, faster for the public to obtain publication if they consider it 2011. information regarding AST licensing confidential. If an operator makes such George C. Nield, and permit activities. a request, the FAA will examine the Associate Administrator for Commercial operator’s rationale and make a Information contained in Space Transportation. determination regarding whether or not authorizations is typically not [FR Doc. 2011–21423 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] the information is confidential. confidential. Typical information Most licenses and permits do not BILLING CODE 4910–13–P provided in a launch license or permit contain confidential information or and any accompanying orders includes data. However, for those occasions DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the specific types of vehicles the where specific license terms or authorization applies to, the launch conditions reflect circumstances unique Federal Aviation Administration location, and the amount of liability and to a particular operator, there are government property insurance the FAA protections available under the statute Notice of Intent To Rule on Change in requires the authorized entity to and regulations. Applicants for a license Use of Aeronautical Property at maintain. Launch licenses also include can protect trade secrets or proprietary Bowling Green—Warren County the term of the license, the authorized commercial or financial data by Regional Airport, Bowling Green, KY azimuths of the launch vehicle, and any requesting in writing that the AGENCY: Federal Aviation type of payload. In some cases, such as information be treated as confidential at Administration (FAA), DOT. a Pegasus launch or a launch under a the time it is submitted. 14 CFR permit, the launch license will define 413.9(a). Information or data the ACTION: Request for public comment. when flight begins. Insurance applicant wishes to protect must be SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation information has historically been Administration is requesting public 2 published on the FAA website. Notices to airmen and mariners are publicly comment on request by the Bowling Information including the launch area available on the FAA Web site for two months after their effective date at: http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/ Green—Warren County Airport Board to and the date and time of the launch is list.html. change a portion of airport property

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52734 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

from aeronautical to non-aeronautical listed as 2325 Airway Court, Bowling Director, Aircraft Certification Service, use at the Bowling Green—Warren Green, KY 42103. This release is for the will consider all comments received on County Regional Airport, Bowling sale of said property to KYCORE, LLC or before the closing date. Green, Kentucky. The request consists for commercial development. approximately of 4.66 acres of fee Any person may inspect, by Background appointment, the request in person at simple release. This action is taken On May 31, 2009, an Airbus A330– the FAA office listed above under FOR under the provisions of Section 125 of 203 operated by Air France as flight the Wendell H. Ford Aviation FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. number 447 (AF 447), bound for the Investment Reform Act for the 21st Issued in Memphis, TN, on August 11, Charles de Gaulle Airport, Paris, France, Century (AIR 21). 2011. crashed into the Atlantic Ocean 2 hours DATES: Comments must be received on Phillip J. Braden, and 10 minutes after taking off from Rio or before September 22, 2011. Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, de Janeiro’s, Galea˜o Airport. Search and Southern Region. ADDRESSES: Documents are available for rescue operations were conducted by review at the Bowling Green—Warren [FR Doc. 2011–21426 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] the French and Brazilian authorities but County Regional Airport, 1000 BILLING CODE P the flight data recorder and cockpit Woodhurst Dr., Bowling Green, KY voice recorder were not recovered until 42103 and the FAA Memphis Airports DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION April 2011 during a fourth search and District Office, 2862 Business Park recovery effort. Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN 38118. Federal Aviation Administration Written comments on the Sponsor’s The Bureau d’Enqueˆtes et d’Analyses ´ ´ request must be delivered or mailed to: Underwater Locating Devices pour la Securite de L’aviation Civile Mr. Phillip J. Braden, Manager, (Acoustic) (Self-Powered) (BEA), which is the authority Memphis Airports District Office, 2862 responsible for the investigation of the Business Park Drive, Building G, AGENCY: Federal Aviation AF 447 accident, released a second Memphis, TN 38118. Administration (FAA), DOT. interim report, dated December 17, In addition, a copy of any comments ACTION: Notice of the planned 2009. The report includes safety submitted to the FAA must be mailed or revocation of the Technical Standard recommendations to the European delivered to Mr. Rob Barnett, Airport Order (TSO) authorizations (TSOA) for Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Manager, Bowling Green—Warren TSO–C121 and C121a, Underwater International Civil Aviation County Regional Airport, 1000 Locating Devices (ULD), and request for Organization (ICAO), one of which is to Woodhurst Dr., Bowling Green, KY public comment. ‘‘extend as rapidly as possible to 90 42103. SUMMARY: This notice announces the days the regulatory transmission time FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. planned revocation of all Technical for underwater locator beacons installed Tommy L. Dupree, Team Lead/Civil Standard Order authorizations (TSOA) on flight recorders on airplanes Engineer, Federal Aviation issued for the production of Underwater performing public transport flights over Administration, Memphis Airports Locating Devices (Acoustic) (Self- maritime areas.’’ The FAA agrees with District Office, 2862 Business Park Powered) manufactured to the TSO– the BEA’s recommendation, and via a Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN 38118. C121 and TSO–C121a specifications. letter dated January 28, 2010, requested The application may be reviewed in These actions are necessary because the that SAE International form an industry person at this same location, by planned issuance of TSO–C121b, working group to revise the minimum appointment. Underwater Locating Devices (Acoustic) performance standard (MPS), AS8045, Underwater Locating Devices (Acoustic) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA (Self-Powered), with a minimum proposes to rule and invites public performance standard (MPS) that will (Self-Powered), to increase the comment on the request to release increase the minimum operating life of minimum operating life of Underwater property at the Bowling Green—Warren Underwater Locating Devices from 30 Locating Devices (Acoustic) (Self- County Regional Airport, 1000 days to 90 days. Powered), from 30 days to 90 days. SAE Woodhurst Dr., Bowling Green, KY DATES: Comments must be received on International published AS8045A, dated 42103. Under the provisions of AIR 21 or before November 21, 2011. August 3, 2011. The FAA will revise (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. TSO–C121a to invoke the new SAE On August 11, 2011, the FAA Gregory Borsari, AIR–130, Federal standard. When TSO–C121b is determined that the request to release Aviation Administration, 470 L’Enfant published the FAA will withdraw TSO– property at Bowling Green—Warren Plaza, Suite 4102, Washington, DC C121 and TSO–C121a authorizations no County Regional Airport meets the 20024. Telephone (202) 385–4578, fax later than March 1, 2014. All procedural requirements of the Federal (202) 385–4651, e-mail to: Underwater Locating Devices (Acoustic) Aviation Administration. The FAA may [email protected]. (Self-Powered) equipment approve the request, in whole or in part, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: manufacturers seeking TSO no later than September 22, 2011. authorization will need to obtain The following is a brief overview of Comments Invited authorization to manufacture in the request: You are invited to comment on the accordance with TSO–C121b. The Bowling Green—Warren County revocation of the TSOAs granted for Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, Airport Authority is proposing the TSO–C121 and C121a, by submitting 2011. release of approximately 4.66 acres written data, views, or arguments to the located at the northwest corner of above address. Comments received may Susan J.M. Cabler, Airway Court and Searcy Way and along be examined, both before and after the Assistant Manager, Aircraft Engineering the west side of Airway Court; and as closing date, at the above address, Division, Aircraft Certification Service. contained in Parcels 052A–03–021 and weekdays except federal holidays, [FR Doc. 2011–21536 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 052A–03–037. The property address is between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. The BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices 52735

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ACTION: Notice and request for comment. 0339. This information collection replaces, and is identical to, the Submission for OMB Review; SUMMARY: The OCC, as part of its collection transferred to the FRB. Comment Request continuing effort to reduce paperwork Comments are solicited on: and respondent burden, invites the a. Whether the proposed collection of August 18, 2011. general public and other Federal information is necessary for the proper The Department of the Treasury will agencies to take this opportunity to performance of the functions of the submit the following public information comment on a continuing information OCC; collection requirement to OMB for collection, as required by the Paperwork b. The accuracy of OCC’s estimate of review and clearance under the Reduction Act of 1995. An agency may the burden of the proposed information Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, not conduct or sponsor, and a collection; Public Law 104–13 on or after the date respondent is not required to respond c. Ways to enhance the quality, of publication of this notice. A copy of to, an information collection unless it utility, and clarity of the information to the submissions\ may be obtained by displays a currently valid OMB control be collected; calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance number. The OCC is soliciting comment d. Ways to minimize the burden of the Officer listed. Comments regarding this concerning its information collection information collection on respondents, information collection should be titled ‘‘Capital Distribution.’’ including through the use of addressed to the OMB reviewer listed DATES: Comments must be received by information technology. and to the Treasury PRA Clearance October 24, 2011. We will summarize the comments Officer, Department of the Treasury, ADDRESSES: Communications Division, that we receive and include them in our 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite Office of the Comptroller of the request for OMB approval. All 11010, Washington, DC 20220. comments will become a matter of Dates: Written comments should be Currency, Public Information Room, public record. received on or before September 22, Mailstop 2–3, Attention: 1557–NEW, Title of Collection: Capital 2011 to be assured of consideration. 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be Distribution. Alcohol and Tabacco Tax and Trade sent by fax to (202) 874–5274, or by OMB Control Number: To be assigned Bureau (TTB) electronic mail to by OMB. OMB Number: 1513–0099. [email protected]. You can Form Number: 1583. Type of Review: Extension without inspect and photocopy the comments at Description: Under 12 CFR 163.143, change of a currently approved the OCC, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, the OCC will review the information to collection. DC 20219. You can make an determine whether the request of Title: Administrative Remedies— appointment to inspect the comments savings associations is in accordance Closing Agreements. by calling (202) 874–4700. with existing statutory and regulatory Abstract: This is a written agreement Additionally, you should send a copy criteria. In addition, the information between TTB and regulated taxpayers of your comments to OCC Desk Officer, provides the OCC with a mechanism for used to finalize and resolve certain tax- 1557–NEW, by mail to U.S. Office of monitoring capital distributions since related issues. Once an agreement is Management and Budget, 725 17th these distributions can reduce an approved, it will not be reopened unless Street, NW., #10235, Washington, DC association’s capital and perhaps places fraud or misrepresentation of material 20503, or by fax to (202) 395–6974. it at risk. facts is proven. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You Type of Review: New collection. Respondents: Private Sector: can request additional information or a Affected Public: Businesses or other Businesses or other for-profits. copy of the collection from Ira L. Mills, for-profit. Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1. (202) 874–6055, or Mary H. Gottlieb, Estimated Number of Respondents: Clearance Officer: Gerald Isenberg, (202) 874–4824, OCC Clearance Officers, 366. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Legislative and Regulatory Activities Estimated Frequency of Response: On Bureau, Room 200 East, 1310 G Street, Division, Office of the Comptroller of occasion. NW., Washington, DC 20005; (202) 453– the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Estimated Total Burden: 657 hours. 2165. Washington, DC 20219. Dated: August 17, 2011. OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed, Office of Management and Budget, New SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OCC Michele Meyer, Executive Office Building, Room 10235, is requesting OMB approval of the Assistant Director, Legislative and Regulatory Washington, DC 20503; (202) 395–7873. following information collection, which Activities Division. was previously approved under the [FR Doc. 2011–21517 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Dawn D. Wolfgang, Office of Thrift Supervision’s OMB BILLING CODE 4810–33–P Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. Control No. 1550–0059. Title III of The [FR Doc. 2011–21490 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and BILLING CODE 4810–31–P Consumer Protection Act, Public Law DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010) (Dodd- Frank Act) transferred the powers, Internal Revenue Service DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY authorities, rights and duties of the Members of Senior Executive Service Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) to Performance Review Boards Office of the Comptroller of the other banking agencies, including the Currency OCC. In addition, Dodd-Frank requires AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Agency Information Collection the Board of Governors of the Federal Treasury. Activities: Proposed Information Reserve System (Board) to promulgate ACTION: Notice. Collection; Comment Request regulations governing capital distributions. OTS Control No. 1550– SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision 0059 was, therefore, transferred to the to publish the names of those IRS (OTS), Treasury. FRB under OMB Control No. 7100– employees who will serve as members

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 52736 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Notices

on IRS’ Fiscal Year 2011 Senior Carl T. Froehlich, Associate CIO, End James M. McGrane, Deputy CIO for Executive Service (SES) Performance User and Equipment Services (MITS); Strategy/Modernization (MITS); Review Boards. Julieta Garcia, Director, Stakeholder Moises C. Medina, Director, DATES: This notice is effective Partnerships, Education and Government Entities (TE/GE); September 1, 2011. Communications (W&I); Terence V. Milholland, Chief Silvana G. Garza, Associate CIO, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technology Officer; Affordable Care Act Program Sharnetta Walton, 1111 Constitution Katherine M. Miller, Associate CIO, Management Office (MITS) ; Applications Development (MITS); Avenue, NW., Room 2412, Washington, David A. Grant, Chief, Agency-Wide DC 20224, (202) 622–6246. Shared Services; Debra L. Nelson, Director, Management SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant Joseph H. Grant, Deputy Commissioner, Services (MITS); to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice Tax Exempt and Government Entities Nina E. Olson, National Taxpayer announces the appointment of members (TE/GE); Adovcate; to the Internal Revenue Service’s SES Patricia J. Haynes, Director of Field Orland M. Parker, Associate CIO, Performance Review Boards. The names Operations, Southeast (CI); Strategy and Planning (MITS); and titles of the executives serving on Shenita L. Hicks, Director, Examination Jodell L. Patterson, Director, Office of the boards follow: (SB/SE); Taxpayer Correspondence (W&I); Steven T. Miller, Deputy Commissioner Robert L. Hunt, Director, Collection (SB/ Ruth Perez, Deputy Commissioner (SB/ for Services and Enforcement; SE); SE); Elizabeth Tucker, Deputy Commissioner John H. Imhoff, Jr., Director, Specialty Rick A. Raven, Deputy Chief (CI); Programs (SB/SE); for Operations Support; Julie Rushin, Deputy CIO for Operations Robin DelRey Jenkins, Director, Office David P. Alito, Director, Compliance (MITS); (W&I); of Business Modernization (SB/SE); Rebecca Mack Johnson, Director, Cheryl M. Sherwood, Director, Campus Peggy A. Bogadi, Deputy Commissioner Compliance Services (SB/SE); for Operations (W&I); Strategy and Finance (SB/SE); Cecille M. Jones, Deputy Director, Melissa R. Snell, Deputy National Lauren Buschor, Deputy Associate CIO, Taxpayer Advocate; Enterprise Operations (MITS); Electronic Tax Administration and Victor S. O. Song, Chief (CI); Richard E. Byrd, Commissioner (W&I); Refundable Credits (W&I); Keith Jones, Director, Natural Resources Robin L. Canady, Director, Strategy and David W. Stender, Associate CIO, and Construction (LB&I); Finance (W&I); Cybersecurity (MITS); Michael D. Julianelle, Director, Rebecca Chiaramida, Director, Office of Peter J. Stipek, Director, Customer Enterprise Collection Strategy (SB/ Privacy, Information Protection and Accounts Services (W&I); SE); Keith V. Taylor, Director, Human Data Security; Gregory E. Kane, Deputy Chief Financial Robert Choi, Director, Employee Plans Resources (SB/SE); Officer; Peter C. Wade, Business Modernization (TE/GE); Frank M. Keith, Jr., Chief, Director (W&I); Robert N. Crawford, Associate CIO, Communications and Liaison; Enterprise Services (MITS); Pamela J. LaRue, Chief Financial Christopher Wagner, Chief, Appeals; Michael Danilack, Deputy Officer; Robert C. Wilkerson, Director, Commissioner, International (LB&I); Lois G. Lerner, Director, Exempt Communications, Liaison and Jonathan M. Davis, Chief of Staff, Office Organizations (TE/GE); Disclosure (SB/SE). of the Commissioner; Heather C. Maloy, Commissioner (LB&I); This document does not meet the Monica Davy, Executive Director, Office Stephen L. Manning, Associate CIO, Department of the Treasury’s criteria for of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion; Enterprise Networks (MITS); significant regulations. Paul D. DeNard, Deputy Commissioner, Rosemary D. Marcuss, Director, Operations (LB&I); Research, Analysis and Statistics; Dated: August 15, 2011. Alain Dubois, Director, Research (SB/ C. Andre Martin, Director of Field Steven T. Miller, SE); Operations, Midstates (CI); Deputy Commissioner for Services and James P. Falcone, IRS Human Capital Gretchen R. McCoy, Associate CIO, Enforcement, Internal Revenue Service. Officer; Modernization Program Management [FR Doc. 2011–21411 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] Faris R. Fink, Commissioner (SB/SE); Office (MITS); BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:33 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUN1.SGM 23AUN1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Vol. 76 Tuesday, No. 163 August 23, 2011

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52738 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, recommends that you include your AGENCY identified by Docket ID Number EPA– name and other contact information in HQ–OAR–2010–0505, by one of the the body of your comment and with any 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 following methods: disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA • [EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505; FRL–9448–6] Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// cannot read your comment due to www.regulations.gov: Follow the technical difficulties and cannot contact RIN 2060–AP76 instructions for submitting comments. you for clarification, the EPA may not • Agency Web site: http:// be able to consider your comment. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow Electronic files should avoid the use of Source Performance Standards and the instructions for submitting special characters, any form of National Emission Standards for comments on the Air and Radiation encryption, and be free of any defects or Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews Docket Web site. viruses. For additional information • E-mail: [email protected]. AGENCY: Environmental Protection about the EPA’s public docket, visit the Include Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– Agency (EPA). EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// OAR–2010–0505 in the subject line of ACTION: Proposed rule. www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. the message. For additional instructions on • Facsimile: (202) 566–9744. SUMMARY: submitting comments, go to section II.C This action announces how • Mail: Attention Docket ID Number of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION the EPA proposes to address the reviews EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505, 1200 section of this preamble. of the new source performance Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, standards for volatile organic compound DC 20460. Please include a total of two Docket: All documents in the docket and sulfur dioxide emissions from copies. In addition, please mail a copy are listed in the http:// natural gas processing plants. We are of your comments on the information www.regulations.gov index. Although proposing to add to the source category collection provisions to the Office of listed in the index, some information is list any oil and gas operation not Information and Regulatory Affairs, not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other covered by the current listing. This Office of Management and Budget information whose disclosure is action also includes proposed (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for the EPA, restricted by statute. Certain other amendments to the existing new source 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC material, such as copyrighted material, performance standards for volatile 20503. is not placed on the Internet and will be organic compounds from natural gas • Hand Delivery: United States publicly available only in hard copy. processing plants and proposed Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Publicly available docket materials are standards for operations that are not West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 available either electronically through covered by the existing new source Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, http://www.regulations.gov or in hard performance standards. In addition, this DC 20004, Attention Docket ID Number copy at the U.S. Environmental action proposes how the EPA will EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505. Such Protection Agency, EPA West (Air address the residual risk and technology deliveries are only accepted during the Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution review conducted for the oil and natural Docket’s normal hours of operation, and Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. The gas production and natural gas special arrangements should be made Public Reading Room is open from transmission and storage national for deliveries of boxed information. 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through emission standards for hazardous air Instructions: Direct your comments to Friday, excluding legal holidays. The pollutants. This action further proposes Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– telephone number for the Public standards for emission sources within 2010–0505. The EPA’s policy is that all Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and these two source categories that are not comments received will be included in the telephone number for the Air Docket currently addressed, as well as the public docket without change and is (202) 566–1742. amendments to improve aspects of these may be made available online at http:// FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: national emission standards for www.regulations.gov, including any Bruce Moore, Sector Policies and hazardous air pollutants related to personal information provided, unless Programs Division, Office of Air Quality applicability and implementation. the comment includes information Planning and Standards (E143–01), Finally, this action addresses provisions claimed to be confidential business Environmental Protection Agency, in these new source performance information (CBI) or other information Research Triangle Park, North Carolina standards and national emission whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 27711, telephone number: (919) 541– standards for hazardous air pollutants Do not submit information that you 5460; facsimile number: (919) 685–3200; related to emissions during periods of consider to be CBI or otherwise e-mail address: [email protected]. startup, shutdown and malfunction. protected through http:// SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: Comments must be received on www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The or before October 24, 2011. http://www.regulations.gov Web site is Organization of This Document. The Public Hearing. Three public hearings an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which following outline is provided to aid in will be held to provide the public an means the EPA will not know your locating information in this preamble. opportunity to provide comments on identity or contact information unless I. Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations this proposed rulemaking. One will be you provide it in the body of your II. General Information held in the Dallas, Texas area, one in comment. If you send an e-mail A. Does this action apply to me? Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and one in comment directly to the EPA without B. Where can I get a copy of this document Denver, Colorado, on dates to be going through http:// and other related information? announced in a separate document. www.regulations.gov, your e-mail C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? Each hearing will convene at 10 a.m. address will be automatically captured D. When will a public hearing occur? local time. For additional information and included as part of the comment III. Background Information on the public hearings and requesting to that is placed in the public docket and A. What are standards of performance and speak, see the SUPPLEMENTARY made available on the Internet. If you NSPS? INFORMATION section of this preamble. submit an electronic comment, the EPA B. What are NESHAP?

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52739

C. What litigation is related to this Minority Populations and Low-Income MIR Maximum Individual Risk proposed action? Populations MIRR Monitoring, Inspection, D. What is a sector-based approach? Recordkeeping and Reporting IV. Oil and Natural Gas Sector I. Preamble Acronyms and MMtCO2e Million Metric Tons of Carbon V. Summary of Proposed Decisions and Abbreviations Dioxide Equivalents Actions Several acronyms and terms used to NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality A. What are the proposed revisions to the describe industrial processes, data Standards NSPS? NAC/AEGL National Advisory Committee B. What are the proposed decisions and inventories and risk modeling are for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for actions related to the NESHAP? included in this preamble. While this Hazardous Substances C. What are the proposed notification, may not be an exhaustive list, to ease NAICS North American Industry recordkeeping and reporting the reading of this preamble and for Classification System requirements for this proposed action? reference purposes, the following terms NAS National Academy of Sciences D. What are the innovative compliance and acronyms are defined here: NATA National Air Toxics Assessment approaches being considered? NEI National Emissions Inventory E. How does the NSPS relate to permitting ACGIH American Conference of NEMS National Energy Modeling System of sources? Governmental Industrial Hygienists NESHAP National Emissions Standards for VI. Rationale for Proposed Action for NSPS ADAF Age-Dependent Adjustment Factors Hazardous Air Pollutants A. What did we evaluate relative to NSPS? AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Levels NGL Natural Gas Liquids B. What are the results of our evaluations AERMOD The air dispersion model used by NIOSH National Institutes for Occupational and proposed actions relative to NSPS? the HEM–3 model Safety and Health API American Petroleum Institute VII. Rationale for Proposed Action for NOX Oxides of Nitrogen NESHAP BACT Best Available Control Technology NRC National Research Council A. What data were used for the NESHAP BID Background Information Document NSPS New Source Performance Standards analyses? BPD Barrels Per Day NSR New Source Review BSER Best System of Emission Reduction B. What are the proposed decisions NTTAA National Technology Transfer and BTEX Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene and regarding certain unregulated emissions Advancement Act Xylene sources? OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and CAA Clean Air Act C. How did we perform the risk assessment Standards CalEPA California Environmental and what are the results and proposed OMB Office of Management and Budget Protection Agency decisions? PB–HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to CBI Confidential Business Information be persistent and bio-accumulative in the D. How did we perform the technology CEM Continuous Emissions Monitoring environment review and what are the results and CEMS Continuous Emissions Monitoring PFE Potential for Flash Emissions proposed decisions? System PM Particulate Matter E. What other actions are we proposing? CFR Code of Federal Regulations PM Particulate Matter (2.5 microns and VIII. What are the cost, environmental, 2.5 CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of less) energy and economic impacts of the Toxicology POM Polycyclic Organic Matter proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO CO Carbon Monoxide PPM Parts Per Million and amendments to subparts HH and CO2 Carbon Dioxide PPMV Parts Per Million by Volume HHH of 40 CFR part 63? CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent PSIG Pounds per square inch gauge A. What are the affected sources? DOE Department of Energy PTE Potential to Emit B. How are the impacts for this proposal ECHO Enforcement and Compliance QA Quality Assurance evaluated? History Online RACT Reasonably Available Control C. What are the air quality impacts? e-GGRT Electronic Greenhouse Gas Technology D. What are the water quality and solid Reporting Tool RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse waste impacts? EJ Environmental Justice REC Reduced Emissions Completions E. What are the secondary impacts? EPA Environmental Protection Agency REL CalEPA Reference Exposure Level F. What are the energy impacts? ERPG Emergency Response Planning RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act G. What are the cost impacts? Guidelines RfC Reference Concentration H. What are the economic impacts? ERT Electronic Reporting Tool RfD Reference Dose I. What are the benefits? GCG Gas Condensate Glycol RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis IX. Request for Comments GHG Greenhouse Gas RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion X. Submitting Data Corrections GOR Gas to Oil Ratio Engines XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews GWP Global Warming Potential RTR Residual Risk and Technology Review A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants SAB Science Advisory Board Planning and Review and Executive HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, version 3 SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Order 13563: Improving Regulation and HI Hazard Index Enforcement Fairness Act Regulatory Review HP Horsepower SCC Source Classification Codes B. Paperwork Reduction Act HQ Hazard Quotient SCFH Standard Cubic Feet Per Hour C. Regulatory Flexibility Act H2S Hydrogen Sulfide SCFM Standard Cubic Feet Per Minute D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ICR Information Collection Request SCM Standard Cubic Meters E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate SCMD Standard Cubic Meters Per Day F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Change SCOT Shell Claus Offgas Treatment and Coordination With Indian Tribal IRIS Integrated Risk Information System SIP State Implementation Plan Governments km Kilometer SISNOSE Significant Economic Impact on a G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of kW Kilowatts Substantial Number of Small Entities Children From Environmental Health LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate S/L/T State and Local and Tribal Agencies and Safety Risks lb Pounds SO2 Sulfur Dioxide H. Executive Order 13211: Actions LDAR Leak Detection and Repair SSM Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Concerning Regulations That MACT Maximum Achievable Control STEL Short-term Exposure Limit Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Technology TLV Threshold Limit Value Distribution, or Use MACT Code Code within the NEI used to TOSHI Target Organ-Specific Hazard Index I. National Technology Transfer and identify processes included in a source TPY Tons per Year Advancement Act category TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling System J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions Mcf Thousand Cubic Feet TRIM.FaTE A spatially explicit, To Address Environmental Justice in Mg/yr Megagrams per year compartmental mass balance model that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52740 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

describes the movement and VCS Voluntary Consensus Standards proposal are listed in Table 1 of this transformation of pollutants over time, VOC Volatile Organic Compounds preamble. These standards and any through a user-defined, bounded system VRU Vapor Recovery Unit changes considered in this rulemaking that includes both biotic and abiotic would be directly applicable to sources compartments II. General Information as a Federal program. Thus, Federal, TSD Technical Support Document A. Does this action apply to me? UF Uncertainty Factor state, local and tribal government UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The regulated industrial source entities are not affected by this proposed URE Unit Risk Estimate categories that are the subject of this action.

TABLE 1—INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Category NAICS Examples of regulated entities code 1

Industry ...... 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction. 211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction. 221210 Natural Gas Distribution. 486110 Pipeline Distribution of Crude Oil. 486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas. Federal government ...... Not affected. State/local/tribal government ...... Not affected. 1 North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be within the disk or CD ROM the specific III. Background Information exhaustive, but rather provides a guide information that is claimed as CBI. In A. What are standards of performance for readers regarding entities likely to be addition to one complete version of the and NSPS? affected by this action. To determine comment that includes information whether your facility would be claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 1. What is the statutory authority for regulated by this action, you should that does not contain the information standards of performance and NSPS? examine the applicability criteria in the claimed as CBI must be submitted for Section 111 of the Clean Air Act regulations. If you have any questions inclusion in the public docket. If you (CAA) requires the EPA Administrator regarding the applicability of this action submit a CD ROM or disk that does not to list categories of stationary sources, if to a particular entity, contact the person contain CBI, mark the outside of the such sources cause or contribute FOR FURTHER listed in the preceding disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not significantly to air pollution, which may INFORMATION CONTACT section. contain CBI. Information not marked as reasonably be anticipated to endanger B. Where can I get a copy of this CBI will be included in the public public health or welfare. The EPA must document and other related docket and the EPA’s electronic public then issue performance standards for information? docket without prior notice. Information such source categories. A performance marked as CBI will not be disclosed standard reflects the degree of emission In addition to being available in the except in accordance with procedures docket, an electronic copy of this limitation achievable through the set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or application of the ‘‘best system of proposal will also be available on the deliver information identified as CBI EPA’s Web site. Following signature by emission reduction’’ (BSER) which the only to the following address: Roberto EPA determines has been adequately the EPA Administrator, a copy of this Morales, OAQPS Document Control proposed action will be posted on the demonstrated. The EPA may consider Officer (C404–02), Environmental certain costs and nonair quality health EPA’s Web site at the following address: Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ and environmental impact and energy Planning and Standards, Research requirements when establishing oilandgas. Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Additional information is available on performance standards. Whereas CAA Attention Docket ID Number EPA–HQ– the EPA’s Residual Risk and Technology section 112 standards are issued for OAR–2010–0505. Review (RTR) Web site at http:// existing and new stationary sources, www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/oarpg.html. D. When will a public hearing occur? standards of performance are issued for This information includes the most new and modified stationary sources. recent version of the rule, source We will hold three public hearings, These standards are referred to as new category descriptions, detailed one in the Dallas, Texas area, one in source performance standards (NSPS). emissions and other data that were used Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and one in The EPA has the authority to define the as inputs to the risk assessments. Denver, Colorado. If you are interested source categories, determine the in attending or speaking at one of the pollutants for which standards should C. What should I consider as I prepare public hearings, contact Ms. Joan Rogers be developed, identify the facilities my comments for the EPA? at (919) 541–4487 by September 6, 2011. within each source category to be Submitting CBI. Do not submit Details on the public hearings will be covered and set the emission level of the information containing CBI to the EPA provided in a separate notice and we standards. through http://www.regulations.gov or will specify the time and date of the CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of public hearings on http://www.epa.gov/ EPA to ‘‘at least every 8 years review the information that you claim to be airquality/oilandgas. If no one requests and, if appropriate, revise’’ performance CBI. For CBI information on a disk or to speak at one of the public hearings by standards unless the ‘‘Administrator CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark September 6, 2011, then that public determines that such review is not the outside of the disk or CD ROM as hearing will be cancelled without appropriate in light of readily available CBI and then identify electronically further notice. information on the efficacy’’ of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52741

standard. When conducting a review of regulates sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions standards promulgated under CAA an existing performance standard, the from natural gas processing plants (40 section 112(d)(3), and may not be based EPA has discretion to revise that CFR part 60, subpart LLL). Other than on cost considerations. For new sources, standard to add emission limits for natural gas processing plants, EPA has the MACT floor cannot be less stringent pollutants or emission sources not not previously set NSPS for a variety of than the emission control that is currently regulated for that source oil and natural gas operations. achieved in practice by the best- category. controlled similar source. The MACT In setting or revising a performance B. What are NESHAP? floors for existing sources can be less standard, CAA section 111(a)(1) 1. What is the statutory authority for stringent than floors for new sources, provides that performance standards are NESHAP? but they cannot be less stringent than to ‘‘reflect the degree of emission Section 112 of the CAA establishes a the average emission limitation limitation achievable through the two-stage regulatory process to address achieved by the best-performing 12 application of the best system of percent of existing sources in the emissions of hazardous air pollutants emission reduction which (taking into category or subcategory (or the best- (HAP) from stationary sources. In the account the cost of achieving such performing five sources for categories or first stage, after the EPA has identified reduction and any nonair quality health subcategories with fewer than 30 categories of sources emitting one or and environmental impact and energy sources). In developing MACT more of the HAP listed in section 112(b) requirements) the Administrator standards, we must also consider of the CAA, section 112(d) of the CAA determines has been adequately control options that are more stringent calls for us to promulgate national demonstrated.’’ In this notice, we refer than the floor. We may establish emission standards for hazardous air to this level of control as the BSER. In standards more stringent than the floor pollutants (NESHAP) for those sources. determining BSER, we typically conduct based on the consideration of the cost of a technology review that identifies what ‘‘Major sources’’ are those that emit or achieving the emissions reductions, any emission reduction systems exist and have the potential to emit (PTE) 10 tons nonair quality health and environmental how much they reduce air pollution in per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP impacts and energy requirements. practice. Next, for each control system or 25 tpy or more of any combination of The EPA is then required to review identified, we evaluate its costs, HAP. For major sources, these these technology-based standards and to secondary air benefits (or disbenefits) technology-based standards must reflect revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into resulting from energy requirements and the maximum degree of emission account developments in practices, nonair quality impacts such as solid reductions of HAP achievable (after processes, and control technologies)’’ no waste generation. Based on our considering cost, energy requirements less frequently than every 8 years, under evaluation, we would determine BSER. and nonair quality health and CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting The resultant standard is usually a environmental impacts) and are this review, the EPA is not obliged to numerical emissions limit, expressed as commonly referred to as maximum completely recalculate the prior MACT a performance level (i.e., a rate-based achievable control technology (MACT) determination. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d standard or percent control), that standards. 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008). reflects the BSER. Although such MACT standards are to reflect The second stage in standard-setting standards are based on the BSER, the application of measures, processes, focuses on reducing any remaining EPA may not prescribe a particular methods, systems or techniques, ‘‘residual’’ risk according to CAA technology that must be used to comply including, but not limited to, measures section 112(f). This provision requires, with a performance standard, except in which, (1) reduce the volume of or first, that the EPA prepare a Report to instances where the Administrator eliminate pollutants through process Congress discussing (among other determines it is not feasible to prescribe changes, substitution of materials or things) methods of calculating risk or enforce a standard of performance. other modifications, (2) enclose systems posed (or potentially posed) by sources Typically, sources remain free to elect or processes to eliminate emissions, (3) after implementation of the MACT whatever control measures that they capture or treat pollutants when standards, the public health significance choose to meet the emission limits. released from a process, stack, storage or of those risks, and the EPA’s Upon promulgation, an NSPS becomes fugitive emissions point, (4) are design, recommendations as to legislation a national standard to which all new, equipment, work practice or operational regarding such remaining risk. The EPA modified or reconstructed sources must standards (including requirements for prepared and submitted this report comply. operator training or certification) or (5) (Residual Risk Report to Congress, EPA– are a combination of the above. CAA 453/R–99–001) in March 1999. Congress 2. What is the regulatory history section 112(d)(2)(A)–(E). The MACT did not act in response to the report, regarding performance standards for the standard may take the form of a design, thereby triggering the EPA’s obligation oil and natural gas sector? equipment, work practice or operational under CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze In 1979, the EPA listed crude oil and standard where the EPA first determines and address residual risk. natural gas production on its priority either that, (1) a pollutant cannot be CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to list of source categories for emitted through a conveyance designed determine for source categories subject promulgation of NSPS (44 FR 49222, and constructed to emit or capture the to MACT standards, whether the August 21, 1979). On June 24, 1985 (50 pollutant or that any requirement for or emissions standards provide an ample FR 26122), the EPA promulgated an use of such a conveyance would be margin of safety to protect public health. NSPS for the source category that inconsistent with law or (2) the If the MACT standards for HAP addressed volatile organic compound application of measurement ‘‘classified as a known, probable, or (VOC) emissions from leaking methodology to a particular class of possible human carcinogen do not components at onshore natural gas sources is not practicable due to reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to processing plants (40 CFR part 60, technological and economic limitations. the individual most exposed to subpart KKK). On October 1, 1985 (50 CAA sections 112(h)(1)–(2). emissions from a source in the category FR 40158), a second NSPS was The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum or subcategory to less than 1-in-1 promulgated for the source category that control level allowed for MACT million,’’ the EPA must promulgate

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52742 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

residual risk standards for the source also, A Legislative History of the Clean risk ‘‘is an estimate of the upper bound category (or subcategory), as necessary, Air Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, of risk based on conservative to provide an ample margin of safety to p. 877 (Senate debate on Conference assumptions, such as continuous protect public health. In doing so, the Report). We notified Congress in the exposure for 24 hours per day for 70 EPA may adopt standards equal to Residual Risk Report to Congress that years.’’ Id. We acknowledge that existing MACT standards if the EPA we intended to use the Benzene maximum individual lifetime cancer determines that the existing standards NESHAP approach in making CAA risk ‘‘does not necessarily reflect the are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. section 112(f) residual risk true risk, but displays a conservative EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. risk level which is an upper-bound that 2008). (‘‘If EPA determines that the ES–11). is unlikely to be exceeded.’’ Id. existing technology-based standards In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as Understanding that there are both provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety,’’ an overall objective: benefits and limitations to using then the Agency is free to readopt those * * * in protecting public health with an maximum individual lifetime cancer standards during the residual risk ample margin of safety, we strive to provide risk as a metric for determining rulemaking.’’) The EPA must also adopt maximum feasible protection against risks to acceptability, we acknowledged in the more stringent standards, if necessary, health from hazardous air pollutants by, (1) 1989 Benzene NESHAP that to prevent an adverse environmental protecting the greatest number of persons ‘‘consideration of maximum individual effect,1 but must consider cost, energy, possible to an individual lifetime risk level risk * * * must take into account the safety and other relevant factors in no higher than approximately 1-in-1 million; strengths and weaknesses of this doing so. and (2) limiting to no higher than measure of risk.’’ Id. Consequently, the Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100-in- presumptive risk level of 100-in-1 preserves our use of a two-step process 1 million] the estimated risk that a person million (1-in-10 thousand) provides a living near a facility would have if he or she for developing standards to address any were exposed to the maximum pollutant benchmark for judging the acceptability residual risk and our interpretation of concentrations for 70 years. of maximum individual lifetime cancer ‘‘ample margin of safety’’ developed in risk, but does not constitute a rigid line the National Emission Standards for The Agency also stated that, ‘‘The for making that determination. Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene EPA also considers incidence (the The Agency also explained in the Emissions from Maleic Anhydride number of persons estimated to suffer 1989 Benzene NESHAP the following: Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, cancer or other serious health effects as ‘‘In establishing a presumption for MIR, Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be rather than a rigid line for acceptability, Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product an important measure of the health risk the Agency intends to weigh it with a Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 to the exposed population. Incidence series of other health measures and FR 38044, September 14, 1989). The measures the extent of health risk to the factors. These include the overall first step in this process is the exposed population as a whole, by incidence of cancer or other serious determination of acceptable risk. The providing an estimate of the occurrence health effects within the exposed second step provides for an ample of cancer or other serious health effects population, the numbers of persons margin of safety to protect public health, in the exposed population.’’ The Agency exposed within each individual lifetime which is the level at which the went on to conclude that ‘‘estimated risk range and associated incidence standards are set (unless a more incidence would be weighed along with within, typically, a 50-kilometer (km) stringent standard is required to other health risk information in judging exposure radius around facilities, the prevent, taking into consideration costs, acceptability.’’ As explained more fully science policy assumptions and energy, safety, and other relevant in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, estimation uncertainties associated with factors, an adverse environmental the EPA does not define ‘‘rigid line[s] of the risk measures, weight of the effect). acceptability,’’ but considers rather scientific evidence for human health The terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ broad objectives to be weighed with a effects, other quantified or unquantified ‘‘acceptable level,’’ and ‘‘ample margin series of other health measures and health effects, effects due to co-location of safety’’ are not specifically defined in factors (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. ES–11). of facilities and co-emission of the CAA. However, CAA section The determination of what represents an pollutants.’’ Id. 112(f)(2)(B) preserves the interpretation ‘‘acceptable’’ risk is based on a In some cases, these health measures set out in the Benzene NESHAP, and the judgment of ‘‘what risks are acceptable and factors taken together may provide United States Court of Appeals for the in the world in which we live’’ a more realistic description of the District of Columbia Circuit in NRDC v. (Residual Risk Report to Congress, p. magnitude of risk in the exposed EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, concluded that the 178, quoting the Vinyl Chloride population than that provided by EPA’s interpretation of subsection decision at 824 F.2d 1165) recognizing maximum individual lifetime cancer 112(f)(2) is a reasonable one. See NRDC that our world is not risk-free. risk alone. As explained in the Benzene v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 (D.C. Cir., In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated NESHAP, ‘‘[e]ven though the risks ‘‘[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if judged ‘‘acceptable’’ by the EPA in the incorporates EPA’s interpretation of the the risk to [the maximum exposed] first step of the Vinyl Chloride inquiry Clean Air Act from the Benzene individual is no higher than are already low, the second step of the inquiry, determining an ‘‘ample margin standard, complete with a citation to the approximately 1-in-10 thousand, that of safety,’’ again includes consideration Federal Register’’). (D.C. Cir. 2008). See risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 FR 38045. We discussed the maximum of all of the health factors, and whether 1 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined in individual lifetime cancer risk (or to reduce the risks even further.’’ In the CAA section 112(a)(7) as any significant and maximum individual risk (MIR)) as ample margin of safety decision process, widespread adverse effect, which may be being ‘‘the estimated risk that a person the Agency again considers all of the reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life or living near a plant would have if he or health risks and other health natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or threatened species or she were exposed to the maximum information considered in the first step. significant degradation of environmental qualities pollutant concentrations for 70 years.’’ Beyond that information, additional over broad areas. Id. We explained that this measure of factors relating to the appropriate level

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52743

of control will also be considered, comment on our policy under the sources. On February 12, 1998 (63 FR including costs and economic impacts Benzene NESHAP, the EPA explained 7155), the EPA amended the source of controls, technological feasibility, that: ‘‘The policy chosen by the category list to add Natural Gas uncertainties and any other relevant Administrator permits consideration of Transmission and Storage as a major factors. Considering all of these factors, multiple measures of health risk. Not source category. the Agency will establish the standard only can the MIR figure be considered, On June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32610), the at a level that provides an ample margin but also incidence, the presence of EPA promulgated MACT standards for of safety to protect the public health, as noncancer health effects, and the the Oil and Natural Gas Production and required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR uncertainties of the risk estimates. In Natural Gas Transmission and Storage 38046. this way, the effect on the most exposed major source categories. The Oil and individuals can be reviewed as well as Natural Gas Production NESHAP (40 2. How do we consider the risk results the impact on the general public. These CFR part 63, subpart HH) contains in making decisions? factors can then be weighed in each standards for HAP emissions from As discussed in the previous section individual case. This approach complies glycol dehydration process vents, of this preamble, we apply a two-step with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that storage vessels and natural gas process for developing standards to the Administrator ascertain an processing plant equipment leaks. The address residual risk. In the first step, acceptable level of risk to the public by Natural Gas Transmission and Storage the EPA determines if risks are employing [her] expertise to assess NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH) acceptable. This determination available data. It also complies with the contains standards for glycol ‘‘considers all health information, Congressional intent behind the CAA, dehydration process vents. including risk estimation uncertainty, which did not exclude the use of any In addition to these NESHAP for and includes a presumptive limit on particular measure of public health risk major sources, the EPA also maximum individual lifetime [cancer] from the EPA’s consideration with promulgated NESHAP for the Oil and risk (MIR) 2 of approximately 1-in-10 respect to CAA section 112 regulations, Natural Gas Production area source thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million].’’ 54 FR and, thereby, implicitly permits category on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 26). 38045. In the second step of the process, consideration of any and all measures of These area source standards, which are the EPA sets the standard at a level that health risk which the Administrator, in based on generally available control provides an ample margin of safety ‘‘in [her] judgment, believes are appropriate technology, are also contained in 40 consideration of all health information, to determining what will ‘protect the CFR part 63, subpart HH. This proposed including the number of persons at risk public health.’ ’’ action does not impact these area source levels higher than approximately 1-in-1 For example, the level of the MIR is standards. million, as well as other relevant factors, only one factor to be weighed in C. What litigation is related to this including costs and economic impacts, determining acceptability of risks. The proposed action? technological feasibility, and other Benzene NESHAP explains ‘‘an MIR of factors relevant to each particular approximately 1-in-10 thousand should On January 14, 2009, pursuant to decision.’’ Id. ordinarily be the upper end of the range section 304(a)(2) of the CAA, WildEarth In past residual risk determinations, of acceptability. As risks increase above Guardians and the San Juan Citizens the EPA presented a number of human this benchmark, they become Alliance filed a Complaint alleging that health risk metrics associated with presumptively less acceptable under the EPA failed to meet its obligations emissions from the category under CAA section 112, and would be under CAA sections 111(b)(1)(B), review, including: The MIR; the weighed with the other health risk 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) to take actions numbers of persons in various risk measures and information in making an relative to the review/revision of the ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum overall judgment on acceptability. Or, NSPS and the NESHAP with respect to noncancer hazard index (HI); and the the Agency may find, in a particular the Oil and Natural Gas Production maximum acute noncancer hazard. In case, that a risk that includes MIR less source category. On February 4, 2010, estimating risks, the EPA considered than the presumptively acceptable level the Court entered a consent decree source categories under review that are is unacceptable in the light of other requiring the EPA to sign by July 28, located near each other and that affect health risk factors.’’ Similarly, with 2011,3 proposed standards and/or the same population. The EPA provided regard to the ample margin of safety determinations not to issue standards estimates of the expected difference in analysis, the Benzene NESHAP states pursuant to CAA sections 111(b)(1)(B), actual emissions from the source that: ‘‘EPA believes the relative weight 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) and to take final category under review and emissions of the many factors that can be action by February 28, 2012. allowed pursuant to the source category considered in selecting an ample margin D. What is a sector-based approach? MACT standard. The EPA also of safety can only be determined for discussed and considered risk each specific source category. This Sector-based approaches are based on estimation uncertainties. The EPA is occurs mainly because technological integrated assessments that consider providing this same type of information and economic factors (along with the multiple pollutants in a comprehensive in support of these actions. health-related factors) vary from source and coordinated manner to manage The Agency acknowledges that the category to source category.’’ emissions and CAA requirements. One Benzene NESHAP provides flexibility of the many ways we can address sector- regarding what factors the EPA might 3. What is the regulatory history based approaches is by reviewing consider in making our determinations regarding NESHAP for the oil and multiple regulatory programs together and how they might be weighed for each natural gas sector? whenever possible, consistent with all source category. In responding to On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published a list of major and area 3 On April 27, 2011, pursuant to paragraph 10(a) 2 Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual sources for which NESHAP are to be of the Consent Decree, the parties filed with the risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one Court a written stipulation that changes the metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated published (i.e., the source category list). proposal date from January 31, 2011, to July 28, risk were an individual exposed to the maximum Oil and natural gas production facilities 2011, and the final action date from November 30, level of a pollutant for a lifetime. were listed as a category of major 2011, to February 28, 2012.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52744 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

applicable legal requirements. This processing, (3) natural gas transmission is associated gas from oil wells or non- approach essentially expands the and (4) natural gas distribution. Each of associated gas from gas or condensate technical analyses on costs and benefits these segments is briefly discussed wells, it commonly exists in mixtures of particular technologies, to consider below. with other hydrocarbons. These the interactions of rules that regulate Oil and natural gas production hydrocarbons are often referred to as sources. The benefit of multi-pollutant includes both onshore and offshore natural gas liquids (NGL). They are sold and sector-based analyses and operations. Production operations separately and have a variety of approaches includes the ability to include the wells and all related different uses. The raw natural gas often identify optimum strategies, considering processes used in the extraction, contains water vapor, hydrogen sulfide feasibility, cost impacts and benefits production, recovery, lifting, (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), helium, across the different pollutant types stabilization, separation or treating of oil nitrogen and other compounds. Natural while streamlining administrative and and/or natural gas (including gas processing consists of separating compliance complexities and reducing condensate). Production components certain hydrocarbons and fluids from conflicting and redundant requirements, may include, but are not limited to, the natural gas to produced ‘‘pipeline resulting in added certainty and easier wells and related casing head, tubing quality’’ dry natural gas. While some of implementation of control strategies for head and ‘‘Christmas tree’’ piping, as the processing can be accomplished in the sector under consideration. In order well as pumps, compressors, heater the production segment, the complete to benefit from a sector-based approach treaters, separators, storage vessels, processing of natural gas takes place in for the oil and gas industry, the EPA pneumatic devices and dehydrators. the natural gas processing segment. analyzed how the NSPS and NESHAP Production operations also include the Natural gas processing operations under consideration relate to each other well drilling, completion and workover separate and recover NGL or other non- and other regulatory requirements processes and includes all the portable methane gases and liquids from a stream currently under review for oil and gas non-self-propelled apparatus associated of produced natural gas through facilities. In this analysis, we looked at with those operations. Production sites components performing one or more of how the different control requirements include not only the ‘‘pads’’ where the the following processes: Oil and that result from these requirements wells are located, but also include condensate separation, water removal, interact, including the different stand-alone sites where oil, condensate, separation of NGL, sulfur and CO2 regulatory deadlines and control produced water and gas from several removal, fractionation of natural gas equipment requirements that result, the wells may be separated, stored and liquid and other processes, such as the different reporting and recordkeeping treated. The production sector also capture of CO2 separated from natural requirements and opportunities for includes the low pressure, small gas streams for delivery outside the states to account for reductions resulting diameter, gathering pipelines and facility. Natural gas processing plants from this rulemaking in their State related components that collect and are the only operations covered by the Implementation Plans (SIP). The transport the oil, gas and other materials existing NSPS. requirements analyzed affect criteria and wastes from the wells to the The pipeline quality natural gas pollutant, HAP and methane emissions refineries or natural gas processing leaves the processing segment and from oil and natural gas processes and plants. None of the operations upstream enters the transmission segment. cover the NSPS and NESHAP reviews. of the natural gas processing plant are Pipelines in the natural gas transmission As a result of the sector-based approach, covered by the existing NSPS. Offshore segment can be interstate pipelines that this rulemaking will reduce conflicting oil and natural gas production occurs on carry natural gas across state boundaries and redundant requirements. Also, the platform structures that house or intrastate pipelines, which transport sector-based approach facilitated the equipment to extract oil and gas from the gas within a single state. While streamlining of monitoring, the ocean or lake floor and that process interstate pipelines may be of a larger recordkeeping and reporting and/or transfer the oil and gas to diameter and operated at a higher requirements, thus, reducing storage, transport vessels or onshore. pressure, the basic components are the administrative and compliance Offshore production can also include same. To ensure that the natural gas complexities associated with complying secondary platform structures flowing through any pipeline remains with multiple regulations. In addition, connected to the platform structure, pressurized, compression of the gas is the sector-based approach promotes a storage tanks associated with the required periodically along the pipeline. comprehensive control strategy that platform structure and floating This is accomplished by compressor maximizes the co-control of multiple production and offloading equipment. stations usually placed between 40 and regulated pollutants while obtaining There are three basic types of wells: 100 mile intervals along the pipeline. At emission reductions as co-benefits. Oil wells, gas wells and associated gas a compressor station, the natural gas wells. Oil wells can have ‘‘associated’’ enters the station, where it is IV. Oil and Natural Gas Sector natural gas that is separated and compressed by reciprocating or The oil and natural gas sector processed or the crude oil can be the centrifugal compressors. includes operations involved in the only product processed. Once the crude In addition to the pipelines and extraction and production of oil and oil is separated from the water and other compressor stations, the natural gas natural gas, as well as the processing, impurities, it is essentially ready to be transmission segment includes transmission and distribution of natural transported to the refinery via truck, underground storage facilities. gas. Specifically for oil, the sector railcar or pipeline. We consider the oil Underground natural gas storage includes all operations from the well to refinery sector separately from the oil includes subsurface storage, which the point of custody transfer at a and natural gas sector. Therefore, at the typically consists of depleted gas or oil petroleum refinery. For natural gas, the point of custody transfer at the refinery, reservoirs and salt dome caverns used sector includes all operations from the the oil leaves the oil and natural gas for storing natural gas. One purpose of well to the customer. The oil and sector and enters the petroleum refining this storage is for load balancing natural gas operations can generally be sector. (equalizing the receipt and delivery of separated into four segments: (1) Oil and Natural gas is primarily made up of natural gas). At an underground storage natural gas production, (2) natural gas methane. However, whether natural gas site, there are typically other processes,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52745

including compression, dehydration public comment and data relevant to operation not covered by the current and flow measurement. several issues. The comments we listing and evaluating emissions from all The distribution segment is the final receive during the public comment oil and gas operations at the same time. step in delivering natural gas to period will help inform the rule We are also proposing standards for customers. The natural gas enters the development process as we work toward several new oil and natural gas affected distribution segment from delivery promulgating a final action. facilities. The proposed standards points located on interstate and would apply to affected facilities that intrastate transmission pipelines to A. What are the proposed revisions to commence construction, reconstruction business and household customers. The the NSPS? or modification after August 23, 2011. delivery point where the natural gas We reviewed the two NSPS that apply These standards, which include leaves the transmission segment and to the oil and natural gas industry. requirements for VOC, would be enters the distribution segment is often Based on our review, we believe that the contained in a new subpart, 40 CFR part called the ‘‘citygate.’’ Typically, utilities requirements at 40 CFR part 60, subpart 60, subpart OOOO. Subpart OOOO take ownership of the gas at the citygate. KKK, should be updated to reflect would incorporate 40 CFR part 60, Natural gas distribution systems consist requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart subpart KKK and 40 CFR part 60, of thousands of miles of piping, VVa for controlling VOC equipment subpart LLL, thereby having in this one including mains and service pipelines leaks at processing plants. We also subpart, all standards that are applicable to the customers. Distribution systems believe that the requirements at 40 CFR to the new and modified affected sometimes have compressor stations, part 60, subpart LLL, for controlling SO2 facilities described above. We also although they are considerably smaller emissions from natural gas processing propose to amend the title of subparts than transmission compressor stations. plants should be strengthened for KKK and LLL, accordingly, to apply Distribution systems include metering facilities with the highest sulfur feed only to affected facilities already subject stations, which allow distribution rates and the highest H2S to those subparts. Those operations companies to monitor the natural gas in concentrations. For a more detailed would not become subject to subpart the system. Essentially, these metering discussion, please see section VI.B.1 of OOOO unless they triggered stations measure the flow of gas and this preamble. applicability based on new or modified allow distribution companies to track In addition, there are significant VOC affected facilities under subpart OOOO. natural gas as it flows through the emissions from oil and natural gas We are proposing operational system. operations that are not covered by the standards for completions of Emissions can occur from a variety of two existing NSPS, including other hydraulically fractured gas wells. Based processes and points throughout the oil emissions at processing plants and on our review, we identified two and natural gas sector. Primarily, these emissions from upstream production, as subcategories of fractured gas wells for emissions are organic compounds such well as transmission and storage which well completions are conducted. as methane, ethane, VOC and organic facilities. In the 1984 notice that listed For non-exploratory and non- HAP. The most common organic HAP source categories (including Oil and delineation wells, the proposed are n-hexane and BTEX compounds Natural Gas) for promulgation of NSPS, operational standards would require (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and we noted that there were discrepancies reduced emission completion (REC), xylenes). Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and between the source category names on commonly referred to as ‘‘green sulfur dioxide (SO2) are emitted from the list and those in the background completion,’’ in combination with pit- production and processing operations document, and we clarified our intent to flaring of gas not suitable for entering that handle and treat ‘‘sour gas.’’ Sour address all sources under an industry the gathering line. For exploratory and delineation wells (these wells generally gas is defined as natural gas with a heading at the same time. See 44 FR are not in close proximity to a gathering maximum H2S content of 0.25 gr/100 scf 49222, 49224–49225.4 We, therefore, line), we proposed an operational (4ppmv) along with the presence of CO2. believe that the currently listed Oil and In addition, there are significant standard that would require pit flaring. Natural Gas source category covers all emissions associated with the Well completions subject to the operations in this industry (i.e., reciprocating internal combustion standards would be limited to gas well production, processing, transmission, engines and combustion turbines that completions following hydraulic storage and distribution). To the extent power compressors throughout the oil fracturing operations. These there are oil and gas operations not and natural gas sector. However, completions include those conducted at covered by the currently listed Oil and emissions from internal combustion newly drilled and fractured wells, as Natural Gas source category, pursuant to engines and combustion turbines are well as completions conducted CAA section 111(b), we hereby modify covered by regulations specific to following refracturing operations at the category list to include all engines and turbines and, thus, are not various times over the life of the well. operations in the oil and natural gas addressed in this action. We have determined that a completion sector. Section 111(b) of the CAA gives associated with refracturing performed V. Summary of Proposed Decisions and the EPA broad authority and discretion at an existing well (i.e., a well existing Actions to list and establish NSPS for a category prior to August 23, 2011) is considered Pursuant to CAA sections 111(b), that, in the Administrator’s judgment, a modification under CAA section 112(d)(2), 112(d)(6) and 112(f), we are causes or contributes significantly to air 111(a), because physical change occurs proposing to revise the NSPS and pollution which may reasonably be to the existing well resulting in NESHAP relative to oil and gas to anticipated to endanger public health or emissions increase during the include the standards and requirements welfare. Pursuant to CAA section refracturing and completion operation. summarized in this section. More 111(b), we are modifying the source A detailed discussion of this details of the rationale for these category list to include any oil and gas determination is presented in the proposed standards and requirements Technical Support Document (TSD) in 4 The Notice further states that ‘‘The are provided in sections VI and VII of Administrator may also concurrently develop the docket. Therefore, the proposed this preamble. In addition, as part of standards for sources which are not on the priority standards would apply to completions these rationale discussions, we solicit list.’’ 44 FR at 49225. at new gas wells that are fractured or

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52746 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

refractured along with completions require replacement of the rod packing 60, subpart LLL into the new subpart associated with fracturing or based on hours of usage. The owner or OOOO so that all requirements refracturing of existing gas wells. The operator of a reciprocating compressor applicable to the new and modified modification determination and affected facility would be required to facilities would be in one subpart. This resultant applicability of NSPS to the monitor the duration (in hours) that the would simplify and streamline completion operation following compressor is operated. When the hours compliance efforts on the part of the oil fracturing or refracturing of existing gas of operation reaches 26,000 hours, the and natural gas industry and could wells (i.e., wells existing before August owner or operator would be required to minimize duplication of notification, 23, 2011 would be limited strictly to the change the rod packing immediately. recordkeeping and reporting. wellhead, well bore, casing and tubing, However, to avoid unscheduled B. What are the proposed decisions and and any conveyance through which gas shutdowns when 26,000 hours is actions related to the NESHAP? is vented to the atmosphere and not be reached, owners and operators could extended beyond the wellhead to other track hours of operation such that This section summarizes the results of ancillary components that may be at the packing replacement could be our RTR for the Oil and Natural Gas well site such as existing storage coordinated with planned maintenance Production and the Natural Gas vessels, process vessels, separators, shutdowns before hours of operation Transmission and Storage source dehydrators or any other components or reached 26,000. Some operators may categories and our proposed decisions apparatus. prefer to replace the rod packing on a concerning these two 1999 NESHAP. We are also proposing VOC standards fixed schedule to ensure that the hours 1. Addressing Unregulated Emissions to reduce emissions from gas-driven of operation would not reach 26,000 Sources pneumatic devices. We are proposing hours. We solicit comment on the that each pneumatic device is an appropriateness of a fixed replacement Pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) affected facility. Accordingly, the frequency and other considerations that and (3), we are proposing MACT proposed standards would apply to each would be associated with regular standards for subcategories of glycol newly installed pneumatic device replacement. dehydrators for which standards were (including replacement of an existing We are also proposing VOC standards not previously developed (hereinafter device). At gas processing plants, we are for new or modified storage vessels. The referred to as the ‘‘small dehydrators’’). proposing a zero emission limit for each proposed rule, which would apply to In the Oil and Natural Gas Production individual pneumatic controller. The individual vessels, would require that source category, the subcategory proposed emission standards would vessels meeting certain specifications consists of glycol dehydrators with an reflect the emission level achievable achieve at least 95-percent reduction in actual annual average natural gas from the use of non-gas-driven VOC emissions. Requirements would flowrate less than 85,000 standard cubic pneumatic controllers. At other apply to vessels with a throughput of 1 meters per day (scmd) or actual average locations, we are proposing a bleed limit barrel of condensate per day or 20 benzene emissions less than 0.9 of 6 standard cubic feet of gas per hour barrels of crude oil per day. These megagrams per year (Mg/yr). In the for an individual pneumatic controller, thresholds are equivalent to VOC Natural Gas Transmission and Storage which would reflect the emission level emissions of about 6 tpy. source category, the subcategory achievable from the use of low bleed For gas processing plants, we are consists of glycol dehydrators with an gas-driven pneumatic controllers. In updating the requirements for leak actual annual average natural gas both cases, the standards provide detection and repair (LDAR) to reflect flowrate less than 283,000 scmd or exemptions for certain applications procedures and leak thresholds actual average benzene emissions less based on functional considerations. established by 40 CFR 60, subpart VVa. than 0.9 Mg/yr. In addition, the proposed rule would The existing NSPS requires 40 CFR part The proposed MACT standards for the require measures to reduce VOC 60, subpart VV procedures and subcategory of small dehydrators at oil emissions from centrifugal and thresholds. and gas production facilities would reciprocating compressors. As explained For 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL, require that existing affected sources in more detail below in section VI.B.4, which regulates SO2 emissions from meet a unit-specific BTEX limit of 1.10 ¥ we are proposing equipment standards natural gas processing plants, we × 10 4 grams BTEX/standard cubic for centrifugal compressors. The determined that affected facilities with meters (scm)-parts per million by proposed standards would require the sulfur feed rate of at least 5 long tons volume (ppmv) and that new affected use of dry seal systems. However, we per day or H2S concentration in the acid sources meet a BTEX limit of 4.66 × are aware that some owners and gas stream of at least 50 percent can 10¥6 grams BTEX/scm-ppmv. At operators may need to use centrifugal achieve up to 99.9-percent SO2 control, natural gas transmission and storage compressors with wet seals, and we are which is greater than the existing affected sources, the proposed MACT soliciting comment on the suitability of standard. Therefore, we are proposing standard for the subcategory of small a compliance option allowing the use of revision to the performance standards in dehydrators would require that existing wet seals combined with routing of subpart LLL as a result of this review. affected sources meet a unit-specific emissions from the seal liquid through For a more detailed discussion of this BTEX emission limit of 6.42 × 10¥5 a closed vent system to a control device proposed determination, please see grams BTEX/scm-ppmv and that new as an acceptable alternative to installing section VI.B.1 of this preamble. affected sources meet a BTEX limit of dry seals. We are proposing to address 1.10 × 10¥5 grams BTEX/scm-ppmv. Our review of reciprocating compliance requirements for periods of We are also proposing MACT compressors found that piston rod startup, shutdown and malfunction standards for storage vessels that are packing wear produces fugitive (SSM) for 40 CFR part 60, subpart currently not regulated under the Oil emissions that cannot be captured and OOOO. The SSM changes are discussed and Natural Gas Production NESHAP. conveyed to a control device. As a in detail in section VI.B.5 below. In The current MACT standards apply only result, we are proposing operational addition, we are proposing to to storage vessels with the potential for standards for reciprocating compressors, incorporate the requirements in 40 CFR flash emissions (PFE). As explained in such that the proposed rule would part 60, subpart KKK and 40 CFR part section VII, the original MACT analysis

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52747

accounted for all storage vessels. We manufacturers’ performance testing as criteria for establishing the are, therefore, proposing to apply the alternative, and to clarify which devices affirmative defense. current MACT standards of 95-percent must be performance tested. The EPA has attempted to ensure that emission reduction to every storage We are also proposing to: Revise the we have neither overlooked nor failed to vessel at major source oil and natural parametric monitoring calibration propose to remove from the existing text gas production facilities. In conjunction provisions; require periodic any provisions that are inappropriate, with this change, we are proposing to unnecessary or redundant in the performance testing where applicable; amend the definition of associated absence of the SSM exemption, nor remove the allowance of a design equipment to exclude all storage included any such provisions in the analysis for all control devices other vessels, and not just those with the PFE, proposed new regulatory language. We than condensers; remove the from being considered ‘‘associated are specifically seeking comment on requirement for a minimum residence equipment.’’ This means that emissions whether there are any such provisions from all storage vessels, and not just time for an enclosed combustion device; that we have inadvertently overlooked those from storage vessels with the PFE, and add recordkeeping and reporting or incorporated. are to be included in the major source requirements to document carbon We are also revising the applicability determination. replacement intervals. These changes provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart are being proposed to bring the HH to clarify requirements regarding 2. What are the proposed decisions and NESHAP up-to-date based on what we actions related to the risk review? PTE determination and the scope of a have learned regarding control devices facility subject to subpart HH. Lastly, we For both the Oil and Natural Gas and compliance since the original are proposing several editorial Production and the Natural Gas promulgation date. corrections and plain language revisions Transmission and Storage source In addition, we are proposing the to improve these rules. categories, we find that the current elimination of the SSM exemption in C. What are the proposed notification, levels of emissions allowed by the the Oil and Natural Gas Production and MACT reflect acceptable levels of risk; recordkeeping and reporting the Natural Gas Transmission and requirements for this proposed action? however, the level of emissions allowed Storage NESHAP. As discussed in more by the alternative compliance option for detail below in section VII, consistent 1. What are the proposed notification, glycol dehydrator MACT (i.e., the with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 recordkeeping and reporting option of reducing benzene emissions to (D.C. Cir. 2010), the EPA is proposing requirements for the proposed NSPS? less than 0.9 Mg/yr in lieu of the MACT that the established standards in these standard of 95-percent control) reflects The proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart two NESHAP apply at all times. We are an unacceptable level of risk. We are, OOOO includes new requirements for proposing to revise Table 2 to both 40 therefore, proposing to eliminate the 0.9 several operations for which there are CFR part 63, subpart HH and 40 CFR Mg/yr alternative compliance option. no existing Federal standards. Most In addition, we are proposing that the part 63, subpart HHH to indicate that notably, as discussed in sections V.A MACT for these two oil and gas source certain 40 CFR part 63 general and VI.B of this preamble, the proposed categories, as revised per above, provide provisions relative to SSM do not apply, NSPS will cover completions and 5 an ample margin of safety to protect including: 40 CFR 63.6 (e)(1)(i) and recompletions of hydraulically fractured public health and prevent adverse (ii), 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) (SSM plan gas wells. We estimate that over 20,000 environmental effects. requirement), 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1); 40 CFR completions and recompletions 63.7(e)(1), 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (iii), annually will be subject to the proposed 3. What are the proposed decisions and and the last sentence of 40 CFR requirements. Given the number of actions related to the technology 63.8(d)(3); 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i),(ii), (iv) these operations, we believe that reviews of the existing NESHAP? and (v); 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10), (11) and notification and reporting must be For both the Oil and Natural Gas (15); and 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5). We are streamlined to the extent possible to Production and the Natural Gas also proposing to: (1) Revise 40 CFR minimize undue burden on owners and Transmission and Storage source 63.771(d)(4)(i) and 40 CFR operators, as well as state, local and categories, we are proposing no 63.1281(d)(4)(i) regarding operation of tribal agencies. In section V.D of this revisions to the existing NESHAP the control device to be consistent with preamble, we discuss some innovative pursuant to section 112(d)(6) of the the SSM compliance requirements; and implementation approaches being CAA. (2) revise the SSM-associated reporting considered and seek comment on these and other potential methods of 4. What other actions are we proposing? and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.774, 40 CFR 63.775, 40 CFR streamlining notification and reporting We are proposing an alternative 63.1284 and 40 CFR 63.1285 to require for well completions covered by the performance test for non-flare, reporting and recordkeeping for periods proposed rule. combustion control devices. This test is of malfunction. In addition, as Owners or operators are required to to be conducted by the combustion explained below, we are proposing to submit initial notifications and annual control device manufacturer to add an affirmative defense to civil reports, and to retain records to assist in demonstrate the destruction efficiency documenting that they are complying penalties for exceedances of emission achieved by a specific model of with the provisions of the NSPS. These limits caused by malfunctions, as well combustion control device. This would notification, recordkeeping and allow a source to purchase a reporting activities include both 5 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) requires owners or operators performance tested device for to act according to the general duty to ‘‘operate and requirements of the 40 CFR part 60 installation at their site without being maintain any affected source, including associated General Provisions, as well as required to conduct a site-specific air pollution control equipment and monitoring requirements specific to 40 CFR part 60, performance test. A definition for equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and subpart OOOO. good air pollution control practices for minimizing Owners or operators of affected ‘‘flare’’ is being proposed in the emissions.’’ This general duty to minimize is NESHAP to clarify which combustion included in our proposed standard at 40 CFR facilities (except for pneumatic control devices fall under the 63.783(b)(1). controller and gas wellhead affected

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52748 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

sources) must submit an initial of condensate per day and 21 barrels of requirements for the contents of the notification within 1 year after crude oil per day, required information periodic reports. For both 40 CFR part becoming subject to 40 CFR part 60, also includes calculations or other 63, subpart HH and 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO or by 1 year after the documentation of the throughput. For subpart HHH, we are proposing that the publication of the final rule in the onshore gas processing plants, semi- periodic reports also include periodic Federal Register, whichever is later. For annual reports are required, and include test results and information regarding pneumatic controllers, owners and information on number of pressure any carbon replacement events that operators are not required to submit an relief devices, number of pressure relief occurred during the reporting period. initial notification, but instead are devices for which leaks were detected 3. How is information submitted using required to report the installation of and pressure relief devices for which the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT)? these affected facilities in their facility’s leaks were not repaired, as required in annual report. Owners or operators of 40 CFR 60.5396 of subpart OOOO. Performance test data are an wellhead affected facilities (well Records must be retained for 5 years important source of information that the completions) would also be required to and generally consist of the same EPA uses in compliance determinations, submit a 30-day advance notification of information required in the initial developing and reviewing standards, each well completion subject to the notification and annual and semiannual emission factor development, annual NSPS. In addition, annual reports are reports. emission rate determinations and other due 1 year after initial startup date for purposes. In these activities, the EPA 2. What are the proposed amendments has found it ineffective and time your affected facility or 1 year after the to notification, recordkeeping and date of publication of the final rule in consuming, not only for owners and reporting requirements for the operators, but also for regulatory the Federal Register, whichever is later. NESHAP? The notification and annual reports agencies, to locate, collect and submit must include information on all affected We are proposing to revise certain performance test data because of varied facilities owned or operated that were recordkeeping requirements of 40 CFR locations for data storage and varied new, modified or reconstructed sources part 63, subpart HH and 40 CFR part 63, data storage methods. In recent years, during the reporting period. A single subpart HHH. Specifically, we are though, stack testing firms have report may be submitted covering proposing that facilities using carbon typically collected performance test data multiple affected facilities, provided adsorbers as a control device keep in electronic format, making it possible that the report contains all the records of their carbon replacement to move to an electronic data submittal information required by 40 CFR schedule and records for each carbon system that would increase the ease and 60.5420(b). This information includes replacement. In addition, owners and efficiency of data submittal and improve general information on the facility (i.e., operators are required to keep records of data accessibility. company name and address, etc.), as the occurrence and duration of each Through this proposal, the EPA is well as information specific to malfunction or operation of the air taking a step to increase the ease and individual affected facilities. pollution control equipment and efficiency of data submittal and improve For wellhead affected facilities, this monitoring equipment. data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA information includes details of each In addition, in conjunction with the is proposing that owners and operators well completion during the period, proposed MACT standards for small of oil and natural gas sector facilities including duration of periods of gas glycol dehydration units and storage submit electronic copies of required recovery, flaring and venting. For vessels that do not have the PFE in the performance test reports to the EPA’s centrifugal compressor affected proposed amendment to 40 CFR part 63, WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE facilities, information includes subpart HH, we are proposing that database was constructed to store documentation that the compressor is owners and operators of affected small performance test data for use in fitted with dry seals. For reciprocating glycol dehydration units and storage developing emission factors. A compressors, information includes the vessels submit an initial notification description of the WebFIRE database is cumulative hours of operation of each within 1 year after becoming subject to available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ compressor and records of rod packing subpart HH or by 1 year after the oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. replacement. publication of the final rule in the As proposed above, data entry would Information for pneumatic device Federal Register, whichever is later. be through an electronic emissions test affected facilities includes location and Similarly, in conjunction with the report structure called the Electronic manufacturer specifications of each proposed MACT standards for small Reporting Tool (ERT). The ERT will be pneumatic controller installed during glycol dehydration units in the able to transmit the electronic report the period and documentation that proposed 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH through the EPA’s Central Data supports any exemption claimed amendments, we are proposing that Exchange network for storage in the allowing use of high bleed controllers. owners and operators of small glycol WebFIRE database making submittal of For controllers installed at gas dehydration units submit an initial data very straightforward and easy. A processing plants, the owner or operator notification within 1 year after description of the ERT can be found at would document the use of non-gas becoming subject to subpart HHH or by http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ driven devices. For controllers installed 1 year after the publication of the final ert_tool.html. in locations other than at gas processing rule in the Federal Register, whichever The proposal to submit performance plants, owners or operators would is later. Affected sources under either 40 test data electronically to the EPA provide manufacturer’s specifications CFR part 63, subpart HH or subpart would apply only to those performance that document bleed rate not exceeding HHH that plan to be area sources by the tests conducted using test methods that 6 cubic feet per hour. compliance dates will be required to will be supported by the ERT. The ERT For storage vessel affected facilities, submit a notification describing their contains a specific electronic data entry required report information includes schedule for the actions planned to form for most of the commonly used information that documents control achieve area source status. EPA reference methods. A listing of the device compliance, if applicable. For The proposed amendments to the pollutants and test methods supported vessels with throughputs below 1 barrel NESHAP also include additional by the ERT is available at http://

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52749

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html. significant time, money and effort while consider providing for such options in We believe that industry would benefit also improving the quality of emission the final action. Further, we request from this proposed approach to inventories and, as a result, air quality comments and suggestions on all electronic data submittal. Having these regulations. aspects of the innovative compliance data, the EPA would be able to develop approaches discussed below and how D. What are the innovative compliance improved emission factors, make fewer they may be implemented approaches being considered? information requests, and promulgate appropriately. We are seeking comment better regulations. Given the potential number and regarding the scope of application of One major advantage of the proposed diversity of sources affected by this one or more of these approaches, i.e., submittal of performance test data action, we are exploring optional which provisions of the standards being through the ERT is a standardized approaches to provide the regulated proposed here would be suitable for method to compile and store much of community, the regulators and the specific compliance approaches, and the documentation required to be public a more effective mechanism that whether the approaches should be reported by this rule. Another advantage maximizes compliance and alternatives to the requirements in the is that the ERT clearly states testing transparency while minimizing burden. regulations. information that would be required. Under a traditional approach, owners The guiding principles we are Another important benefit of submitting or operators would provide notifications following in considering these these data to the EPA at the time the and keep records of information approaches to compliance are: (1) source test is conducted is that it should required by the NSPS. In addition, they Simplicity and ease of understanding substantially reduce the effort involved would certify compliance with the and implementation; (2) transparency in data collection activities in the NSPS as part of a required annual report and public accessibility; (3) electronic future. When the EPA has performance that would include compliance-related implementation where appropriate; and test data in hand, there will likely be information, such as details of each well (4) encouragement of compliance by fewer or less substantial data collection completion event and information making compliance easier than requests in conjunction with documenting compliance with other noncompliance. Below are some tools prospective required residual risk requirements of the NSPS. The EPA, that, when used in tandem with assessments or technology reviews. This state or local agency would then emissions limits and operational would result in a reduced burden on physically inspect the affected facilities standards, the Agency believes could both affected facilities (in terms of and/or audit the records retained by the both assure compliance and reduced manpower to respond to data owner or operator. As an alternative to transparency, while minimizing burden collection requests) and the EPA (in the traditional approach, we are seeking on affected sources and regulatory terms of preparing and distributing data an innovative way to provide for more agencies. collection requests and assessing the transparency to the public and less 1. Registration of Wells and Advance results). burden on the regulatory agencies and State, local and tribal agencies could owners and operators, especially as it Notification of Planned Completions also benefit from more streamlined and relates to modification of existing Although the proposed NSPS will not accurate review of electronic data sources through recompletions of require approval to drill or complete submitted to them. The ERT would hydraulically fractured gas wells. These wells, it is important that regulatory allow for an electronic review process innovative approaches would provide agencies know when completions of rather than a manual data assessment compliance assurance in light of the hydraulically fractured wells are to be making review and evaluation of the absence of requirements for CAA title V performed. Notification should occur source provided data and calculations permitting of non-major sources. sufficiently in advance to allow for easier and more efficient. Finally, Section V.E of this preamble discusses inspections or audits to certify or verify another benefit of the proposed data permitting implications associated with that the operator will have in place and submittal to WebFIRE electronically is the NSPS and presents a proposed use the appropriate controls during the that these data would greatly improve rationale for exempting non-major completion. To that end, the proposed the overall quality of existing and new sources subject to the NSPS from title V NSPS requires a 30-day advance emissions factors by supplementing the permitting requirements. As discussed notification of each completion or pool of emissions test data for in sections V.A, V.C and VI.B of this recompletion of a hydraulically establishing emissions factors and by preamble, the proposed NSPS will cover fractured gas well. The advance ensuring that the factors are more completions and recompletions of notification would require that owners representative of current industry hydraulically fractured gas wells. We or operators provide the anticipated operational procedures. A common estimate that over 20,000 completions date of the completion, the geographic complaint heard from industry and and recompletions annually will be coordinates of the well and identifying regulators is that emission factors are subject to the proposed requirements. information concerning the owner or outdated or not representative of a As a result, we believe that notification operator and responsible company particular source category. With timely and reporting associated with well official. We believe this notification receipt and incorporation of data from completions must be streamlined to the requirement serves as the registration most performance tests, the EPA would extent possible to minimize undue requirement and could be streamlined be able to ensure that emission factors, burden on owners and operators, as well through optional electronic reporting when updated, represent the most as state, local and tribal agencies. with web-based public access or other current range of operational practices. In Though the requirements being methods. We seek comment on potential summary, in addition to supporting proposed here are based on the methodologies that would minimize regulation development, control strategy traditional approach to compliance and burden on operators, while providing development and other air pollution do not include specific regulatory timely and useful information for control activities having an electronic provisions for innovative compliance regulators and the public. We also database populated with performance tools, we have included discussions solicit comment on provisions for a test data would save industry, state, below that describe how some of these follow-up notification one or two days local, tribal agencies and the EPA optional tools could work, and we will before an impending completion via

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52750 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

telephone or by electronic means, since notification unnecessary. The emissions at the emissions source level it is difficult to predict exactly when a clearinghouse could also house (e.g., well completions, well unloading, well will be ready for completion a information on past completions and compressors, gas plant leaks, etc.), will month in advance. However, we would copies of compliance certifications. We aggregate emissions at the basin level for expect an owner or operator to provide seek comment on whether annual e-reporting purposes. As a result, it may the follow-up notification only in cases reports for well completions would be be difficult to merge reporting under where the completion date was needed if a suitable third party NSPS subpart OOOO with GHG expected to deviate from the original verification program was in place and Reporting Rule subpart W methane date provided. We ask for suggestions already housed that same information. reporting, especially if manual reporting regarding how much advance We also solicit comment on the range of is used. However, since the operator notification is needed and the most potential activities the third party would have these emissions details at effective method of providing sufficient verification program could handle with the individual well level (because that and accurate advance notification of regard to well completions. will be how they would develop their well completions. In this proposed action, there are also basin-wide estimates), we do not believe provisions for applying third party 2. Third Party Verification it would be a significant burden to verification to the required electronic require owners or operators to report the To complement the annual reporting using the ERT (see section data they already have for subpart W in compliance certification required under V.C.3 above for a discussion of the ERT). an ERT for NSPS and NESHAP the proposed NSPS, we are considering As stated above, all sources must use compliance purposes. However, if the e- and seeking comment on the potential the ERT to submit all performance test GGRT is not structured to provide for use of third party verification to assure reports (required in 40 CFR parts 60, 61 reporting of other pollutants besides compliance. Since the emission sources and 63) to the EPA. There is an option GHG (e.g., VOC and HAP), then there in the oil and natural gas sector, in the ERT for state, local and tribal may be some modification of the especially well completions, are widely agencies to review and verify that the database required to accommodate the geographically dispersed (often in very information submitted to the EPA is other pollutants. remote locations), compliance assurance truthful, accurate and complete. Third can be very difficult and burdensome party verifiers could be contractors or 4. Provisions for Encouraging Innovative for state, local and tribal agencies and other personnel familiar with oil and Technology EPA permitting staff, inspectors and natural gas exploration and production. The oil and natural gas industry has compliance officers. Additionally, we We are seeking comment on appropriate a long history of innovation in believe that verification of the data third party reviewers and qualifications developing new exploration and collection, compilation and calculations and registration requirements under production methods, along with by an independent and impartial third such a program. We want to state clearly techniques to minimize product losses party could facilitate the demonstration here that third party verification would and reduce adverse environmental of compliance for the public. not supersede or substitute for impacts. These efforts are often Verification of emissions data can also inspections or audit of data and undertaken with tremendous amounts be beneficial to owners and operators by information by state, local and tribal of research, including pilot applications providing certainty of compliance agencies and the EPA. status. Potential issues with third party at operating facilities in the field. As mentioned above, notification and verification include costs incurred by Absent regulation, these developmental reporting requirements associated with industry and approval of third party activities, some of which ultimately are well completions are likely applications verifiers. The cost of third party not successful, can proceed without risk for third party verification used in verification would be borne by the of violation of any standards. However, tandem with the required annual affected industries. We are seeking as more emission sources in this source compliance certification. The third comment on whether third party category are covered by regulation, as in party verification program could be verification paid for by industry would the case of the action being proposed used in a variety of ways to ease result in impartial, accurate and here, there likely will be situations regulatory burden on the owners and complete data information. The EPA, where innovation and development of operators and to leverage compliance working with state, local and tribal new control techniques potentially assurance efforts of the EPA and state, agencies and industry, would expect to could be stifled by risk of violation. local and tribal agencies. The third party develop guidance for third party We believe it is important to facilitate, agent could serve as a clearinghouse for verifiers. We are seeking comment on not hinder, innovation and continued notifications, records and annual whether or not the EPA should approve development of new technology that can compliance certifications submitted by third party verifiers. result in enhanced environmental owners and operators. This would performance of facilities and sources provide online access to completion 3. Electronic Reporting Using Existing affected by the EPA’s regulations. information by regulatory agencies and Mechanisms However, any approaches to the public. Having notifications The proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart accommodate technology development submitted to the clearinghouse would OOOO and final Greenhouse Gas (GHG) must be designed and implemented in relieve state, local and tribal agencies of Mandatory Reporting Rule, 40 CFR part accordance with the CAA and other the burden of receiving thousands of 98, subpart W, provide details on flare statutes. We seek comment on paper or e-mail well completion and vented emission sources and how to approaches that may be suitable for notifications each year, yet still provide estimate their emissions. We solicit allowing temporary field testing of them quick access to the information. comment on requiring sources to technology in development. These Using a third party agent, it is possible electronically submit their emissions approaches could include not only that notifications of well completions data for the oil and gas rules proposed established procedures under the CAA could be submitted with an advance here. The EPA’s Electronic Greenhouse and its implementing regulations, but period much less than 30 days that Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) for 40 CFR new ways to apply or interpret these could make a 2 day follow-up part 98, subpart W, while used to report provisions to avoid impeding

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52751

innovation while remaining lands, where many oil and gas sources as a result of being subject to one or environmentally responsible and legal. are located. more of the proposed NSPS identified The proposed standards will lead to above (hereinafter referred to as the E. How does the NSPS relate to better control of and reduced emissions ‘‘proposed NSPS’’); however, if they permitting of sources? from oil and gas production, gas were otherwise required to obtain title 1. How does this action affect permitting processing and transmission and V permits, such requirement(s) would requirements? storage, including wells. In some not be affected by the proposed The proposed rules do not change the instances, we anticipate that complying exemption. Federal requirements for determining with the NSPS would reduce emissions Consistent with the statute, the EPA whether oil and gas sources are major from these smaller sources to below the believes that compliance with title V sources for purposes of nonattainment minor source applicability thresholds. permitting is ‘‘unnecessarily major New Source Review (NSR), In those cases, sources that would burdensome’’ for the oil and gas NSPS prevention of significant deterioration, otherwise have been subject to minor non-major sources. The EPA’s inquiry CAA title V, or HAP major sources NSR would not need to get minor NSR into whether this criterion was satisfied pursuant to CAA section 112. permits as a result of being subject to is based primarily upon consideration of Specifically, if an owner or operator is the NSPS. Accordingly, the number of the following four factors: (1) Whether not currently required to get a major minor NSR permits, as well as the title V would result in significant NSR or title V permit for oil and gas Agency resources needed to issue them, improvements to the compliance sources, including well completions, it would be reduced. requirements that we are proposing for We expect the emission reductions would not be required to get a major the oil and gas NSPS affected non-major achieved from the proposed standards NSR or title V permit as a result of these sources; (2) whether title V permitting to significantly improve ozone proposed standards. EPA-approved state would impose a significant burden on nonattainment problems in areas where and local major source permitting these non-major sources and whether oil and gas production occurs. Strategies programs would not be affected. That is, that burden would be aggravated by any for attaining and maintaining the state and local agencies with EPA- difficulty these sources may have in national ambient air quality standards approved programs will still make case- obtaining assistance from permitting (NAAQS) are a function of SIP (or, in by-case major source determinations for agencies; (3) whether the costs of title V some instances, Federal Implementation purposes of major NSR and title V, permitting for these non-major sources Plans and Tribal Implementation Plans) relying on the regulatory criteria, as would be justified, taking into 6 pursuant to CAA section 110. In explained in the McCarthy Memo. consideration any potential gains in developing plans to attain and maintain Consistent with the McCarthy Memo, compliance likely to occur for such the NAAQS, EPA works with state, local whether or not a permitting authority sources; and (4) whether there are or Tribal agencies to account for growth should aggregate two or more pollutant- implementation and enforcement and develop overall control strategies emitting activities into a single major programs in place that are sufficient to that address existing and expected stationary source for purposes of NSR assure compliance with the proposed emissions. The reductions achieved by and title V remains a case-by-case Oil and Natural Gas NSPS without the standards will make it easier for decision in which permitting authorities relying on title V permits. Not all of the state and local agencies to plan for and retain the discretion to consider the four factors must weigh in favor of an to attain and maintain the ozone factors relevant to the specific exemption. See 70 FR 75320, 75323 NAAQS. circumstances of the permitted (Title V Exemption Rule). Instead, the activities. 2. How does this action affect factors are to be considered in In addition, the proposed standards applicability of CAA title V? combination and the EPA determines would not change the requirements for Under section 502(a) of the CAA, the whether the factors, taken together, determining whether oil and gas sources support an exemption from title V for are subject to minor NSR. Nor would the EPA may exempt one or more non-major sources 7 subject to CAA section 111 the oil and gas non-major sources. proposed standards affect existing EPA- Additionally, consistent with the approved state and local minor NSR (NSPS) standards from the requirements of title V if the EPA finds that guidance provided by the legislative rules, as well as policies and practices 8 compliance with such requirements is history of CAA section 502(a), we implementing those rules. Many state considered whether exempting the Oil and local agencies have already adopted ‘‘impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome’’ on such and Natural Gas NSPS non-major minor NSR permitting programs that sources would adversely affect public provide for control of emissions from sources. The EPA determine whether to exempt a non-major source from title V health, welfare or the environment. The relatively small emission sources, first factor is whether title V would including various pieces of equipment at the time we issue the relevant CAA section 111 standards (40 CFR result in significant improvements to used in oil and gas fields. State and the compliance requirements in the local agencies would be able to continue 70.3(b)(2)). We are proposing in this action to exempt from the requirements proposed NSPS. A finding that title V to use any EPA-approved General would not result in significant Permits, Permits by Rule, and other of title V non-major sources that would be subject to the proposed NSPS for improvements to the compliance similar streamlining mechanisms to requirements in the proposed NSPS permit oil and gas sources such as wells. well completions, pneumatic devices, compressors, and/or storage vessels. would support a conclusion that title V We recently promulgated the final permitting is ‘‘unnecessary’’ for non- Tribal Minor NSR rules for use in These non-major sources (hereinafter issuing minor issue permits on tribal referred to as the ‘‘oil and gas NSPS non-major sources’’) would not be 8 The legislative history of section 502(a) suggests that EPA should not grant title V exemptions where 6 Withdrawal of Source Determinations for Oil required to obtain title V permits solely doing so would adversely affect public health, and Gas Industries, September 22, 2009. This memo welfare or the environment. (See Chafee-Baucus continues to articulate the Agency’s interpretation 7 CAA section 502(a) prohibits title V exemption Statement of Senate Managers, Environment and for major NSR and title V permitting of oil and gas for any major source, which is defined in CAA Natural Resources Policy Division 1990 CAA Leg. sources. section 501(2) and 40 CFR 70.2. Hist. 905, Compiled November 1993.)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52752 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

major sources subject to the Oil and NSPS for well completions are sufficient equipment standards.9 For each of these Natural Gas Production NSPS. to ensure that the Administrator, the affected facilities, the proposed NSPS One way that title V may improve state, local and tribal agencies and the would require: (1) Construction, startup compliance is by requiring monitoring public are aware of completion events and modification notifications, as (including recordkeeping designed to before they are performed to provide required by 40 CFR 60.7(a); (2) annual serve as monitoring) to assure opportunity for inspection. Sufficient reports; (3) for each pneumatic compliance with permit terms and documentation would also be required controller installed or modified conditions reflecting the emission to be retained and reported to the (including replacement of an existing limitations and control technology Administrator to assure compliance controller), records of location and date requirements imposed in the standard. of installation and documentation that with the NSPS for well completions. In See 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) and 40 CFR each controller emits no more than the light of the above, we have determined 71.6(c)(1). The ‘‘periodic monitoring’’ applicable emission limit or is exempt provisions of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and that additional monitoring through title (with rationale for the exemption); (4) 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B) require new V is not needed and that the monitoring, for each centrifugal compressor, records monitoring to be added to the permit recordkeeping and reporting that document that each new or when the underlying standard does not requirements described above are modified compressor is equipped with already require ‘‘periodic testing or sufficient to assure compliance with the dry seals; and (5) for each new or instrumental or noninstrumental proposed requirements for well modified reciprocating compressor, monitoring (which may consist of completions. records of rod packing replacement, recordkeeping designed to serve as With respect to storage vessels, the including elapsed operating hours since monitoring).’’ In addition, title V proposed NSPS would require 95- the previous rod packing installation. imposes a number of recordkeeping and percent control of VOC emissions. The For these other affected sources reporting requirements that may be proposed standard could be met by a described above, the proposed NSPS important for assuring compliance. vapor recovery unit, a flare control provide monitoring in the form of These include requirements for a recordkeeping (as described above) that device or other control device. The monitoring report at least every 6 would assure compliance with the proposed NSPS would require an initial months, prompt reports of deviations, proposed operational, work practice or and an annual compliance certification. performance test followed by equipment standards. Monitoring by See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR continuous monitoring of the control means other than recordkeeping would 71.6(a)(3), 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) and 40 CFR device used to meet the 95-percent not be practical or appropriate for these 71.6(c)(1), and 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5) and 40 control. We believe that the monitoring standards. Records are required to CFR 71.6(c)(5). To determine whether requirements described above are ensure that these standards and title V permits would add significant sufficient to assure compliance with the practices are followed. We believe that compliance requirements to the proposed NSPS for storage vessels and, the monitoring, recordkeeping and proposed NSPS, we compared the title therefore, additional monitoring through reporting requirements described above V monitoring, recordkeeping and title V is not needed. In addition to are sufficient to assure compliance with reporting requirements mentioned monitoring, as part of the first factor, we the proposed NSPS for pneumatic above to those requirements proposed have considered the extent to which controllers and compressors. for the Oil and Natural Gas NSPS title V could potentially enhance We acknowledge that title V might affected facilities. compliance through recordkeeping or provide for additional compliance For wellhead affected facilities (well reporting requirements. The proposed requirements for these non-major completions), the proposed NSPS would NSPS would require (1) construction, sources, but we have determined, as require (1) 30-day advance notification startup and modification notifications, explained above, that the monitoring, of each well completion to be as required by 40 CFR 60.7(a); and (2) recordkeeping and reporting performed; (2) noninstrumental requirements in this proposed NSPS are monitoring, which is achieved through annual reports that identify all storage vessel affected facilities of the owner or sufficient to assure compliance with the documentation and recordkeeping of proposed standards for well procedures followed during each operator and documentation of periods of non-compliance. The proposed NSPS completions, storage vessels, pneumatic completion, including total duration of controllers and compressors. Further, would also require records documenting the completion event, amount of time given the nature of some of the liquid throughput of condensate or gas is recovered using reduced emission operations and the types of the completion techniques, amount of time crude oil (to determine applicability), as requirements at issue, the additional gas is combusted, amount of time gas is provided for in the proposed rule. compliance requirements under title V vented to the atmosphere and Recordkeeping would also include would not significantly improve the justification for periods when gas is records of the initial performance test compliance requirements in this combusted or vented rather than being and other information that document proposed NSPS. For instance, well recovered; (3) reports of cases where compliance with applicable emission completions occur over a very short well completions were not performed in limit. These requirements are similar to period (generally 3 to 10 days), and the compliance with the NSPS; (4) annual those under title V. In light of the above, proposed NSPS for pneumatic reports that document all completions we believe that the monitoring, controllers and centrifugal compressors performed during the reporting period recordkeeping and reporting can be met by simply installing the (a single report may be used to requirements described above are equipment that meet the proposed document multiple completions sufficient to assure compliance with the emission limit; therefore, the semi- conducted by a single owner or operator proposed NSPS for storage vessels. annual reporting requirement under title during the reporting period); and (5) V would not improve compliance with annual compliance certifications For pneumatic controllers, centrifugal compressors and reciprocating submitted with the annual report. 9 compressors, the proposed NSPS are in The proposed numeric standards for pneumatic These monitoring, recordkeeping and controllers reflect the use of specific equipment reporting requirements in the proposed the form of operational, work practice or (either non-gas driven device or low-bleed device).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52753

these proposed NSPS and, in fact, may imposed on 40 CFR part 70 sources potential burdens that title V may seem inappropriate for such short term (hence, burden on sources), see the impose on these sources. In addition, operations. requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 40 CFR below in our consideration of the fourth For the reasons stated above, we 70.5, 40 CFR 70.6, and 40 CFR 70.7. The factor, we find that there are adequate believe that title V would not result in activities described above, which are implementation and enforcement significant improvements to the quite extensive and time consuming, programs in place to assure compliance compliance requirements that are would be a significant burden on the with the proposed NSPS. In light of the provided in this proposed NSPS. non-major sources that would be subject above, we find that the costs of title V Therefore, the first factor supports a to the proposed NSPS, in particular for permitting are not justified for the conclusion that title V permitting is well completion and/or pneumatic sources we propose to exempt. ‘‘unnecessary’’ for non-major sources devices, considering the short duration Accordingly, the third factor supports subject to the Oil and Natural Gas NSPS. of a well completion and the one time title V exemption for the oil and gas The second factor we considered is equipment installation of a pneumatic NSPS non-major sources. whether title V permitting would controller for meeting the proposed The fourth factor we considered is impose significant burdens on the oil NSPS. Furthermore, some of the non- whether there are implementation and and natural gas NSPS non-major sources major sources that would be subject to enforcement programs in place that are and whether that burden would be the proposed NSPS may be small sufficient to assure compliance with the aggravated by any difficulty these entities that may lack the technical proposed NSPS for oil and gas sources sources may have in obtaining resources and, therefore, need assistance without relying on title V permits. The assistance from permitting agencies. from the permitting authorities to CAA provides States the opportunity to Subjecting any source to title V comply with the title V permitting take delegation of NSPS. Before the EPA permitting imposes certain burdens and requirements. Based on our projections, will delegate the program, the EPA will costs that do not exist outside of the title over 20,000 well completions (for both evaluate the state programs to ensure V program. EPA estimated that the new hydraulically fractured gas wells that states have adequate capability to average cost of obtaining and complying and for existing gas wells that are enforce the CAA section 111 regulations with a title V permit was $65,700 per subsequently fractured or re-fractured) and provide assurances that they will source for a 5-year permit period, will be performed each year. For enforce the NSPS. In addition, EPA including fees. See Information pneumatic controller affected facilities, retains authority to enforce this NSPS Collection Request (ICR) for Part 70 we estimate that approximately 14,000 anytime under CAA sections 111, 113 Operating Permit Regulations, January new controllers would be subject to the and 114. Accordingly, we can enforce 2007, EPA ICR Number 1587.07. EPA NSPS each year. Our estimated numbers the monitoring, recordkeeping and does not have specific estimates for the of affected facilities that would be reporting requirements, which, as burdens and costs of permitting the oil subject to the proposed NSPS for storage discussed under the first factor, are and gas NSPS non-major sources; vessels and compressors are smaller adequate to assure compliance with this however, there are certain activities (around 500 compressors and 300 NSPS. Also, states and the EPA often associated with the 40 CFR part 70 and storage vessels). Although we do not conduct voluntary compliance 40 CFR part 71 rules. These activities know the total number of non-major assistance, outreach and education are mandatory and impose burdens on sources that would be subject to the programs (compliance assistance any facility subject to title V. They programs), which are not required by proposed NSPS, based on the estimated include reading and understanding statute. We determined that these numbers of affected facilities, we permit program regulations; obtaining additional programs will supplement anticipate a significant increase in the and understanding permit application and enhance the success of compliance number of permit applications that forms; answering follow-up questions with these proposed standards. We permitting authorities would have to from permitting authorities after the believe that the statutory requirements process each year. This significant application is submitted; reviewing and for implementation and enforcement of burden on the permitting authorities understanding the permit; collecting this NSPS by the delegated states, the raises a concern with the potential records; preparing and submitting EPA and the additional assistance difficulty or delay that the small entities monitoring reports; preparing and programs described above together are submitting prompt deviation reports, as may face in obtaining sufficient sufficient to assure compliance with defined by the state, which may include assistance from the permitting these proposed standards without a combination of written, verbal and authorities. relying on title V permitting. other communication methods; The third factor we considered is Our balance of the four factors collecting information, preparing and whether the costs of title V permitting strongly supports a finding that title V submitting the annual compliance for these area sources would be is unnecessarily burdensome for the oil certification; preparing applications for justified, taking into consideration any and gas non-major sources. While title permit revisions every 5 years; and, as potential gains in compliance likely to V might add additional compliance needed, preparing and submitting occur for such sources. We concluded, requirements if imposed, we believe applications for permit revisions. In in considering the first factor, that the that there would not be significant addition, although not required by the monitoring, recordkeeping and improvements to the compliance permit rules, many sources obtain the reporting requirements in this proposed requirements in this proposed rule contractual services of consultants to NSPS assure compliance with the because the proposed rule requirements help them understand and meet the proposed standards, that title V would are specifically designed to assure permitting program’s requirements. The not result in significant improvement to compliance with the proposed NSPS ICR for 40 CFR part 70 provides these compliance requirements and, and, as explained above, some of the additional information on the overall that, in some instances, certain title V title V requirements may not be burdens and costs, as well as the compliance requirements may not be appropriate for certain operations and/ relative burdens of each activity appropriate. In addition, as discussed or proposed standards. We are also described here. Also, for a more above in our consideration of the second concerned with the potential burden comprehensive list of requirements factor, we have concerns with the that title V may impose on some of these

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52754 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

sources. In light of little or no potential VI. Rationale for Proposed Action for Available Control Technology (RACT)/ gain in compliance if title V were NSPS Best Available Control Technology (BACT)/Lowest Achievable Emission required, we do not believe that the A. What did we evaluate relative to Rate (LAER) Clearinghouse (RBLC) costs of title V permitting is justified in NSPS? this case. Finally, there are adequate database, and emerging technologies implementation and enforcement As noted above, there are two existing that have been identified by partners in programs in place to assure compliance NSPS that address emissions from the the Natural Gas STAR program. with these proposed standards. Thus, Oil and Natural Gas source category. The current NSPS for equipment leaks These NSPS are relatively narrow in of VOC at natural gas processing plants we propose that title V permitting is scope, as they address emissions only at (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK) requires ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ for the oil natural gas processing plants. compliance with specific provisions of and gas non-major sources. Specifically, 40 CFR part 60, subpart 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV, which is a In addition to evaluating whether KKK addresses VOC emissions from LDAR program, based on the use of EPA compliance with title V requirements is leaking equipment at onshore natural Method 21 to identify equipment leaks. ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome,’’ EPA also gas processing plants and 40 CFR part In addition to the subpart VV considered, consistent with guidance 60, subpart LLL addresses SO2 requirements, we reviewed the LDAR provided by the legislative history of emissions from natural gas processing requirements in 40 CFR part 60, subpart section 502(a), whether exempting oil plants. VVa. This LDAR program is considered and gas NSPS non-major sources from CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the to be more stringent than the subpart VV title V requirements would adversely EPA to review and revise, if appropriate, requirements, because it has lower affect public health, welfare or the NSPS standards. Accordingly, we component leak threshold definitions environment. The title V permit evaluated whether the existing NSPS and more frequent monitoring, in program does not impose new reflect the BSER for the emission comparison to the subpart VV program. Furthermore, subpart VVa requires substantive air quality control sources that they address. This review monitoring of connectors, while subpart requirements on sources, but instead was conducted by examining currently used, new and emerging control systems VV does not. We also reviewed options requires that certain procedural based on optical gas imaging. measures be followed, particularly with and assessing whether they represent advances in emission reduction As mentioned above, the currently respect to determining compliance with techniques from those upon which the required LDAR program for natural gas applicable requirements. As stated in existing NSPS are based, including processing plants (40 CFR part 60, our consideration of factor one, title V advances in LDAR approaches and SO2 subpart KKK) is based on EPA Method would not lead to significant control at natural gas processing plants. 21, which requires the use of an organic improvements in the compliance For each new or emerging control vapor analyzer to monitor components requirements for the proposed NSPS. option identified, we then evaluated and to measure the concentration of the For the reason stated above, we believe emission reductions, costs, energy emissions in identifying leaks. We that exempting these non-major sources requirements and non-air quality recognize that there have been from title V permitting requirements impacts, such as solid waste generation. advancements in the use of optical gas would not adversely affect public In this package, we have also imaging to detect leaks from these same health, welfare or the environment. evaluated whether there were additional types of components. These instruments pollutants emitted by facilities in the do not yet provide a direct measure of On the contrary, we are concerned leak concentrations. The instruments that requiring title V in this case could Oil and Natural Gas source category that warrant regulation and for which we instead provide a measure of a leak potentially adversely affect public relative to an instrument specific health, welfare or the environment. As have adequate information to promulgate standards of performance. calibration point. Since the mentioned above, we anticipate a promulgation of 40 CFR part 60, subpart significant increase in the number of Finally, we have identified additional processes in the Oil and Natural Gas KKK (which requires Method 21 leak permit applications that permitting source category for which it may be measurement monthly), the EPA has authorities would have to process each appropriate to develop performance updated the 40 CFR part 60 General year. Depending on the number of non- standards. This would include Provisions to allow the use of advanced major sources that would be subject to leak detection tools, such as optical gas processes that emit the currently imaging and ultrasound equipment as this rule, requiring permits for those regulated pollutants, VOC and SO , as 2 an alternative to the LDAR protocol sources, at least in the first few years of well as any additional pollutants for based on Method 21 leak measurements implementation, could potentially which we determined regulation to be (see 40 CFR 60.18(g)). The alternative adversely affect public health, welfare appropriate. or the environment by shifting state work practice allowing use of these agencies resources away from assuring B. What are the results of our advanced technologies includes a compliance for major sources (which evaluations and proposed actions provision for conducting a Method 21- cannot be exempt from title V) to relative to NSPS? based LDAR check of the regulated equipment annually to verify good issuing new permits for these non-major 1. Do the existing NSPS reflect the BSER sources, potentially reducing overall air performance. for sources covered? In our review, we evaluated 4 options program effectiveness. Consistent with our obligations under in considering BSER for VOC equipment Based on the above analysis, we CAA section 111(b), we evaluated leaks at natural gas processing plants. conclude that title V permitting would whether the control options reflected in One option we evaluated consists of be ‘‘unnecessarily burdensome’’ for oil the current NSPS for the Oil and Natural changing from a 40 CFR part 60, subpart and gas NSPS non-major sources. We Gas source category still represent VV-level program, which is what 40 are, therefore, proposing that these non- BSER. To evaluate the BSER options for CFR part 60, subpart KKK currently major sources be exempt from title V equipment leaks, we reviewed EPA’s requires, to a 40 CFR part 60, subpart permitting requirements. current LDAR programs, the Reasonably VVa program, which applies to new

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52755

synthetic organic chemical plants after were unable to estimate the VOC Claus sulfur recovery unit produces 2006. Subpart VVa lowers the leak emissions achieved by an optical elemental sulfur from H2S in a series of definition for valves from 10,000 parts imaging program alone, we were unable catalytic stages, recovering up to 97- per million (ppm) to 500 ppm, and to estimate the cost effectiveness of this percent recovery of the sulfur from the requires the monitoring of connectors. option. acid gas from the sweetening process. In our analysis of these impacts, we Finally, we evaluated a fourth option Further, sulfur recovery is accomplished estimated that, for a typical natural gas similar to the third option, except that by making process modifications or by processing plant, the incremental cost the optical gas imaging would be employing a tail gas treatment process effectiveness of changing from the performed annually rather than to convert the unconverted sulfur current subpart VV-level program to a monthly. For this option, we estimated compounds from the Claus unit. subpart VVa-level program using the annual cost to be $43,851, based on We evaluated process modifications Method 21 is $3,352 per ton of VOC camera purchase, or $18,479, based on and tail gas treatment options when we reduction. camera rental. proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL. In evaluating 40 CFR part 60, subpart We request comment on the 49 FR 2656, 2659–2660 (1984). As we VVa-level LDAR at processing plants, applicability of an LDAR program based explained in the preamble to the we also analyzed separately the solely on the use of optical gas imaging. proposed subpart LLL, control through individual types of components (valves, Of most use to us would be information sulfur recovery with tail gas treatment connectors, pressure relief devices and on the effectiveness of this and, may not always be cost effective, open-ended lines) to determine cost potentially, other advanced depending on sulfur feed rate and inlet effectiveness for individual measurement technologies, to detect H2S concentrations. Therefore, other components. Detailed discussions of and repair small leaks on the same order methods of increasing sulfur recovery these component-by-component or smaller than specified in the 40 CFR via process modifications were analyses are included in the TSD in the part 60, subpart VVa equipment leak evaluated. As shown in the original docket. Cost effectiveness ranged from requirements and the effects of evaluation, the performance capabilities $144 per ton of VOC (for valves) to increased frequency of and associated and costs of each of these technologies $4,360 per ton of VOC (for connectors), leak detection, recording and repair are highly dependent on the ratio of H2S with no change in requirements for practices. and CO2 in the gas stream and the total pressure relief devices and open-ended Because we could not estimate the quantity of sulfur in the gas stream lines. cost effectiveness of options 3 and 4, we being treated. The most effective means Another option we evaluated for gas could not identify either of these two of control was selected as BSER for the processing plants was the use of optical options as BSER for reducing VOC leaks different stream characteristics. As a gas imaging combined with an annual at gas processing plants. Because result, separate emissions limitations EPA Method 21 check (i.e., the options 1 and 2 have achieved were developed in the form of equations alternative work practice for monitoring equivalent VOC reduction and are both that calculate the required initial and equipment for leaks at 40 CFR 60.18(g)). cost effective, we believe that both continuous emission reduction We had previously determined that the options 1 and 2 reflect BSER for LDAR efficiency for each plant. The equations VOC reduction achieved by this for natural gas processing plants. As were based on the design performance combination of optical gas imaging and mentioned above, option 1 is the LDAR capabilities of the technologies selected Method 21 would be equivalent to in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa and as BSER relative to the gas stream reductions achieved by the 40 CFR part option 2 is the alternative work practice characteristics. 49 FR 2656, 2663–2664 at 40 CFR 60.18(g) and is already 60, subpart VVa-level program. Based (1984). The emission limit for sulfur available to use as an alternative to on that emission reduction level, we feed rates at or below 5 long tons per subpart VVa LDAR. Therefore, we determined the cost effectiveness of this day, regardless of H2S content, was 79 propose that the NSPS for equipment option to be $6,462 per ton of VOC percent. For facilities with sulfur feed leaks of VOC at gas processing plants be reduction. This analysis is based on the rates above 5 long tons per day, the revised to require compliance with the facility purchasing an optical gas emission limits ranged from 79 percent subpart VVa equipment leak imaging system costing $85,000. at an H2S content below 10 percent to requirements. 99.8 percent for H2S contents at or However, we identified at least one For 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL, we manufacturer who rents the optical gas above 50 percent. reviewed control systems for SO2 To review these emission limitations, imaging systems. That manufacturer emissions from sweetening units located we performed a search of the RBLC rents the optical gas imaging system for at natural gas processing plants, database and state regulations. No state $3,950 per week. Using this rental cost including those followed by a sulfur regulations identified had emission in place of the purchase cost, the VOC recovery unit. Subpart LLL provides limitations more stringent than 40 CFR cost effectiveness of the monthly optical specific standards for SO2 emission part 60, subpart LLL. However, the gas imaging combined with annual reduction efficiency, on the basis of RBLC database search identified two Method 21 checks is $4,638 per ton of 10 sulfur feed rate and the sulfur content entries with SO2 emission reductions of VOC reduction. A third option we of the natural gas. 99.9 percent. One entry is for a facility evaluated consisted of monthly optical According to available literature, the in Bakersfield, California, with a 90 long gas imaging without an annual Method most widely used process for converting ton per day sulfur recovery unit 21 check. We estimated the annual cost H2S in acid gases (i.e., H2S and CO2) followed by an amine-based tail-gas of the monthly optical gas imaging separated from natural gas by a treating unit. The second entry is for a LDAR program to be $76,581, based on sweetening process (such as amine facility in Coden, Alabama, with a camera purchase, or $51,999, based on treating) into elemental sulfur is the sulfur recovery unit with a sulfur feed camera rental. However, because we Claus process. Sulfur recovery rate of 280 long tons per day, followed efficiencies are higher with higher by selective catalytic reduction and a 10 Because optical gas imaging is used to view several pieces of equipment at a facility at once to concentrations of H2S in the feed stream tail gas incinerator. However, neither of survey for leaks, options involving imaging are not due to the thermodynamic equilibrium these entries contained information amenable to a component by component analysis. limitation of the Claus process. The regarding the H2S contents of the feed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52756 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

stream. Because the sulfur recovery would increase the 2009 Inventory of facility in the Oil and Natural Gas efficiency of these large sized plants was estimate by 76.74 MMtCO2e. The total source category where we would expect greater than 99.8 percent, we methane emissions from Petroleum and SO2 to be emitted directly, although H2S reevaluated the original data. Based on Natural Gas Systems, based on the 2009 contained in sour gas, when oxidized in the available cost information, it Inventory, adjusted for tight sand plays the atmosphere or combusted in boilers appears that a 99.9-percent efficiency is and the Marcellus, is 328.29 MMtCO2e. and heaters in the field, forms SO2 as a cost effective for facilities with a sulfur Although this proposed rule does not product of oxidation. These field boilers feed rate greater than 5 long tons per include standards for regulating the and heaters are not part of the Oil and day and H2S content equal to or greater GHG emissions discussed above, we Natural Gas source category and are than 50 percent. Based on our review, continue to assess these significant generally too small to be regulated by we are proposing that the maximum emissions and evaluate appropriate the NSPS covering boilers (i.e., they initial and continuous efficiency for actions for addressing these concerns. have a heat input of less than 10 million facilities with a sulfur feed rate greater Because many of the proposed British Thermal Units per hour). than 5 long tons per day and an H2S requirements for control of VOC However, we may consider addressing content equal to or greater than 50 emissions also control methane them as part of a future sector-based percent be raised to 99.9 percent. We are emissions as a co-benefit, the proposed strategy for the oil and natural gas not proposing to make changes to the VOC standards would also achieve sector. equations. significant reduction of methane In addition to VOC emissions from Our search of the RBLC database did emissions. gas processing plants, there are not uncover information regarding costs Significant emissions of oxides of numerous sources of VOC throughout and achievable emission reductions to nitrogen (NOX) also occur at oil and the oil and natural gas sector that are suggest that the emission limitations for natural gas sites due to the combustion not addressed by the current NSPS. As facilities with a sulfur feed rate less than of natural gas in reciprocating engines explained above in section V.A, 5 long tons per day or H2S content less and combustion turbines used to drive pursuant to CAA section 111(b), to the than 50 percent should be modified. the compressors that move natural gas extent necessary, we are modifying the Therefore, we are not proposing any through the system, and from listed category to include all segments changes to the emissions limitations for combustion of natural gas in heaters and of the oil and natural gas industry for facilities with sulfur feed rate and H2S boilers. While these engines, turbines, regulation. We are also proposing VOC content less than 5 long tons per day heaters and boilers are co-located with standards to cover additional processes and 50 percent, respectively. processes in the oil and natural gas at oil and natural gas operations. These sector, they are not in the Oil and include NSPS for VOC from gas well 2. What pollutants are being evaluated Natural Gas source category and are not completions, pneumatic controllers, in this Oil and Natural Gas NSPS being addressed in this action. The NO compressors and storage vessels. package? X emissions from engines and turbines are We believe that produced water The two current NSPS for the Oil and covered by the Standards of ponds are also a potentially significant Natural Gas source category address Performance for Stationary Spark source of emissions, but we have only emissions of VOC and SO2. In addition Internal Combustion Engines (40 CFR limited information. We, therefore, to these pollutants, sources in this part 60, subpart JJJJ) and Standards of solicit comments on produced water source category also emit a variety of Performance for Stationary Combustion ponds, particularly in the following other pollutants, most notably, air Turbines (40 CFR part 60, subpart subject areas: toxics. As discussed elsewhere in this KKKK), respectively. (a) We are requesting comments notice, there are NESHAP that address An additional source of NOX pertaining to methods for calculating air toxics from the oil and natural gas emissions would be pit flaring of VOC emissions. The State of Colorado sector. emissions from well completions during currently uses a mass balance that In addition, processes in the Oil and periods where REC is not feasible, as assumes 100 percent of the VOC content Natural Gas source category emit would be required under our proposed is emitted to the atmosphere. Water9, an significant amounts of methane. The operational standards for wellhead air emissions model, is another option 1990–2009 U.S. GHG Inventory affected facilities. As discussed below in that has some limitations, including estimates 2009 methane emissions from section VI.B.4 (well completion), pit poor methanol estimation. Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems (not flaring is the only way we identified of (b) We are requesting additional including petroleum refineries) to be controlling VOC emissions during these information on typical VOC content in 251.55 MMtCO2e (million metric tons of periods. Because there is no way of produced water and any available 11 CO2-equivalents (CO2e)). The directly measuring the NOX produced, chemical analyses, including data that emissions estimated from well nor is there any way of applying could help clarify seasonal variations or completions and recompletions exclude controls other than minimizing flaring, differences among gas fields. a significant number of wells completed we propose to allow flaring only when Additionally, we request data that in tight sand plays, such as the REC is not feasible. We have included increase our understanding of how Marcellus, due to availability of data our estimates of NOX formation from pit changing process variables or age of when the 2009 Inventory was flaring in our discussion of secondary wells affect produced water output and developed. The estimate in this impacts in section VI.B.4. VOC content. proposal includes an adjustment for (c) We solicit information on the size tight sand plays (being considered as a 3. What emission sources are being and throughput capacity of typical planned improvement in development evaluated in this Oil and Natural Gas evaporation pond facilities and request of the 2010 Inventory). This adjustment NSPS package? suggestions on parameters that could be The current NSPS only cover used to define affected facilities or 11 U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas emissions of VOC and SO2 from one affected sources. We also seek Inventory and Sinks. 1990–2009. http:// www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ type of facility in the oil and natural gas information on impacts of smaller downloads10/US-GHG-Inventory- sector, which is the natural gas evaporation pits that are co-located with 2010_ExecutiveSummary.pdf. processing plant. This is the only type drilling operations, whether those

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52757

warrant control and, if so, how controls several days following fracturing of a EPA has based the NSPS impacts should be developed. new well or refracturing of an existing analysis on best available emission data. (d) An important factor is cost of well. Well completions include multiple However, we recognize that there is emission reduction technologies, steps after the well bore hole has uncertainty associated with our including recovery credits or cost reached the target depth. These steps estimates. For both new completions savings realized from recovered salable include inserting and cementing-in well and recompletions, there are a variety of product. We are seeking information on casing, perforating the casing at one or factors that will determine the length of these considerations as well. more producing horizons, and often the flowback period and actual volume (e) We are also seeking information on hydraulically fracturing one or more of emissions such as the number of any limitations for emission reduction zones in the reservoir to stimulate zones, depth, pressure of the reservoir, technologies such as availability of production. Well recompletions may gas composition, etc. This variability electricity, waste generation and also include hydraulic fracturing. means there will be some wells which disposal and throughput and Hydraulic fracturing is one technique emit more than the estimated emission concentration constraints. for improving gas production where the factor and some wells that emit less. (f) Finally, we solicit information on During our review, we examined reservoir rock is fractured with very separator technologies that are able to information from the Natural Gas STAR high pressure fluid, typically water improve the oil-water separation program and the Colorado and efficiency. emulsion with a proppant (generally Wyoming state rules covering well sand) that ‘‘props open’’ the fractures completions. We identified two 4. What are the rationales for the after fluid pressure is reduced. proposed NSPS? subcategories of fractured gas wells: (1) Emissions are a result of the backflow of Non-exploratory and non-delineation We have provided below our the fracture fluids and reservoir gas at wells; and (2) exploratory and rationales for the proposed BSER high volume and velocity necessary to delineation wells. An exploratory well determinations and performance lift excess proppant and fluids to the is the first well drilled to determine the standards for a number of VOC emission surface. This multi-phase mixture is presence of a producing reservoir and sources in the Oil and Natural Gas often directed to a surface the well’s commercial viability. A source category that are not covered by impoundment where natural gas and delineation well is a well drilled to the existing NSPS. Our general process VOC vapors escape to the atmosphere determine the boundary of a field or for evaluating systems of emission during the collection of water, sand and producing reservoir. Because reduction for the emission sources hydrocarbon liquids. As the fracture exploratory and delineation wells are discussed below included: (1) fluids are depleted, the backflow generally isolated from existing Identification of available control eventually contains more volume of producing wells, there are no gathering measures; (2) evaluation of these natural gas from the formation. Wells lines available for collection of gas measures to determine emission that are fractured generally have great recovered during completion reductions achieved, associated costs, amounts of emissions because of the operations. In contrast, non-exploratory nonair environmental impacts, energy extended length of the flowback period and non-delineation wells are located impacts and any limitations to their required to purge the well of the fluids where existing, producing wells are application; and (3) selection of the and sand that are associated with the connected to gathering lines and are, control techniques that represent BSER fracturing operation. Along with the therefore, able to be connected to a based on the information we fluids and sand from the fracturing gathering line to collect recovered considered. operation, the 3- to 10-day flowback salable natural gas product that would We identified the control options period also results in emissions of otherwise be vented to the atmosphere discussed in this package through our natural gas and VOC that would not or combusted. review of relevant state and local occur in large quantities at oil wells or For subcategory 1, we identified requirements and mitigation measures at natural gas wells that are not ‘‘green’’ completion, which we refer to developed and reported by the EPA’s as REC, as an option for reducing VOC fractured. Thus, we estimate that gas Natural Gas STAR program. The EPA’s emissions during well completions. REC well completions involving hydraulic Natural Gas STAR program has worked are performed by separating the fracturing vent substantially more VOC, with industry partners since 1993 to flowback water, sand, hydrocarbon approximately 200 times more, than identify cost effective measures to condensate and natural gas to reduce completions not involving hydraulic reduce emissions of methane and other the portion of natural gas and VOC pollutants from natural gas operations. fracturing. Specifically, we estimate that vented to the atmosphere, while We relied heavily on this wealth of uncontrolled well completion emissions maximizing recovery of salable natural information in conducting this review. for a hydraulically fractured gas well are gas and VOC condensate. In some cases, We also identified state regulations, approximately 23 tons of VOC, where for a portion of the completion emissions for a conventional gas well primarily in Colorado and Wyoming, operation, such as when CO2 or nitrogen which require mitigation measures for completion are around 0.12 tons VOC. is injected with the fracture water, some emission sources in the Oil and These estimates are explained in detail initial gas produced is not of suitable Natural Gas source category. in the TSD available in the docket. quality to introduce into the gathering Based on our review, we believe that line due to CO2 or nitrogen content or a. NSPS for Well Completions emissions from recompletions of other undesirable characteristic. In such Well completion activities are a previously completed wells that are cases, for a portion of the flowback significant source of VOC emissions, fractured or refractured to stimulate period, gas cannot be recovered, but which occur when natural gas and non- production or to begin production from must be either vented or combusted. In methane hydrocarbons are vented to the a new production horizon are of similar practice, REC are often combined with atmosphere during flowback of a magnitude and composition as combustion to minimize the amount of hydraulically fractured gas well. emissions from completions of new gas and condensate being vented. This Flowback emissions are short-term in wells that have been hydraulically combustion process is rather crude, nature and occur over a period of fractured. consisting of a horizontal pipe

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52758 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

downstream of the REC equipment, reduction that would be achieved. Aside standard rather than a performance- fitted with a continuous ignition source from the potential hazards associated based standard (e.g., requiring that some and discharging over a pit near the with pit flaring, in some cases, we did percentage of emissions be flared or wellhead. Because of the nature of the not identify any nonair environmental captured), because we believe there are flowback (i.e., with periods of water, impacts, health or energy impacts no feasible ways for operators to condensate, and gas in slug flow), associated with REC combined with measure emissions with enough conveying the entire portion of this combustion. However, pit flaring would certainty to demonstrate compliance stream to a traditional flare control produce NOX emissions. Because we with a performance-based standard for device or other control device, such as believe that these emissions cannot be REC in combination with pit flaring. a vapor recovery unit, is not feasible. controlled or measured directly due to The EPA requests comment on this and These control devices are not designed the open combustion process seeks input on whether alternative to accommodate the multiphase flow characteristic of pit flaring, we used approaches to requiring REC for all consisting of water, sand and published emission factors (EPA operators with access to pipelines may hydrocarbon liquids, along with the gas Emission Guidelines AP–42) to estimate exist that would allow operators to meet and vapor being controlled. Although the NOX emissions for purposes of a performance-based standard if they ‘‘pit flaring’’ does not employ a assessing secondary impacts. For can demonstrate that an REC is not cost traditional flare control device, and is category 1 well completions, we effective. not capable of being tested or monitored estimated that 0.02 tons of NOX are We have discussed above certain for efficiency due to the multiphase slug produced per event. This is based on the situations where unrecoverable gas flow and intermittent nature of the assumption that 5 percent of the would be vented because pit flaring discharge of gas, water and sand over flowback gas is combusted by the would present a fire hazard or is the pit, it does provide a means of combustion device. The 1.2 tons of VOC infeasible because gas is minimizing vented gas and is preferable controlled during the pit flaring portion noncombustible due to high to venting. Because of the rather large of category 1 well completions is concentrations of nitrogen or CO2. We exposed flame, open pit flaring can approximately 57 times greater than the solicit comment on whether there are present a fire hazard or other NOX produced by pit flaring. Thus, we other such situations where flaring undesirable impacts in some situations believe that the benefit of the VOC would be unsafe or infeasible, and (e.g., dry, windy conditions, proximity reduction far outweighs the secondary potential criteria that would support to residences, etc.). As a result, we are impact of NOX formation during pit venting in lieu of pit flaring. In addition, aware that owners and operators may flaring. we learned that coalbed methane not be able to pit flare unrecoverable gas We believe that, based on the analysis reservoirs may have low pressure, safely in every case. In some cases, pit above, REC in combination with which would present a technical barrier flaring may be prohibited by local combustion is BSER for subcategory 1 for performing a REC because the well ordinance. wells. We considered setting a pressure may not be substantial enough Equipment required to conduct REC numerical performance standard for to overcome gathering line pressure. In may include tankage, special gas-liquid- subcategory 1 wells. However, it is not addition, we identified that coalbed sand separator traps and gas practicable to measure the emissions methane wells often have low to almost dehydration. Equipment costs during pit flaring or venting because the no VOC emissions, even following the associated with REC will vary from well gas is discharged over the pit along with hydraulic fracturing process. We solicit to well. Typical well completions last water and sand in multiphase slug flow. comment on criteria and thresholds that between 3 and 10 days and costs of Therefore, we believe it is not feasible could be used to exempt some well performing REC are projected to be to set a numerical performance completion operations occurring in between $700 and $6,500 per day, standard. Pursuant to section 111(h)(2) coalbed methane reservoirs from the including a cost of approximately of the CAA, we are proposing an requirements for subcategory 1 wells. $3,523 per completion event for the pit operational standard for subcategory 1 Of the 25,000 new and modified flaring equipment. However, there are wells that would require a combination fractured gas wells completed each year, savings associated with the use of REC of REC and pit flaring to minimize we estimate that approximately 3,000 to because the gas recovered can be venting of gas and condensate vapors to 4,000 currently employ reduced incorporated into the production stream the atmosphere, with provisions for emission completion. We expect this and sold. In fact, we estimate that REC venting in lieu of pit flaring for number to increase to over 21,000 REC will result in an overall net cost savings situations in which pit flaring would annually as operators comply with the in many cases. present safety hazards or for periods proposed NSPS. We estimate that The emission reductions for a when the flowback gas is approximately 9,300 new wells and hydraulically fractured well are noncombustible due to high 12,000 existing wells will be fractured estimated to be around 22 tons of VOC. concentrations of nitrogen or CO2. The or refractured annually that would be Based on an average incremental cost of proposed operational standard would be subject to subcategory 1 requirements $33,237 per completion, the cost accompanied by requirements for under the NSPS. We believe that there effectiveness of REC, without documentation of the overall duration of will be a sufficient supply of REC considering any cost savings, is around the completion event, duration of equipment available by the time the $1,516 per ton of VOC (which we have recovery using REC, duration of NSPS becomes effective. However, previously found to be cost effective on combustion, duration of venting, and energy availability could be affected if a average). When the value of the gas specific reasons for venting in lieu of shortage of REC equipment was allowed recovered (approximately 150 tons of combustion. to cause delays in well completions. We methane per completion) is considered, We recognize that there is request comment on whether sufficient the cost effectiveness is estimated as an heterogeneity in well operations and supply of this equipment and personnel average net savings of $99 per ton VOC costs, and that while RECs may be cost- to operate it will be available to reduced, using standard discount rates. effective on average, they may not be for accommodate the increased number of We believe that these costs are very all operators. Nonetheless, EPA is REC by the effective date of the NSPS. reasonable, given the emission proposing to require an operational We also request specific estimates of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52759

how much time would be required to effective REC that we have not sand in multiphase slug flow. It is, get enough equipment in operation to identified in our review. For example, therefore, not feasible to set a numerical accommodate the full number of REC some small regulated entities may have performance standard. performed annually. an increased source of revenue due to Pursuant to CAA section 111(h)(2), we In the event that public comments the captured product. On the other are proposing an operational standard indicate that available equipment would hand, some small regulated entities may for subcategory 2 wells that requires likely be insufficient to accommodate have less access to REC than larger minimization of venting of gas and the increase in number of REC regulated entities might have. We hydrocarbon vapors during the performed, we are considering phasing request information on such completion operation through the use of in requirements for well completions opportunities and barriers that we pit flaring, with provisions for venting that would achieve an overall should consider and suggestions for in lieu of pit flaring for situations in comparable level of environmental how we may take them into account in which flaring would present safety benefit. For example, operators structuring the NSPS. hazards or for periods when the performing completions of fractured or The second subcategory of fractured flowback gas is noncombustible due to refractured existing wells (i.e., modified gas wells includes exploratory wells or high concentrations of nitrogen or wells) could be allowed to control delineation wells. Because these types carbon dioxide. emissions through pit flaring instead of of wells generally are not in proximity Consistent with requirements for REC for some period of time. After some to existing gathering lines, REC is not an subcategory 1 wells, owners or operators date certain, all modified wells would option, since there is no infrastructure of subcategory 2 wells would be be subject to REC. We solicit comment in place to get the recovered gas to required to document completions and on the phasing of requirements for REC market or further processing. For these provide justification for periods when along with suggestions for other ways to wells, the only potential control option gas was vented in lieu of combustion. address a potential short-term REC we were able to identify is pit flaring, We solicit comment on whether there equipment shortage that may hinder described above. As explained above, are other such situations where flaring operators’ compliance with the because of the slug flow nature of the would be unsafe or infeasible and proposed NSPS, while also achieving a flowback gas, water and sand, control by potential criteria that would support comparable level of reduced emissions a traditional flare control device or other venting in lieu of pit flaring. to the air. control devices, such as vapor recovery For controlling completion emissions Although we have determined that, units, is infeasible, which leaves pit at oil wells and conventional (non- on average, reduced emission flaring as the only practicable control fractured) gas wells, we have identified completions are cost effective, well and system for subcategory 2 wells. As also and evaluated the following control reservoir characteristics could vary, discussed above, open pit flaring can options: REC in conjunction with pit such that some REC are more cost present a fire hazard or other flaring and pit flaring alone. Due to the effective than others. Unlike most undesirable impacts in some situations. low uncontrolled VOC emissions of stationary source controls, REC Aside from the potential hazards approximately 0.007 ton per completion equipment is used only for a 3 to 10 day associated with pit flaring, in some and, therefore, low potential emission period. Our review found that most cases, we did not identify any nonair reductions from these events, the cost operators contract with service environmental impacts, health or energy per ton of reduction based on REC companies to perform REC rather than impacts associated with pit flaring. would be extremely high (over $700,000 purchase the equipment themselves, However, pit flaring would produce per ton of VOC reduced). We evaluated which was reflected in our economic NOX emissions. As in the case of the use of pit flaring alone as a system analysis. It is also possible that the category 1 wells, we believe that these for controlling emissions from oil wells contracting costs of supplying and emissions cannot be controlled or and conventional gas wells and operating REC equipment may rise in measured directly due to the open determined that the cost cost- the short term with the increased combustion process characteristic of pit effectiveness would be approximately demand for those services. We request flaring. We again used published $520,000 per ton for oil wells and comment and any available technical emission factors to estimate the NOX approximately $32,000 per ton for information to judge whether our emissions for purposes of assessing conventional gas wells. In light of the assumption of $33,237 per well secondary impacts. For category 2 well high cost per ton of VOC reduction, we completion for this service given the completions, we estimated that 0.32 do not consider either of these control projected number of wells in 2015 tons of NOX are produced as secondary options to be BSER for oil wells and subject to this requirement is accurate. emissions per completion event. This is conventional wells. We believe that the proposed rule based on the assumption that 95 percent We propose that fracturing (or regulates only significant emission of flowback gas is combusted by the refracturing) and completion of an sources for which controls are cost- combustion device. The 22 tons of VOC existing well (i.e., a well existing prior effective. Nevertheless, we solicit reduced during the pit flaring used to to August 23, 2011) is considered a comment and supporting data on control category 2 well completions is modification under CAA section 111(a), appropriate thresholds (e.g., pressure, approximately 69 times greater than the because physical change occurs to the flowrate) that we should consider in NOX produced. Thus, we believe that existing well, which includes the specifying which well completions are the benefit of the VOC reduction far wellbore, casing and tubing, resulting in subject to the REC requirements for outweighs the secondary impact of NOX an emissions increase during the subcategory 1 wells. Comments formation during pit flaring. completion operation. The physical specifying thresholds should include an In light of the above, we propose to change, in this case, would be caused by analysis of why sources below these determine that BSER for subcategory 2 the reperforation of the casing and thresholds are not cost effective to wells would be pit flaring. As we tubing, along with the refracturing of the control. explained above, it is not practicable to wellbore. The increased VOC emissions In addition, there may be economic, measure the emissions during pit flaring would occur during the flowback period technical or other opportunities or or venting because the gas is discharged following the fracturing or refracturing barriers associated with performing cost during flowback mixed with water and operation. Therefore, the proposed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52760 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

standards for category 1 and category 2 to the atmosphere. We are not aware of compressors, air tanks and dryers, wells would apply to completions at any add-on controls that are or can be would be $11,090. A system of this size existing fractured or refractured wells. used to reduce VOC emissions from gas- is capable of serving 15 control loops EPA seeks comment on the 10 percent driven pneumatic devices. and reducing VOC emissions by 4.2 tpy, per year rate of refracturing for natural For an average high-bleed pneumatic for a cost effectiveness of $2,659 per ton gas wells assumed in the impacts controller located in production (where of VOC reduced. If the savings of the analysis found in the TSD. EPA has the content of VOC in the raw product salable natural gas that would have been received anecdotal information stream is relatively high), the difference emitted is considered, the value of the suggesting that refracturing could be in VOC emissions between a high-bleed gas not emitted would help offset the occurring much less frequently, while controller and a low-bleed controller is cost for this control, bringing the cost others suggest that the percent of wells around 1.8 tpy. For the transmission per ton of VOC down to $1,824. refractured in a given year could be and storage segment (where the content We also evaluated the use of low- greater. We seek comment and of VOC in the pipeline quality gas is bleed controllers in place of high-bleed comprehensive data and information on relatively low), the difference in VOC controllers at processing plants. We the rate of refracturing and key factors emissions between a high-bleed evaluated the impact of bleeding 6 that influence or determine refracturing controller and a low-bleed controller is standard cubic feet of natural gas per frequency. around 0.89 tpy. We have developed hour, which is the maximum bleed rate In addition to well completions, we projections that estimate that from low-bleed controllers, according to considered VOC emissions occurring at approximately 13,600 new gas-driven manufacturers of these devices. We the wellhead affected facility during units in the production segment and 67 chose natural gas as a surrogate for VOC, subsequent day-to-day operations new gas-driven units in the because manufacturers’ technical during well production. As discussed transmission and storage segment will specifications for pneumatic controllers below in section VI.B.1.e, VOC be installed each year, including are stated in terms of natural gas bleed emissions from wellheads are very small replacement of old units. Not all rate rather than VOC. The capital cost during production and account for pneumatic controllers are gas driven. difference between a new high-bleed about 2.6 tons VOC per year. We are not These ‘‘non-gas driven’’ pneumatic controller and a new low-bleed aware of any cost effective controls that controllers use sources of power other controller is estimated to be $165. can be used to address these relatively than pressurized natural gas, such as Without taking into account the savings small emissions. compressed ‘‘instrument air.’’ Because due to the natural gas losses avoided, b. NSPS for Pneumatic Controllers these devices are not gas driven, they do the annual costs are estimated to be not release natural gas or VOC around $23 per year, which is a cost of Pneumatic controllers are automated emissions, but they do have energy $13 per ton of VOC reduced for the instruments used for maintaining a impacts because electrical power is production segment. If the savings of the process condition, such as liquid level, required to drive the instrument air salable natural gas that would have been pressure, pressure differential and compressor system. Electrical service of emitted is considered, there is a net temperature. Pneumatic controllers are at least 13.3 kilowatts (kW) is required savings of $1,519 per ton of VOC widely used in the oil and natural gas to power a 10 horsepower (hp) reduced. sector. In many situations across all instrument air compressor, which is a Although the non-gas-driven segments of the oil and gas industry, relatively small capacity compressor. At controller system is more expensive pneumatic controllers make use of the sites without available electrical service than the low-bleed controller system, it available high-pressure natural gas to sufficient to power an instrument air is still reasonably cost-effective. operate. In these ‘‘gas-driven’’ compressor, only gas driven pneumatic Furthermore, the non-gas-driven pneumatic controllers, natural gas may devices can be used. During our review, controller system achieves a 100-percent be released with every valve movement we determined that gas processing VOC reduction in contrast to a 66- or continuously from the valve control plants are the only facilities in the oil percent reduction achieved by a low- pilot. The rate at which this release and natural gas sector highly likely to bleed controller. Moreover, we believe occurs is referred to as the device bleed have electrical service sufficient to the collateral emissions from electrical rate. Bleed rates are dependent on the power an instrument air system, and power generation needed to run the design of the device. Similar designs that approximately half of existing gas compressor are very low. Finally, non- will have similar steady-state rates processing plants are using non-gas gas-driven pneumatic controllers avoid when operated under similar driven devices. potentially explosive concentrations of conditions. Gas-driven pneumatic For devices at gas processing plants, natural gas which can occur as a result controllers are typically characterized as we evaluated the use of non-gas driven of normal bleeding from groups of gas- ‘‘high-bleed’’ or ‘‘low-bleed,’’ where a controllers and low-bleed controllers as driven pneumatic controllers located in high-bleed device releases more than 6 options for reducing VOC emissions, close proximity, as they often are at gas standard cubic feet per hour (scfh) of with high-bleed controllers being the processing plants. Based on our review gas, with 18 scfh bleed rate being what baseline. As mentioned above, non-gas described above, we believe that a non- we used in our analyses below. There driven devices themselves have zero gas-driven controller is BSER for are three basic designs: (1) Continuous emissions, but they do have energy reducing VOC emissions from bleed devices (high or low-bleed) are impacts because electrical power is pneumatic devices at gas processing used to modulate flow, liquid level or required to drive the instrument air plants. Accordingly, the proposed pressure and gas is vented at a steady- compressor system. In our cost analysis, standard for pneumatic devices at gas state rate; (2) actuating/intermittent we determined that the annualized cost processing plants is a zero VOC devices (high or low-bleed) perform of installing and operating a fully emission limit. quick control movements and only redundant 10 hp (13.3 kW) instrument For the production (other than release gas when they open or close a air system (systems generally are processing plants) and transmission and valve or as they throttle the gas flow; designed with redundancy to allow for storage segments, where electrical and (3) self-contained devices release system maintenance and failure without service sufficient to power an gas to a downstream pipeline instead of loss of air pressure), including duplicate instrument air system is likely

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52761

unavailable and, therefore, only gas- would help assure that only appropriate the seal oil is commonly vented to the driven devices can be used, we exemptions are claimed. atmosphere. Degassing of the seal oil evaluated the use of low-bleed The proposed standards would apply emits an average of 47.7 scfm of gas, controllers in place of high-bleed to installation of a new pneumatic depending on the operating pressure of controllers. Just as in our analysis of device (including replacing an existing the compressor. An uncontrolled wet low-bleed controllers as an option for device with a new device). We consider seal system can emit, on average, gas processing plants, we evaluated the that a pneumatic device, an apparatus, approximately 20.5 tpy of VOC during impact of bleeding 6 standard cubic feet is an affected facility and each the venting process (production per minute (scfm) of natural gas per installation is construction subject to segment) or about 3.5 tpy (transmission hour contrasted with 18 scfm from a the proposed NSPS. See definitions of and storage segment). We identified two high-bleed unit. Again, the capital cost ‘‘affected facility’’ and ‘‘construction’’ at potential control techniques for difference between a new high-bleed 40 CFR 60.2. reducing emissions from degassing of controller and a new low-bleed c. NSPS for Compressors wet seal systems: (1) Routing the gas back to a low pressure fuel stream to be controller is estimated to be $165. There are many locations throughout Without taking into account the savings combusted as fuel gas and (2) routing the oil and natural gas sector where the gas to a flare. We know only of due to the natural gas losses avoided, compression of natural gas is required to anecdotal, undocumented information the annual costs are estimated to be move it along the pipeline. This is on routing of the gas back to a fuel around $23 per year, which is a cost of accomplished by compressors powered stream and, therefore, were unable to $13 per ton of VOC reduced for the by combustion turbines, reciprocating assess costs and cost effectiveness of the production segment. If the savings of the internal combustion engines or electric first option. Although we do not have salable natural gas that would have been motors. Turbine-powered compressors specific examples of routing emissions emitted is considered, there is a net use a small portion of the natural gas from wet seal degassing to a flare, we savings for this control. In the that they compress to fuel the turbine. were able to estimate the cost, emission transmission and storage segment, The turbine operates a centrifugal reductions and cost effectiveness of the where the VOC content of the vented compressor, which compresses the second option using uncontrolled wet gas is much lower than in the natural gas for transit through the seals as a baseline. production segment, the cost pipeline. Sometimes an electric motor is Based on the average uncontrolled effectiveness of a low-bleed pneumatic used to turn a centrifugal compressor. emissions of wet seal systems discussed device is estimated to be around $262 This type of compressor does not above and a flare efficiency of 95 per ton of VOC reduced. However, there require the use of any of the natural gas percent, we determined that VOC are no potential offsetting savings to be from the pipeline, but it does require a emission reductions from a wet seal realized in the transmission and storage substantial source of electricity. system would be an average of 19.5 tpy segment, since the operators of Reciprocating spark ignition engines are (production segment) or 3.3 tpy transmission and storage stations also used to power many compressors, (transmission and storage segment). typically do not own the gas they are referred to as reciprocating compressors, Using an annualized cost of flare handling. Based on our evaluation of the since they compress gas using pistons installation and operation of $103,373, emissions and costs, we believe that that are driven by the engine. Like we estimated the incremental cost low-bleed controllers represent BSER combustion turbines, these engines are effectiveness of this option (from for pneumatic controllers in the fueled by natural gas from the pipeline. uncontrolled wet seals to controlled wet production (other than processing Both centrifugal and reciprocating seals using a flare) to be approximately plants) and transmission and storage compressors are sources of VOC $5,300/ton and $31,000/ton for the segments. Therefore, for pneumatic emissions and were evaluated for production segment and transmission devices at these locations, we propose a coverage under the NSPS. and storage segment, respectively. With natural gas bleed rate limit of 6.0 scfh Centrifugal Compressors. Centrifugal this option, there would be secondary to reflect the VOC limit with the use of compressors require seals around the air impacts from combustion. However a low-bleed controller. rotating shaft to minimize gas leakage we did not identify any nonair quality and fugitive VOC emissions from where or energy impacts associated with this There may be situations where high- the shaft exits the compressor casing. control technique. bleed controllers and the attendant gas There are two types of seal systems: Wet Dry seal systems do not use any bleed rate greater than 6 cubic feet per seal systems and mechanical dry seal circulating seal oil. Dry seals operate hour, are necessary due to functional systems. mechanically under the opposing force requirements, such as positive actuation Wet seal systems use oil, which is created by hydrodynamic grooves and or rapid actuation. An example would circulated under high pressure between springs. Fugitive emissions occur from be controllers used on large emergency three or more rings around the dry seals around the compressor shaft. shutdown valves on pipelines entering compressor shaft, forming a barrier to Based on manufacturer studies and or exiting compression stations. For minimize compressed gas leakage. Very engineering design estimates, fugitive such situations, we have provided in the little gas escapes through the oil barrier, emissions from dry seal systems are proposed rule an exemption where but considerable gas is absorbed by the approximately 6 scfm of gas, depending pneumatic controllers meeting the oil. The amount of gas absorbed and on the operating pressure of the emission standards discussed above entrained by the oil barrier is affected by compressor. A dry seal system can have would pose a functional limitation due the operating pressure of the gas being fugitive emissions of, on average, to their actuation response time or other handled; higher operating pressures approximately 2.6 tpy of VOC operating characteristics. We are result in higher absorption of gas into (production segment) or about 0.4 tpy requesting comments on whether there the oil. Seal oil is purged of the (transmission and storage segment). We are other situations that should be absorbed and entrained gas (using did not identify any control device considered for this exemption. If you heaters, flash tanks and degassing suitable to capture and control the provide such comment, please specify techniques) and recirculated to the seal fugitive emissions from dry seals around the criteria for such situations that area for reuse. Gas that is purged from the compressor shaft.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52762 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Using uncontrolled wet seals as a minute. This not only poses a likely dilute lubricating oil, causing premature baseline, we evaluated the reductions hazard that would destroy test failure of engine bearings, pose an and incremental cost effectiveness of equipment on contact, it poses a safety explosion hazard and eventually be dry seal systems. Based on the average hazard to personnel, as well. Therefore, vented from the crankcase breather, fugitive emissions, we determined that pursuant to section 111(h)(2) of the defeating the purpose of a control VOC emission reductions achieved by CAA, we are proposing an equipment device. dry seal systems compared to standard that would require the use of As mentioned above, as packing uncontrolled wet seal systems would be dry seals to limit the VOC emissions wears and deteriorates, leak rates can 18 tpy (production segment) and 3.1 tpy from new centrifugal compressors. We increase. We, therefore, evaluate (transmission and storage segment). consider that a centrifugal compressor, replacement of compressor rod packing Combined with an annualized cost of an apparatus, is an affected facility and systems as an option for reducing VOC dry seal systems of $10,678, the each installation is construction subject emissions. Conventional bronze- incremental cost effectiveness compared to the proposed NSPS. See definitions of metallic packing rings wear out and to uncontrolled wet seal systems would ‘‘affected facility’’ and ‘‘construction’’ at need to be replaced every 3 to 5 years, be $595/ton and $3,495/ton for the 40 CFR 60.2. Accordingly, the proposed depending on the compressor’s rate of production segment and transmission standard would apply to installation of usage (i.e., the percentage of time that a and storage segment, respectively. We new centrifugal compressors at new compressor is in pressurized mode). identified neither nonair quality nor any locations, as well as replacement of old Based on industry experience in the energy impacts associated with this compressors. Natural Gas STAR program and other option. Although we are proposing to sources, we evaluated the rod packing In performing our analysis, we determine dry seal systems to be BSER replacement costs for reciprocating estimated the incremental cost of a dry for centrifugal compressors, we are compressors at different segments of seal compressor over that of an soliciting comments on the emission this industry. Usage rates vary by equivalent wet seal compressor to be reduction potential, cost and any segment. Usage rates for compressors at $75,000. This value was obtained from limitations for the option of routing the wellheads, gathering/boosting stations, a vendor who represents a large share of gas back to a low pressure fuel stream processing plants, transmission stations the market for centrifugal compressors. to be combusted as fuel gas. In addition, and storage facilities are 100, 79, 90, 79 However, this number likely represents we solicit comments on whether there and 68 percent, respectively. a conservatively high value because wet are situations or applications where wet Reciprocating compressors at wellheads seal units have a significant amount of seal is the only option, because a dry are small and operate at lower ancillary equipment, namely the seal oil seal system is infeasible or otherwise pressures, which limit VOC emissions system and, thus, additional capital inappropriate. from these sources. Due to the low VOC expenses. Dry seal systems have some Reciprocating Compressors. emissions from these compressors, ancillary equipment (the seal gas Reciprocating compressors in the about 0.044 tpy, combined with an filtration system), but the costs are less natural gas industry leak natural gas annual cost of approximately $3,700, than the wet seal oil system. We were fugitive VOC during normal operation. the cost per ton of VOC reduction is not able to directly confirm this The highest volumes of gas loss and rather high. We estimated that the cost assumption with the vendor, however, a fugitive VOC emissions are associated effectiveness of controlling wellhead search of product literature showed that with piston rod packing systems. compressors is over $84,000 per ton of seal oil systems and seal gas filtration Packing systems are used to maintain a VOC reduced, which we believe to be systems are typically listed separate tight seal around the piston rod, too high and, therefore, not reasonable. from the basic compressor package. preventing the high pressure gas in the Because the cost effectiveness of Using available data on the cost of this compressor cylinder from leaking, while replacing packing wellhead compressor equipment, it is very likely that the cost allowing the rod to move freely. This rod systems is not reasonable, and of purchasing a dry seal compressor leakage rate is dependent on a variety of absent other emission reduction may actually be lower that a wet seal factors, including physical size of the measures, we did not find a BSER for compressor. We seek comment on compressor piston rod, operating speed reducing VOC emissions from reciprocal available cost data of a dry seal versus and operating pressure. Under the best compressors at wellheads. wet seal compressor, including all conditions, new packing systems For reciprocating compressors located ancillary equipment costs. properly installed on a smooth, well- at other oil and gas operations, we In light of the above analyses, we aligned shaft can be expected to leak a estimated that the cost effectiveness of propose to determine that dry seal minimum of 11.5 scfh. Higher leak rates controlling compressor VOC emissions systems are BSER for reducing VOC are a consequence of fit, alignment of by rod packing replacement would be emissions from centrifugal compressors. the packing parts and wear. $870 per ton of VOC for reciprocating We evaluated the possibility of setting a We evaluated the possibility of compressors at gathering and boosting performance standard that reflects the reducing VOC emissions from reciprocal stations, $270 per ton of VOC for emission limitation achievable through compressors through a control device. reciprocating compressors at processing the use of a dry seal system. However, However, VOC from reciprocating stations, $2,800 per ton of VOC for as mentioned above, VOC from compressors are fugitive emissions from reciprocating compressors at centrifugal compressors with dry seals around the compressor shafts. Although transmission stations and $3,700 per ton are fugitive emissions from around the it is possible to construct an enclosure of VOC for reciprocating compressors at compressor shafts. There is no device to around the rod packing area and vent underground storage facilities. We capture and control these fugitive the emissions outside for safety consider these costs to be reasonable. emissions, nor can reliable purposes, connection to a closed vent We did not identify any nonair quality measurement of these emissions be system and control device would create health or environmental impacts or conducted due to difficulty in accessing back pressure on the leaking gas. This energy impacts associated with rod the leakage area and danger of back pressure would cause the leaked packing replacement. In light of the contacting the shaft rotating at gas instead to be forced inside the above, we propose to determine that approximately 30,000 revolutions per crankcase of the engine, which would such control is the BSER for reducing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52763

VOC emission from compressors at d. NSPS for Storage Vessels depend on the amount of vapor these other oil and gas operations. Crude oil, condensate and produced produced by the storage vessels being Because VOC emitted from reciprocal water are typically stored in fixed-roof controlled. A VRU has a potential compressors are fugitive emissions, storage vessels. Some vessels used for advantage over flaring, in that it there is no device to capture and control storing produced water may be open-top recovers hydrocarbon vapors that the emissions. Therefore, pursuant to tanks. These vessels, which are operated potentially can be used as supplemental section 111(h) of the CAA, we are at or near atmospheric pressure burner fuel, or the vapors can be proposing an operational standard. conditions, are typically located as part condensed and collected as condensate Based on industry experience reported of a tank battery. A tank battery refers that can be sold. If natural gas is to the Natural Gas STAR program, we to the collection of process equipment recovered, it can be sold, as well, as determined that packing rods should be used to separate, treat and store crude long as a gathering line is available to replaced every 3 years of operation. oil, condensate, natural gas and convey the recovered salable gas However, to account for segments of the product to market or to further produced water. The extracted products industry in which reciprocating processing. A VRU also does not have from productions wells enter the tank compressors operate in pressurized secondary air impacts that flaring does, battery through the production header, mode a fraction of the calendar year as described below. However, a VRU which may collect product from many (ranging from approximately 68 percent cannot be used in all instances. Some up to approximately 90 percent), the wells. Emissions from storage vessels are a conditions that affect the feasibility of proposed rule expresses the result of working, breathing and flash VRU are: Availability of electrical replacement requirement in terms of service sufficient to power the VRU; losses. Working losses occur due to the hours of operation rather than on a fluctuations in vapor loading caused by emptying and filling of storage tanks. calendar year basis. One year of surges in throughput and flash Breathing losses are the release of gas continuous operation would be 8,760 emissions from the tank; potential for associated with daily temperature hours. Three years of continuous drawing air into condensate tanks fluctuations and other equilibrium operation would be 26,280 hours, or causing an explosion hazard; and lack of effects. Flash losses occur when a liquid rounded to the nearest thousand, 26,000 appropriate destination or use for the with dissolved gases is transferred from hours. Accordingly, the proposed rule vapor recovered. would require the replacement of the a vessel with higher pressure to a vessel Like a VRU, a flare control device can rod packing every 26,000 hours of with lower pressure, thus, allowing also achieve a control efficiency of 95 operation. The owner or operator would dissolved gases and a portion of the percent. There are no technical be required to monitor the hours of liquid to vaporize or flash. In the oil and limitations on the use of flares to control operation beginning with the natural gas production segment, flashing vapors from condensate and crude oil installation of the reciprocating losses occur when live crude oils or tanks. However, flaring has a secondary condensates flow into a storage tank compressor affected facility. Cumulative impact from emissions of NOX and other hours of operation would be reported from a processing vessel operated at a pollutants. In light of the technical each year in the facility’s annual report. higher pressure. Typically, the larger the limitations with the use of a VRU, we Once the hours of operation reached pressure drop, the more flash emissions are unable to conclude that a VRU is 26,000 hours, the owner or operator will occur in the storage stage. better than flaring. We, therefore, would be required to change the rod Temperature of the liquid also propose to determine that both a VRU packing immediately, although influences the amount of flash and flare are BSER for reducing VOC unexpected shutdowns could be emissions. The amount of liquid emission from storage vessels. We avoided by tracking hours of operation entering the tank during a given time, propose an NSPS of 95-percent and planning for packing replacement at commonly known as throughput, also reduction for storage vessels to reflect scheduled maintenance shutdowns affects the emission rate, with higher the level of emission reduction before the hours of operation reached throughput tanks having higher annual achievable by VRU and flares. 26,000. emissions, given that other parameters VOC emissions from storage vessels Some industry partners of the Natural are the same. vary significantly, depending on the rate Gas STAR program currently conduct In analyzing controls for storage of liquid entering and passing through periodic testing to determine the leakage vessels, we reviewed control techniques the vessel (i.e., its throughput), the rates that would identify economically identified in the Natural Gas STAR pressure of the liquid as it enters the beneficial replacement of rod packing program and state regulations. We atmospheric pressure storage vessel, the based on natural gas savings. Therefore, identified two ways of controlling liquid’s volatility and temperature of the we are soliciting comments on storage vessel emissions, both of which liquid. Some storage vessels have incorporating a method similar to that can reduce VOC emissions by 95 negligible emissions, such as those with in the Natural Gas STAR’s Lessons percent. One option would be to install very little throughput and/or handling Learned document entitled, Reducing a vapor recovery unit (VRU) and recover heavy liquids entering at atmospheric Methane Emissions from Compressor all the vapors from the tanks. The other pressure. We do not believe that it is Rod Packing Systems (http:// option would be to route the emissions cost effective to control these vessels. www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/ from the tanks to a flare control device. We believe it is important to control ll_rodpack.pdf), to be incorporated in These devices could be ‘‘candlestick’’ tanks with significant VOC emissions the NSPS. We are soliciting comments flares that are found at gas processing under the proposed NSPS. on how to determine a suitable leak plants or other larger facilities or In our analysis, we evaluated storage threshold above which rod packing enclosed combustors which are tanks with varying condensate or crude replacement would be cost effective for commonly found at smaller field oil throughput. We used emission VOC emission reduction. We are also facilities. We estimated the total annual factors developed for the Texas soliciting comment on the appropriate cost for a VRU to be approximately Environmental Research Consortium in replacement frequency and other $18,900/yr and for a flare to be a study that evaluated VOC emissions considerations that would be associated approximately $8,900/yr. Cost from crude oil and condensate storage with regular replacement periods. effectiveness of these control options tanks by performing direct

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52764 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

measurements. The study found that the shown that working losses (i.e., those and compressors are potential sources average VOC emission factor for crude emissions absent flash emission that can leak due to seal failure. Other oil storage tanks was 1.6 pounds (lb) conditions) are very low, approaching sources, such as open-ended lines and VOC per barrel of crude oil throughput. zero. During times of flash emissions, sampling connections may leak for The average VOC emission factor for tanks are designed such that the flash reasons other than faulty seals. In condensate tanks was determined to be emissions are released through a vent on addition, corrosion of welded 33.3 lb VOC per barrel of condensate the fixed roof of the tank when pressure connections, flanges, and valves may throughput. Applying these emission reaches just a few ounces to prevent also be a cause of equipment leak factors and evaluating condensate pressure buildup and resulting tank emissions. Because of the large number throughput rates of 0.5, 1, 2 and 5 damage. At those times, vapor readily of valves, pumps and other components barrels per day (bpd), we determined escapes through the vent to protect the within an oil and gas production, that VOC emissions at these condensate tank. Tests have shown that open processing and transmission facility, throughput rates would be hatches or leaking hatch gaskets have equipment leak volatile emissions from approximately 3, 6, 12 and 30 tpy, little effect on emissions from these components can be significant. respectively. Similarly, we evaluated uncontrolled tanks due to the Natural gas processing plants, especially crude oil throughput rates of 1, 5, 20 functioning roof vent. However, in the those using refrigerated absorption and and 50 bpd. Based on the Texas study, case of controlled tanks, the control transmission stations tend to have a these crude oil throughput rates would requirements include provisions for large number of components. result in VOC emissions of 0.3, 1.5, 5.8 maintaining integrity of the closed vent Equipment leaks from processing plants and 14.6 tpy, respectively. We believe system that conveys emissions to the are addressed in our review of 40 CFR that it is important to control tanks with control device, including hatches and part 60, subpart KKK, which is significant VOC emissions. other tank openings. As a result, hatches discussed above in section VI.B.1. Furthermore, we believe it would be are required to be kept closed and In addition to gas processing plants, easier and less costly for owners and gaskets kept in good repair to meet these types of equipment also exist at oil operators to determine applicability by control requirements of controlled and gas production sites and gas using a throughput threshold instead of storage vessels. Because the measures transmission and storage facilities. an emissions threshold. As a result of we evaluated, including maintenance of While the number of components at the above analyses, we believe that hatch integrity, do not provide individual transmission and storage storage vessels with at least 1 bpd of appreciable emission reductions for facilities is relatively smaller than at condensate or 20 bpd of crude oil storage vessels with throughputs under processing plants, collectively, there are should be controlled. These throughput 1 barrel of condensate per day and 21 many components that can result in rates are equivalent to VOC emissions of barrels of crude oil per day, we believe significant emissions. approximately 6 tpy. Based on an that the control options we evaluated do Therefore, we evaluated applying estimated annual cost of $18,900 for the not reflect BSER for the small NSPS for equipment leaks to facilities in control device, controlling storage throughput tanks and we are not the production segment of the industry, vessels with these condensate or crude proposing standards for these tanks. which includes everything from the oil throughputs would result in a cost As discussed in section VII of this wellhead to the point that the gas enters effectiveness of $3,150 per ton of VOC preamble, we are proposing to amend the processing plant, transmission reduced. the NESHAP for oil and natural gas pipeline or distribution pipeline. Based on our evaluation, we propose production facilities at 40 CFR part 63, Production facilities can vary to determine that both a VRU and flare subpart HH to require that all storage significantly in the operations are BSER for reducing VOC emission vessels at production facilities reduce performed and the processes, all of from storage vessels with throughput of HAP emissions by 95 percent. Because which impact the number of at least 1 barrel of condensate per day the controls used to achieve the 95- components and potential emissions or 20 barrels of crude oil per day. We percent HAP reduction are the same as from leaking equipment and, thus, propose an NSPS of 95-percent the proposed BSER for VOC reduction impact the annual costs related to reduction for these storage vessels to for storage vessels (i.e., VRU and flare), implementing a LDAR program. We reflect the level of emission reduction sources that are achieving the 95- used data collected by the Gas Research achievable by VRU and flare control percent HAP reduction would also be Institute to develop model production devices. meeting the proposed NSPS of 95- facilities. Baseline emissions, along with For storage vessels below the percent VOC reduction. In light of the emission reductions and costs of throughput levels described above above, and to avoid duplicate regulatory alternatives, were estimated (‘‘small throughput tanks’’), for which monitoring, recordkeeping and using these model production facilities. we do not consider flares or VRU to be reporting, we propose that storage We considered production facilities cost effective controls, we evaluated vessels subject to the requirements of where separation, storage, compression other measures to reduce VOC subpart HH are exempt from the and other processes occur. These emissions. Standard practices for such proposed NSPS for storage vessel in 40 facilities may not have a wellhead on- tanks include requiring a cover that is CFR part 60, subpart OOOO. site, but would be associated with a well designed, maintained in good wellhead. We also evaluated gathering condition and kept closed. Crude oil e. NSPS for VOC Equipment Leaks and boosting facilities, where gas and/ and condensate storage tanks in the oil Equipment leaks are fugitive or oil are collected from a number of and natural gas sector are designed to emissions emanating from valves, pump wells, then processed and transported operate at or just slightly above or below seals, flanges, compressor seals, downstream to processing plants or atmospheric pressure. Accordingly, they pressure relief valves, open-ended lines transmission stations. We evaluated the are provided with vents to prevent tank and other process and operation impacts at these production facilities destruction under rapid pressure components. There are several potential with varying number of operations and increases due to flash emissions reasons for equipment leak emissions. equipment. We also developed a model conditions. Studies by the Natural Gas Components such as pumps, valves, plant for the transmission and storage STAR program and by others have pressure relief valves, flanges, agitators segment using data from the Gas

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52765

Research Institute. Details of these production sites associated with a 21 check (Option 2). As discussed in evaluations may be found in the TSD in wellhead.12 The cost-effectiveness for secton VI.B.1, we had previously the docket. valves was calculated to be $17,828 per determined that the VOC reductions For an average production site at or ton of VOC by reducing the monitoring achieved under this option would be the associated with a wellhead, we frequency from monthly to annually. same as for option 1 subpart VVa-level estimated annual VOC emissions from The cost-effectiveness for connectors LDAR. In our evaluation of Option 2, we equipment leaks of around 2.6 tpy. For was calculated to be $87,277 per ton of estimated that a single optical imaging an average gathering/boosting facility, VOC by reducing the monitoring instrument could be used for 160 well we estimated the annual VOC emissions frequency from every 4 years to every 8 sites and 13 gathering and boosting from equipment leaks to be around 9.8 years after the initial compliance period. stations, which means that the cost of tpy. The average transmission and We performed a similar facility-wide the purchase or rental of the camera storage facility emits 2.7 tpy of VOC. and component-specific analysis of would be spread across 173 facilities. For facilities in each non-gas option 1 LDAR for gathering and For production sites, gathering and processing plant segment, we evaluated boosting stations. For the subpart VVa boosting stations, and transmission and the same four options as we did for gas level of control at the average gathering storage facilities, we estimated that processing plants in section VI.B.1 and boosting station, facility-wide cost- option 2 monthly optical gas imaging above. These four options are as follows: effectiveness was estimated to be $9,344 with annual Method 21 check would (1) 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa-level per ton of VOC. Component-specific have cost-effectiveness of $16,123, LDAR (which is based on conducting cost-effectiveness ranged from $6,079 $10,095, and $19,715 per ton of VOC, Method 21 monthly, defining ‘‘leak’’ at per ton of VOC (for valves) to $77,310 respectively.13 500 ppm threshold, and adding per ton of VOC (for open-ended lines), The annual costs for option 1 and connectors to the VV list of components with connectors and pressure relief option 2 leak detection and repair to be monitored); (2) monthly optical devices being $23,603 and $72,523 per programs for production sites associated gas imaging with annual Method 21 ton, respectively. For the modified with a wellhead, gathering and boosting check (the alternative work practice for subpart VVa level of control at gathering stations and transmission and storage monitoring equipment for leaks at 40 and boosting stations, cost-effectiveness facilities were higher than those CFR 60.18(g)); (3) monthly optical gas ranged from $5,221 per ton of VOC (for estimated for natural gas processing imaging alone; and (4) annual optical valves) to $77,310 per ton of VOC (for plants because natural gas processing gas imaging alone. open-ended lines), with connectors and plant annual costs are based on the For option 1, we evaluated subpart pressure relief devices being $27,274 incremental cost of implementing VVa-LDAR as a whole. We also and $72,523 per ton, respectively. The subpart VVa-level standards, whereas analyzed separately the individual types modified subpart VVa level controls the other facilities are not currently of components (valves, connectors, were more cost-effective than the regulated under an LDAR program. The pressure relief devices and open-ended subpart VVa level controls for valves, currently unregulated sites would be lines). Detailed discussions of these but not for connectors. This is due to the required to set up a new LDAR program; component by component analyses are low cost of monitoring connectors and perform initial monitoring, tagging, included in the TSD in the docket. the low VOC emissions from leaking Based on our evaluation, subpart VVa- logging and repairing of components; as connectors. well as planning and training personnel level LDAR (Option 1) results in more We also performed a similar analysis VOC reduction than the subpart VV- to implement the new LDAR program. of option 1 subpart VVa-level LDAR for In addition to options 1 and 2, we level LDAR currently required for gas gas transmission and storage facilities. processing plants, because more leaks evaluated a third option that consisted For the subpart VVa level of control at of monthly optical gas imaging without are found based on the lower definition the average transmission and storage of ‘‘leak’’ under subpart VVa (10,000 an annual Method 21 check. Because we facility, facility-wide cost-effectiveness were unable to estimate the VOC ppm for subpart VV and 500 ppm for was $20,215. Component-specific cost- emissions achieved by an optical subpart VVa). In addition, our effectiveness ranged from $24,762 per imaging program alone, we were unable evaluation shows that the cost per ton ton of VOC (for open-ended lines) to to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this of VOC reduced for subpart VVa level $243,525 per ton of VOC (for pressure option. However, we estimated the controls is less than the cost per ton of relief devices), with connectors and annual cost of the monthly optical gas VOC reduced for the less stringent valves being $36,527 and $43,111 per imaging LDAR program at production subpart VV level of control. Although ton of VOC, respectively. For the sites, gathering and boosting stations, the cost of repairing more leaks is modified subpart VVa level of control at and transmission and storage facilities higher, the increased VOC control transmission and storage facilities, cost- to be $37,049, $86,135, and $45,080, afforded by subpart VVa level controls effectiveness ranged from $24,762 per more than offsets the increased costs. ton of VOC (for open-ended lines) to respectively, based on camera purchase, For the subpart VVa level of control $243,525 per ton of VOC (for pressure or $32,693, $81,780, and $40,629, at the average production site associated relief devices), with connectors and respectively, based on camera rental. with a wellhead, average facility-wide valves being $42,140 and $40,593 per Finally, we evaluated a fourth option cost-effectiveness would be $16,084 per ton of VOC, respectively. Again, the similar to the third option except that ton of VOC. Component-specific cost- modified subpart VVa level controls the optical gas imaging would be effectiveness ranged from $15,063 per were more cost-effective for valves and performed annually rather than ton of VOC (for valves) to $211,992 per less cost effective for connectors than monthly. For this option, we estimated ton of VOC (for pressure relief devices), the subpart VVa level controls. This is the annual cost for production sites, with connectors and open-ended lines due to the low cost of monitoring gathering and boosting stations, and being $74,283 and $180,537 per ton of connectors and the low VOC emissions transmission and storage facilities to be VOC, respectively. We also looked at from leaking connectors. 13 Because optical gas imaging is used to view component costs for a modified subpart For each of the non-gas processing several pieces of equipment at a facility at once to VVa level of control with less frequent segments, we also evaluated monthly survey for leaks, options involving imaging are not monitoring for valves and connectors at optical gas imaging with annual Method amenable to a component by component analysis.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52766 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

$30,740, $64,416, and $24,031, should not be viewed as a distinct determine an appropriate response respectively, based on camera purchase, operating mode and, therefore, any based on, among other things, the good or $26,341, $60,017, and $19,493, emissions that occur at such times do faith efforts of the source to minimize respectively, based on camera rental. not need to be factored into emissions during malfunction periods, We request comment on the development of CAA section 111 including preventative and corrective applicability of a leak detection and standards. Further, nothing in CAA actions, as well as root cause analyses repair program based solely on the use section 111 or in case law requires that to ascertain and rectify excess of optical imaging or other technologies. the EPA anticipate and account for the emissions. The EPA would also Of most use to us would be information innumerable types of potential consider whether the source’s failure to on the effectiveness of advanced malfunction events in setting emission comply with the CAA section 111 measurement technologies to detect and standards. See, Weyerhaeuser v Costle, standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, repair small leaks on the same order or 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ smaller as specified in the VVa (‘‘In the nature of things, no general and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by equipment leak requirements and the limit, individual permit, or even any poor maintenance or careless effects of increased frequency of and upset provision can anticipate all upset operation.’’ 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of associated leak detection, recording, and situations. After a certain point, the malfunction). repair practices. transgression of regulatory limits caused Finally, the EPA recognizes that even Based on the evaluation described by ‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ equipment that is properly designed and above, we believe that neither option 1 such as strikes, sabotage, operator maintained can sometimes fail. Such nor option 2 is cost effective for intoxication or insanity, and a variety of failure can sometimes cause an reducing fugitive VOC emissions from other eventualities, must be a matter for exceedance of the relevant emission equipment leaks at sites, gathering and the administrative exercise of case-by- standard (See, e.g., State boosting stations, and transmission and case enforcement discretion, not for storage facilities. For options 3 and 4, Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding specification in advance by Excessive Emissions During we were unable to estimate their cost regulation.’’), and, therefore, any effectiveness and, therefore, could not Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown emissions that occur at such times do (September 20, 1999); Policy on Excess identify either of these two options as not need to be factored into Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, BSER for addressing equipment leak of development of CAA section 111 Maintenance, and Malfunctions VOC at production facilities associated standards. with wellheads, at gathering and Further, it is reasonable to interpret (February 15, 1983)). The EPA is, boosting stations or at gas transmission CAA section 111 as not requiring the therefore, proposing to add an and storage facilities. We are, therefore, EPA to account for malfunctions in affirmative defense to civil penalties for not proposing NSPS for addressing VOC setting emissions standards. For exceedances of emission limits that are emissions from equipment leaks at these example, we note that CAA section 111 caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR facilities. provides that the EPA set standards of 60.41Da (defining ‘‘affirmative defense’’ performance which reflect the degree of to mean, in the context of an 5. What are the SSM provisions? emission limitation achievable through enforcement proceeding, a response or The EPA is proposing standards in ‘‘the application of the best system of defense put forward by a defendant, this rule that apply at all times, emission reduction’’ that the EPA regarding which the defendant has the including during periods of startup or determines is adequately demonstrated. burden of proof and the merits of which shutdown, and periods of malfunction. Applying the concept of ‘‘the are independently and objectively In proposing the standards in this rule, application of the best system of evaluated in a judicial or administrative the EPA has taken into account startup emission reduction’’ to periods during proceeding). We also are proposing and shutdown periods. which a source is malfunctioning other regulatory provisions to specify The General Provisions in 40 CFR part presents difficulties. The ‘‘application of the elements that are necessary to 60 require facilities to keep records of the best system of emission reduction’’ establish this affirmative defense; the the occurrence and duration of any is more appropriately understood to source must prove by a preponderance startup, shutdown or malfunction (40 include operating units in such a way as of the evidence that it has met all of the CFR 60.7(b)) and either report to the to avoid malfunctions. elements set forth in 40 CFR 60.46Da. EPA any period of excess emissions that Moreover, even if malfunctions were (See 40 CFR 22.24). These criteria occurs during periods of SSM (40 CFR considered a distinct operating mode, ensure that the affirmative defense is 60.7(c)(2)) or report that no excess we believe it would be impracticable to available only where the event that emissions occurred (40 CFR 60.7(c)(4)). take malfunctions into account in causes an exceedance of the emission Thus, any comments that contend that setting CAA section 111 standards for limit meets the narrow definition of sources cannot meet the proposed affected facilities under 40 CFR part 60, malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden, standard during startup and shutdown subpart OOOO. As noted above, by infrequent, not reasonably preventable periods should provide data and other definition, malfunctions are sudden and and not caused by poor maintenance specifics supporting their claim. unexpected events and it would be and or careless operation). For example, Periods of startup, normal operations difficult to set a standard that takes into to successfully assert the affirmative and shutdown are all predictable and account the myriad different types of defense, the source must prove by a routine aspects of a source’s operations. malfunctions that can occur across all preponderance of the evidence that However, by contrast, malfunction is sources in the category. Moreover, excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere caused by a defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent, and malfunctions can vary in frequency, sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable not reasonably preventable failure of air degree and duration, further failure of air pollution control and pollution control and monitoring complicating standard setting. monitoring equipment, process equipment, process equipment or a In the event that a source fails to equipment, or a process to operate in a process to operate in a normal or usual comply with the applicable CAA section normal or usual manner * * *’’ The manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 60.2.) The EPA 111 standards as a result of a criteria also are designed to ensure that has determined that malfunctions malfunction event, the EPA would steps are taken to correct the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52767

malfunction, to minimize emissions in To concentrate on only records The data in the ECHO database are accordance with 40 CFR 60.40Da and to pertaining to the oil and natural gas updated monthly. prevent future malfunctions. For industry sector, data were extracted We performed a query on the ECHO example, the source would have to using two criteria. First, we specified database requesting records for major prove by a preponderance of the that all facilities containing codes sources, with NAICS codes 211*, evidence that ‘‘[r]epairs were made as identifying the Oil and Natural Gas 221210, 4861* and 4862*, with expeditiously as possible when the Production and the Natural Gas information for MACT. The ECHO applicable emission limitations were Transmission and Storage MACT source database query identified records for a being exceeded * * *’’ and that ‘‘[a]ll categories (MACT codes 0501 and 0504, total of 555 facilities, 269 in the Oil and possible steps were taken to minimize respectively). Second, we extracted Natural Gas Production source category the impact of the excess emissions on facilities identified with the following (NAICS 211* and 221210) and 286 in ambient air quality, the environment NAICS codes: 211 * * * (Oil and Gas the Natural Gas Transmission and and human health * * *’’ In any Extraction), 221210 (Natural Gas Storage source category (NAICS 4861* judicial or administrative proceeding, Distribution), 4861 * * * (Pipeline and 4862*). This comparison leads us to the Administrator may challenge the Transportation of Crude Oil), and 4862 conclude that, for the Natural Gas assertion of the affirmative defense and, * * * (Pipeline Transportation of Transmission and Storage segment, the if the respondent has not met the Natural Gas). Once the data were NEI database is representative of the burden of proving all of the extracted, we reviewed the Source number of sources subject to the rule. requirements in the affirmative defense, Classification Codes (SCC) to assess For the Oil and Natural Gas Production appropriate penalties may be assessed whether there were any records source category, it confirms our in accordance with CAA section 113 included in the dataset that were clearly assumption that the NEI dataset (see also 40 CFR part 22.77). not a part of the oil and natural gas contains more facilities than are subject sector. Our review of the SCC also to the rule. However, this provides a VII. Rationale for Proposed Action for included assigning each SCC to an conservative overestimate of the number NESHAP ‘‘Emission Process Group’’ that of sources, which we believe is A. What data were used for the NESHAP represents emission point types within appropriate for our risk analyses. analyses? the oil and natural gas sector. We are requesting that the public provide a detailed review of the Since these MACT standards only To perform the technology review and information in this dataset and provide apply to major sources, only facilities residual risk analysis for the two comments and updated information designated as major sources in the NEI NESHAP, we created a comprehensive where appropriate. Section X of this were extracted. In the NEI, sources are dataset (i.e., the MACT dataset). This preamble provides an explanation of identified as major if the facility-wide dataset was based on the EPA’s 2005 how to provide updated information for emissions are greater than 10 tpy for any National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The these datasets. NEI database contains information about single HAP or 25 tpy for any sources that emit criteria air pollutants combination of HAP. We believe that B. What are the proposed decisions and their precursors and HAP. The this may overestimate the number of regarding certain unregulated emissions database includes estimates of annual major sources in the oil and natural gas sources? air pollutant emissions from point, sector because it does not take into In addition to actions relative to the nonpoint and mobile sources in the 50 account the limitations set forth in the technology review and risk reviews states, the District of Columbia, Puerto CAA regarding aggregation of emissions discussed below, we are proposing, Rico and the Virgin Islands. The EPA from wells and associated equipment in pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and collects information about sources and determining major source status. (3), MACT standards for glycol releases an updated version of the NEI The final dataset contained a total of dehydrators and storage vessels for database every 3 years. 1,311 major sources in the oil and which standards were not previously The NEI database is compiled from natural gas sector; 990 in Oil and developed. We are also proposing these primary sources: Natural Gas Production, and 321 in changes that affect the definition of • Natural Gas Transmission and Storage. ‘‘associated equipment’’ which could Emissions inventories compiled by To assess how representative this state and local environmental apply these MACT standards to number of facilities was, we obtained previously unregulated sources. agencies information on the number of subject • Databases related to the EPA’s MACT facilities for both MACT standards from 1. Glycol Dehydrators programs the Enforcement and Compliance Once natural gas has been separated • Toxics Release Inventory data History Online (ECHO) database. The from any liquid materials or products • For electric generating units, the ECHO database is a web-based tool (e.g., crude oil, condensate or produced EPA’s Emission Tracking System/ (http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/ water), residual entrained water is CEM data and United States index.html) that provides public access removed from the natural gas by Department of Energy (DOE) fuel use to compliance and enforcement dehydration. Dehydration is necessary data information for approximately 800,000 because water vapor may form hydrates, • For onroad sources, the United States EPA-regulated facilities. The ECHO which are ice-like structures, and can Federal Highway Administration’s database allows users to find permit, cause corrosion in or plug equipment estimate of vehicle miles traveled and inspection, violation, enforcement lines. The most widely used natural gas emission factors from the EPA’s action and penalty information covering dehydration processes are glycol MOBILE computer model the past 3 years. The site includes dehydration and solid desiccant • For nonroad sources, the EPA’s facilities regulated as CAA stationary dehydration. Solid desiccant NONROAD computer model sources, as well as Clean Water Act dehydration, which is typically only • Emissions inventories from previous direct dischargers, and Resource used for lower throughputs, uses years, if states do not submit current Conservation and Recovery Act adsorption to remove water and is not data hazardous waste generators/handlers. a source of HAP emissions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52768 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Glycol dehydration is an absorption average benzene emissions greater than sources, we created an emission factor process in which a liquid absorbent, or equal to 0.90 Mg/yr (40 CFR in terms of grams BTEX/scm-ppmv for glycol, directly contacts the natural gas 63.765(a)). The EPA did not establish each facility. The emission factor stream and absorbs any entrained water standards for the other subcategory, reflects the facility’s emission level, vapor in a contact tower or absorption which consists of glycol dehydration taking into consideration its natural gas column. The majority of glycol units that are below the flowrate and throughput and inlet natural gas BTEX dehydration units use triethylene glycol emission thresholds specified in subpart concentration. To determine the MACT as the absorbent, but ethylene glycol HH. Similarly, under 40 CFR part 63, floor for the existing dehydrators, we and diethylene glycol are also used. The subpart HHH (the Natural Gas ranked each unit from lowest to highest, rich glycol, which has absorbed water Transmission and Storage NESHAP), the based on their emission factor, to vapor from the natural gas stream, EPA established MACT standards for determine the facilities in the top 12 leaves the bottom of the absorption the subcategory of glycol dehydration percent of the dataset. The MACT floor column and is directed either to (1) a units with an actual annual average was an emission factor of 1.10 × 10¥4 gas condensate glycol (GCG) separator natural gas flowrate greater than or grams BTEX/scm-ppmv. To meet this (flash tank) and then a reboiler or (2) equal to 283,000 scmd and actual level of emissions, we anticipate that directly to a reboiler where the water is average benzene emissions greater than sources will use a variety of options, boiled off of the rich glycol. The or equal to 0.90 Mg/yr, but did not including, but not limited to, routing regenerated glycol (lean glycol) is establish standards for the other emissions to a condenser or to a circulated, by pump, into the absorption subcategory, which consists of glycol combustion device. tower. The vapor generated in the dehydration units that are below the We also considered beyond-the-floor reboiler is directed to the reboiler vent. flowrate and emission thresholds options for the existing sources, as The reboiler vent is a source of HAP specified in subpart HHH. As required by section 112(d)(2) of the emissions. In the glycol contact tower, mentioned above, we refer to these CAA. To achieve further reductions glycol not only absorbs water, but also unregulated dehydration units in both beyond the MACT floor level of control, absorbs selected hydrocarbons, subparts HH and HHH as ‘‘small sources would have to install an including BTEX and n-hexane. The dehydrators’’ in this proposed rule. additional add-on control device, most hydrocarbons are boiled off along with The EPA is proposing emission likely a combustion device. Assuming the water in the reboiler and vented to standards for these subcategories of the MACT floor control device is a the atmosphere or to a control device. small dehydrators (i.e., those combustion device, which generally The most commonly used control dehydrators with an actual annual achieves at least a 95-percent HAP device is a condenser. Condensers not average natural gas flowrate less than reduction, then less than 5 percent of only reduce emissions, but also recover 85,000 scmd at production sites or the initial HAP emissions remain. condensable hydrocarbon vapors that 283,000 scmd at natural gas Installing a second device would can be recovered and sold. In addition, transmission and storage sites, or actual involve the same costs as the first the dry non-condensable off-gas from average benzene emissions less than 0.9 control, but would only achieve 1⁄20 of the condenser may be used as fuel or Mg/yr). Because we do not have any the reduction (i.e., reducing the recycled into the production process or new emissions data concerning these remaining 5 percent by another 95 directed to a flare, incinerator or other emission points, we evaluated the percent represents a 4.49-percent combustion device. dataset collected from industry during reduction of the initial, uncontrolled If present, the GCG separator (flash the development of the original MACT emissions, which is 1⁄20 of the 95- tank) is also a potential source of HAP standards (legacy docket A–94–04, item percent reduction achieved with the emissions. Some glycol dehydration II–B–01, disk 1 for oil and natural gas first control). Based on the $8,360/Mg units use flash tanks prior to the reboiler production facilities; and items IV–G– cost effectiveness of the floor level of to separate entrained gases, primarily 24, 26, 27, 30 and 31 for natural gas control, we estimate that the methane and ethane from the glycol. transmission and storage facilities). We incremental cost effectiveness of the The flash tank off-gases are typically believe this dataset is representative of second control to be $167,200/Mg. We recovered as fuel or recycled to the currently operating glycol dehydrators do not believe this cost to be reasonable natural gas production header. because it contains information for a given the level of emission reduction. However, the flash tank may also be varied group of sources (i.e., units We are, therefore, proposing an vented directly to the atmosphere. Flash owned by different companies, located emission standard for existing small tanks typically enhance the reboiler in different states, representing a range dehydrators that reflects the MACT condenser’s emission reduction of gas compositions and emission floor. efficiency by reducing the concentration controls) and that the processes have For new small glycol dehydrators in of non-condensable gases present in the not changed significantly since the data the Oil and Natural Gas Production stream prior to being introduced into were collected. source category, based on our the condenser. In the Oil and Natural Gas Production performance ranking, the best In the development of the MACT source category, there were 91 glycol performing source has an emission standards for the two oil and natural gas dehydration units with throughput and factor of 4.66 × 10¥6 grams BTEX/scm- source categories, the EPA created two emissions data identified that would be ppmv. To meet this level of emissions, subcategories of glycol dehydrators classified as small glycol dehydration we anticipate that sources will use a based on actual annual average natural units. We evaluated the possibility of variety of options, including, but not gas flowrate and actual average benzene establishing a MACT floor as a Mg/yr limited to, routing emissions to a emissions. Under 40 CFR part 63, limit. However, due to variability of gas condenser or to a combustion device. subpart HH, (the Oil and Natural Gas throughput and inlet gas composition, The consideration of beyond-the-floor Production NESHAP), the EPA we could not properly identify the best options for new small dehydrators established MACT standards for glycol performing units by only considering would be the same as for existing small dehydration units with an actual annual emissions. To allow us to normalize the dehydrators, and, as stated above, we do average natural gas flowrate greater than emissions for a more accurate not believe a cost of $167,200/Mg to be or equal to 85,000 scmd and actual determination of the best performing reasonable given the level of emission

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52769

reduction. We are, therefore, proposing ppmv. To meet this level of emissions, with entrained gases is transferred from a MACT standard for new small we anticipate that sources will use a a vessel with higher pressure to a vessel dehydrators that reflects the MACT floor variety of options, including, but not with lower pressure, thus, allowing level of control. limited to, routing emissions to a entrained gases or a portion of the liquid Under our proposal, a small condenser or to a combustion device. to vaporize or flash. In the oil and dehydrator’s actual MACT emission The consideration of beyond-the-floor natural gas production segment, flashing limit would be determined by options for new small dehydrators losses occur when live crude oils or multiplying the MACT floor emission would be the same as for existing small condensates flow into a storage tank factor in g BTEX/scm-ppmv by its unit- dehydrators, and, as stated above, we do from a processing vessel operated at a specific incoming natural gas not believe a cost of $33,000/Mg to be higher pressure. Typically, the larger the throughput and BTEX concentration for reasonable given the level of emission pressure drop, the more flashing the dehydrator. A formula is provided reduction. We are, therefore, proposing emission will occur in the storage stage. in 40 CFR 63.765(b)(1)(iii) to calculate an emission standard for new sources Temperature of the liquid may also the MACT limit as an annual value. that reflects the MACT floor level of influence the amount of flash emissions. In the Natural Gas Transmission and control. In the Oil and Natural Gas Production Storage source category, there were 16 Under our proposal, a source’s actual NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart HH), facilities for which throughput and MACT emissions limit would be the MACT standards for storage vessels emissions data were available that determined by multiplying this apply only to those with the PFE. would be classified as small glycol emission factor by their unit-specific Storage vessels with the PFE are defined dehydration units. Since the number of incoming natural gas throughput and as storage vessels that contain units was less than 30, the MACT floor BTEX concentration for the dehydrator. hydrocarbon liquids that meet the for existing sources was based on the A formula is provided in 40 CFR following criteria: top five performing units. Using the 63.1275(b)(1)(iii) to calculate the limit • A stock tank gas to oil ratio (GOR) same emission factor concept, we as an annual value. greater than or equal to 0.31 cubic determined that the MACT floor for As discussed below, we are proposing meters per liter (m3/liter); and existing sources is an emission factor that, with the removal of the 1-ton • An American Petroleum Institute ¥ equal to 6.42 × 10 5 grams BTEX/scm- alternative compliance option from the (API) gravity greater than or equal to 40 ppmv. To meet this level of emissions, existing standards for glycol degrees; and we anticipate that sources will use a dehydrators, the MACT for these two • An actual annual average variety of options, including, but not source categories would provide an hydrocarbon liquid throughput greater limited to, routing emissions to a ample margin of safety to protect public than or equal to 79,500 liters per day condenser or to a combustion device. health. We, therefore, maintain that, (liter/day). We also considered beyond-the-floor after the implementation of the small Accordingly, there is no emission options for the existing small dehydrator standards discussed above, limit in the existing MACT for storage dehydrators as required by section these MACT will continue to provide an vessels without the PFE. However, the 112(d)(2) of the CAA. To achieve further ample margin of safety to protect public MACT analysis performed at the time reductions beyond the MACT floor level health. Consequently, we do not believe indicates that the MACT floor was based of control, sources would have to install it will be necessary to conduct another on all storage vessels, not just those an additional add-on control device, residual risk review under CAA section vessels with flash emissions. See, most likely a combustion device. 112(f) for these two source categories 8 Recommendation of MACT Floor Levels Assuming the MACT floor control years following promulgation of the for HAP Emission Points at Major device is a combustion device, which small dehydrator standards merely due Sources in the Oil and Natural Gas generally achieves at least a 95-percent to the addition of these new MACT Production Source Category, (September HAP reduction, then less than 5 percent requirements. 23, 1997, Docket A–94–04, Item II–A– of the initial HAP emissions remain. 2. Storage Vessels 07). We, therefore, propose to apply the Installing a second device would existing MACT for storage vessels with involve the same costs as the first Crude oil, condensate and produced PFE to all storage vessels (i.e., storage control device, but would only achieve water are typically stored in fixed-roof vessels with the PFE, as well as those 1 ⁄20 of the reduction (i.e., reducing the storage vessels. Some vessels used for without the PFE). remaining 5 percent by another 95 storing produced water may be open-top percent represents a 4.49-percent tanks. These vessels, which are operated 3. Definition of Associated Equipment reduction of the initial, uncontrolled at or near atmospheric pressure CAA section 112(n)(4)(A) provides: emissions, which is 1⁄20 of the 95- conditions, are typically located at tank Notwithstanding the provisions of percent reduction achieved with the batteries. A tank battery refers to the subsection (a), emissions from any oil or gas first control). Based on the $1,650/Mg collection of process components used exploration or production well (with its cost effectiveness of the floor level of to separate, treat and store crude oil, associated equipment) and emission from control, we estimate that the condensate, natural gas and produced any pipeline compressor or pump station incremental cost effectiveness of the water. The extracted products from shall not be aggregated with emissions from second control to be $33,000/Mg. We do productions wells enter the tank battery other similar units, whether or not such units not believe this cost to be reasonable through the production header, which are in contiguous area or under common given the level of emission reduction. may collect product from many wells. control, to determine whether such units or We are, therefore, proposing an Emissions from storage vessels are a stations are major sources. emission standard for existing small result of working, breathing and flash As stated above, the CAA prevents dehydrators that reflects the MACT losses. Working losses occur due to the aggregation of HAP emissions from floor. emptying and filling of storage tanks. wells and associated equipment in For new small glycol dehydrators, Breathing losses are the release of gas making major source determinations. In based on our performance ranking, the associated with daily temperature the absence of clear guidance in the best performing source has an emission fluctuations and other equilibrium statute on what constitutes ‘‘associated factor of 1.10 × 10¥5 grams BTEX/scm- effects. Flash losses occur when a liquid equipment,’’ the EPA sought to define

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52770 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

‘‘associated equipment’’ in a way that the distribution of cancer risks within We discussed the use of both MACT- recognizes the need to implement relief the exposed populations, cancer allowable and actual emissions in the for this industry as Congress intended incidence and an evaluation of the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk and that also allow for the appropriate potential for adverse environmental rule (70 FR 19998–19999, April 15, regulation of significant emission effects for each source category. The risk 2005) and in the proposed and final points. 64 FR at 32619. Accordingly, in assessments consisted of seven primary Hazardous Organic NESHAP residual the existing Oil and Natural Gas steps, as discussed below. The docket risk rules (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, Production NESHAP (1998 and 1999 for this rulemaking contains the and 71 FR 76609, December 21, 2006, NESHAP), the EPA defined ‘‘associated following document which provides respectively). In those previous actions, equipment’’ to exclude glycol more information on the risk assessment we noted that assessing the risks at the dehydration units and storage vessels inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk MACT-allowable level is inherently with PFE (thus allowing their emissions Assessment for the Oil and Gas reasonable since these risks reflect the to be included in determining major Production and Natural Gas maximum level sources could emit and source status) because EPA identified Transmission and Storage Source still comply with national emission these sources as substantial contributors Categories. The methods used to assess standards. But we also explained that it to HAP emissions. Id. EPA explained in risks (as described in the seven primary is reasonable to consider actual that NESHAP that, because a single steps below) are consistent with those emissions, where such data are storage vessel with flash emissions may peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA’s available, in both steps of the risk emit several Mg of HAP per year and Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 2009 analysis, in accordance with the individual glycol dehydrators may emit and described in their peer review Benzene NESHAP. (54 FR 38044, above the major source level, storage report issued in 2010 14; they are also September 14, 1989.) vessels with PFE and glycol dehydrators consistent with the key To estimate emissions at the MACT- are large individual sources of HAP, 63 recommendations contained in that allowable level, we developed a ratio of FR 6288, 6301 (1998). The EPA report. MACT-allowable to actual emissions for therefore considered these emission each emissions source type in each a. Establishing the Nature and source category, based on the level of sources substantial contributors to HAP Magnitude of Actual Emissions and emissions and excluded them from the control required by the MACT standards Identifying the Emissions Release compared to the level of reported actual definition of ‘‘associated equipment.’’ Characteristics 64 FR at 32619. We have recently emissions and available information on As discussed in section VII.A of this examined HAP emissions from storage the level of control achieved by the preamble, we used a dataset based on vessels without flash emissions and emissions controls in use. the 2005 NEI as the basis for the risk found that these emissions are assessment. In addition to the quality c. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, significant and comparable to those assurance (QA) of the facilities Determining Inhalation Exposures and vessels with flash emissions. For contained in the dataset, we also Estimating Individual and Population example, one storage vessel with an API checked the coordinates of every facility Inhalation Risks gravity of 30 degrees and a GOR of 2.09 in the dataset through visual Both long-term and short-term × 10¥3 m3/liter with a throughput of observations using tools such as inhalation exposure concentrations and 79,500 liter/day had HAP emissions of GoogleEarth and ArcView. Where health risks from each source in the 9.91 Mg/yr, including 9.45 Mg/yr of n- coordinates were found to be incorrect, source categories addressed in this hexane. we identified and corrected them to the proposal were estimated using the Because storage vessels without the extent possible. We also performed QA Human Exposure Model (HEM) PFE can have significant emissions at of the emissions data and release (Community and Sector HEM–3 version levels that are comparable to emissions characteristics to ensure there were no 1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs three from storage vessels with the PFE, there outliers. primary risk assessment activities: is no appreciable difference between (1) Conducting dispersion modeling to storage vessels with the PFE and those b. Establishing the Relationship estimate the concentrations of HAP in without the PFE for purposes of Between Actual Emissions and MACT- ambient air, (2) estimating long-term defining ‘‘associated equipment.’’ We Allowable Emissions Levels and short-term inhalation exposures to are, therefore, proposing to amend the The available emissions data in the individuals residing within 50 km of the associated equipment definition to MACT dataset represent the estimates of modeled sources and (3) estimating exclude all storage vessels and not just mass of emissions actually emitted individual and population-level storage vessels with the PFE. during the specified annual time period. inhalation risks using the exposure C. How did we perform the risk These ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are often estimates and quantitative dose- assessment and what are the results and lower than the emission levels that a response information. proposed decisions? facility might be allowed to emit and The dispersion model used by HEM– still comply with the MACT standards. 3 is AERMOD, which is one of the 1. How did we estimate risks posed by The emissions level allowed to be EPA’s preferred models for assessing the source categories? emitted by the MACT standards is pollutant concentrations from industrial The EPA conducted risk assessments referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ facilities.15 To perform the dispersion that provided estimates for each source emissions level. This represents the modeling and to develop the in a category of the MIR posed by the highest emissions level that could be preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 HAP emissions, the HI for chronic emitted by the facility without violating draws on three data libraries. The first exposures to HAP with the potential to the MACT standards. is a library of meteorological data, cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute 14 U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review 15 U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General exposures to HAP with the potential to by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion cause noncancer health effects. The Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, assessments also provided estimates of Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010. November 9, 2005).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52771

which is used for dispersion a manner consistent with the EPA to Carcinogens 20 were applied. This calculations. This library includes guidelines and have undergone a peer adjustment has the effect of increasing 1 year of hourly surface and upper air review process similar to that used by the estimated lifetime risks for POM by observations for more than 158 the EPA, we may use such dose- a factor of 1.6. In addition, although meteorological stations, selected to response values in place of or in only a small fraction of the total POM provide coverage of the United States addition to other values, if appropriate. emissions were not reported as and Puerto Rico. A second library of Formaldehyde is a unique case. In individual compounds, the EPA United States Census Bureau census 2004, the EPA determined that the expresses carcinogenic potency for block 16 internal point locations and Chemical Industry Institute of compounds in this group in terms of populations provides the basis of Toxicology (CIIT) cancer dose-response benzo[a]pyrene equivalence, based on human exposure calculations (Census, value for formaldehyde (5.5 × 10¥9 per evidence that carcinogenic POM has the 2000). In addition, for each census μg/m3) was based on better science than same mutagenic mechanism of action as block, the census library includes the the IRIS cancer dose-response value benzo[a]pyrene. For this reason, the elevation and controlling hill height, (1.3 × 10¥5 per μg/m3) and we switched EPA’s Science Policy Council 21 which are also used in dispersion from using the IRIS value to the CIIT recommends applying the Supplemental calculations. A third library of pollutant value in risk assessments supporting Guidance to all carcinogenic polycyclic unit risk factors and other health regulatory actions. However, subsequent aromatic hydrocarbons for which risk benchmarks is used to estimate health research published by the EPA suggests estimates are based on relative potency. risks. These risk factors and health that the CIIT model was not appropriate Accordingly, we have applied the ADAF benchmarks are the latest values and in 2010 the EPA returned to using to the benzo[a]pyrene equivalent recommended by the EPA for HAP and the 1991 IRIS value, which is more portion of all POM mixtures. other toxic air pollutants. These values health protective.17 The EPA has been Incremental individual lifetime are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ working on revising the formaldehyde cancer risks associated with emissions atw/toxsource/summary.html and are IRIS assessment and the National from the source category were estimated discussed in more detail later in this Academy of Sciences (NAS) completed as the sum of the risks for each of the section. its review of the EPA’s draft in May of carcinogenic HAP (including those In developing the risk assessment for 2011. EPA is reviewing the public classified as carcinogenic to humans, chronic exposures, we used the comments and the NAS independent likely to be carcinogenic to humans and estimated annual average ambient air scientific peer review, and the draft IRIS suggestive evidence of carcinogenic concentration of each of the HAP assessment will be revised and the final potential 22) emitted by the modeled emitted by each source for which we assessment will be posted on the IRIS source. Cancer incidence and the have emissions data in the source database. In the interim, we will present distribution of individual cancer risks category. The air concentrations at each findings using the 1991 IRIS value as a for the population within 50 km of any nearby census block centroid were used primary estimate, and may also consider source were also estimated for the as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation other information as the science source category as part of these exposure concentration for all the evolves. assessments by summing individual people who reside in that census block. In the case of benzene, the high end risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent We calculated the MIR for each facility of the reported cancer URE range was with both the analysis supporting the as the cancer risk associated with a used in our assessments to provide a 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, conservative estimate of potential and the limitations of Gaussian 7 days per week, and 52 weeks per year cancer risks. Use of the high end of the dispersion models, including AERMOD. for a 70-year period) exposure to the range provides risk estimates that are To assess risk of noncancer health maximum concentration at the centroid approximately 3.5 times higher than use effects from chronic exposures, we of an inhabited census block. Individual of the equally-plausible low end value. summed the HQ for each of the HAP cancer risks were calculated by We also evaluated the impact of using that affects a common target organ multiplying the estimated lifetime the low end of the URE range on our system to obtain the HI for that target exposure to the ambient concentration risk results. organ system (or target organ-specific of each of the HAP (in micrograms per We also note that polycyclic organic HI, TOSHI). The HQ for chronic cubic meter) by its unit risk estimate matter (POM), a carcinogenic HAP with exposures is the estimated chronic (URE), which is an upper bound a mutagenic mode of action, is emitted estimate of an individual’s probability by some of the facilities in these two 20 U.S. EPA. Supplemental Guidance for 18 Assessing Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/ of contracting cancer over a lifetime of categories. For this compound 630/R–03/003F, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ exposure to a concentration of 1 group,19 the age-dependent adjustment childrens_supplement_final.pdf. microgram of the pollutant per cubic factors (ADAF) described in the EPA’s 21 U.S. EPA. Science Policy Council Cancer meter of air. For residual risk Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Guidelines Implementation Workgroup assessments, we generally use URE Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, dated June 14, 2006. values from the EPA’s Integrated Risk 22 These classifications also coincide with the Information System (IRIS). For 17 For details on the justification for this decision, terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen and carcinogenic pollutants without the EPA see the memorandum in the docket from Peter possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the IRIS values, we look to other reputable Preuss to Steve Page entitled, Recommendation for terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines Formaldehyde Inhalation Cancer Risk Values, for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 sources of cancer dose-response values, January 22, 2010. (51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the often using California EPA (CalEPA) 18 U.S. EPA. Performing risk assessments that risks of these individual compounds to obtain the URE values, where available. In cases include carcinogens described in the Supplemental cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was where new, scientifically credible dose- Guidance as having a mutagenic mode of action. recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines review of EPA’s NATA entitled, NATA—Evaluating response values have been developed in Implementation Work Group Communication II: the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Memo from W.H. Farland, dated October 4, 2005. Data—an SAB Advisory, available at: http:// 16 A census block is generally the smallest 19 See the Risk Assessment for Source Categories yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/ geographic area for which census statistics are document available in the docket for a list of HAP 214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/ tabulated. with a mutagenic mode of action. ecadv02001.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52772 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

exposure divided by the chronic exposure duration.’’ Acute REL values of a substance above which it is reference level, which is either the EPA are based on the most sensitive, predicted that the general population, reference concentration (RfC), defined relevant, adverse health effect reported including susceptible individuals, could as ‘‘an estimate (with uncertainty in the medical and toxicological experience notable discomfort, spanning perhaps an order of literature. Acute REL values are irritation, or certain asymptomatic magnitude) of a continuous inhalation designed to protect the most sensitive nonsensory effects. However, the effects exposure to the human population individuals in the population by the are not disabling and are transient and (including sensitive subgroups) that is inclusion of margins of safety. Since reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ likely to be without an appreciable risk margins of safety are incorporated to The document also notes (page 3) that, of deleterious effects during a lifetime,’’ address data gaps and uncertainties, ‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL– or, in cases where an RfC from the exceeding the acute REL does not 1 represent exposure levels that can EPA’s IRIS database is not available, the automatically indicate an adverse health produce mild and progressively EPA will utilize the following impact. increasing but transient and prioritized sources for our chronic dose- AEGL values were derived in nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory response values: (1) The Agency for response to recommendations from the irritation or certain asymptomatic, Toxic Substances and Disease Registry National Research Council (NRC). As nonsensory effects.’’ Similarly, the Minimum Risk Level, which is defined described in Standing Operating document defines AEGL–2 values as as ‘‘an estimate of daily human Procedures (SOP) of the National ‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed exposure to a substance that is likely to Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure as ppm or mg/m3) of a substance above be without an appreciable risk of Guideline Levels for Hazardous which it is predicted that the general adverse effects (other than cancer) over Substances (http://www.epa.gov/ population, including susceptible a specified duration of exposure’’; (2) opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),23 ‘‘the individuals, could experience the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure NRC’s previous name for acute exposure irreversible or other serious, long-lasting Level (REL), which is defined as ‘‘the levels—community emergency exposure adverse health effects or an impaired concentration level at or below which levels—was replaced by the term AEGL ability to escape.’’ no adverse health effects are anticipated to reflect the broad application of these ERPG values are derived for use in for a specified exposure duration’’; and values to planning, response, and emergency response, as described in the (3), as noted above, in cases where prevention in the community, the American Industrial Hygiene scientifically credible dose-response workplace, transportation, the military, Association’s document entitled, values have been developed in a manner and the remediation of Superfund Emergency Response Planning consistent with the EPA guidelines and sites.’’ This document also states that Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and have undergone a peer review process AEGL values ‘‘represent threshold Responsibilities (http://www.aiha.org/ similar to that used by the EPA, we may exposure limits for the general public 1documents/committees/ use those dose-response values in place and are applicable to emergency ERPSOPs2006.pdf) which states that, of or in concert with other values. exposures ranging from 10 minutes to ‘‘Emergency Response Planning Screening estimates of acute eight hours.’’ The document lays out the Guidelines were developed for exposures and risks were also evaluated purpose and objectives of AEGL by emergency planning and are intended as for each of the HAP at the point of stating (page 21) that ‘‘the primary health based guideline concentrations highest off-site exposure for each facility purpose of the AEGL program and the for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 24 (i.e., not just the census block National Advisory Committee for Acute The ERPG–1 value is defined as ‘‘the centroids), assuming that a person is Exposure Guideline Levels for maximum airborne concentration below located at this spot at a time when both Hazardous Substances is to develop which it is believed that nearly all the peak (hourly) emission rate and guideline levels for once-in-a-lifetime, individuals could be exposed for up to worst-case dispersion conditions (1991 short-term exposures to airborne 1 hour without experiencing other than calendar year data) occur. The acute HQ concentrations of acutely toxic, high- mild transient adverse health effects or is the estimated acute exposure divided priority chemicals.’’ In detailing the without perceiving a clearly defined, by the acute dose-response value. In intended application of AEGL values, objectionable odor.’’ Similarly, the each case, acute HQ values were the document states (page 31) that ‘‘[i]t ERPG–2 value is defined as ‘‘the calculated using best available, short- is anticipated that the AEGL values will maximum airborne concentration below term dose-response values. These acute be used for regulatory and which it is believed that nearly all dose-response values, which are nonregulatory purposes by U.S. Federal individuals could be exposed for up to described below, include the acute REL, and state agencies and possibly the 1 hour without experiencing or acute exposure guideline levels (AEGL) international community in conjunction developing irreversible or other serious and emergency response planning with chemical emergency response, health effects or symptoms which could guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure planning, and prevention programs. impair an individual’s ability to take durations. As discussed below, we used More specifically, the AEGL values will protective action.’’ conservative assumptions for emission be used for conducting various risk rates, meteorology and exposure assessments to aid in the development As can be seen from the definitions location for our acute analysis. of emergency preparedness and above, the AEGL and ERPG values As described in the CalEPA’s Air prevention plans, as well as real-time include the similarly-defined severity Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk emergency response actions, for levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The accidental chemical releases at fixed severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has Determination of Acute Reference facilities and from transport carriers.’’ not been developed; in these instances, Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, The AEGL–1 value is then specifically higher severity level AEGL–2 or ERPG– an acute REL value (http:// defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 2 values are compared to our modeled www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at 23 NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for 24 ERP Committee Procedures and or below which no adverse health Developing Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Responsibilities. November 1, 2006. American effects are anticipated for a specified Chemicals, page 2. Industrial Hygiene Association.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52773

exposure levels to screen for potential 1, additional site-specific data were estimate does not exceed the AEGL–1, acute concerns. considered to develop a more refined we note here that it slightly exceeds Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure estimate of the potential for acute workplace ceiling level guidelines durations are typically lower than their impacts of concern. The data designed to protect the worker corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 refinements employed for these source population for short duration (<15 values. Even though their definitions are categories consisted of using the site- minute) increases in exposure to slightly different, AEGL–1 values are specific facility layout to distinguish benzene, as discussed below. The often the same as the corresponding facility property from an area where the occupational short-term exposure limit ERPG–1 values, and AEGL–2 values are public could be exposed. These (STEL) standard for benzene developed often equal to ERPG–2 values. refinements are discussed in the draft by the Occupational Safety and Health Maximum HQ values from our acute risk assessment document, which is Administration is 16 mg/m3, ‘‘as screening risk assessments typically available in the docket for each of these averaged over any 15-minute period.’’ 27 result when basing them on the acute source categories. Ideally, we would Occupational guideline STEL for REL value for a particular pollutant. In prefer to have continuous measurements exposures to benzene have also been cases where our maximum acute HQ over time to see how the emissions vary developed by the American Conference value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ by each hour over an entire year. Having of Governmental Industrial Hygienists value based on the next highest acute a frequency distribution of hourly (ACGIH) 28 for less than 15 minutes 29 dose-response value (usually the AEGL– emission rates over a year would allow (ACGIH threshold limit value (TLV)- 1 and/or the ERPG–1 value). us to perform a probabilistic analysis to STEL value of 8.0 mg/m3), and by the To develop screening estimates of estimate potential threshold National Institute for Occupational acute exposures, we developed exceedances and their frequency of Safety and Health (NIOSH) 30 ‘‘for any estimates of maximum hourly emission occurrence. Such an evaluation could 15 minute period in a work day’’ rates by multiplying the average actual include a more complete statistical (NIOSH REL–STEL of 3.2 mg/m3). These annual hourly emission rates by a factor treatment of the key parameters and shorter duration occupational values to cover routinely variable emissions. elements adopted in this screening indicate potential concerns regarding We chose the factor based on process analysis. However, we recognize that health effects at exposure levels below knowledge and engineering judgment having this level of data is rare, hence the 1-hour AEGL–1 value. We solicit and with awareness of a Texas study of our use of the multiplier approach. comment on the use of the occupational short-term emissions variability, which To better characterize the potential values described above in the showed that most peak emission events, health risks associated with estimated interpretation of these worst-case acute in a heavily-industrialized 4-county area acute exposures to HAP, and in screening exposure estimates. (Harris, Galveston, Chambers and response to a key recommendation from d. Conducting Multi-Pathway Exposure Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than the SAB’s peer review of the EPA’s RTR and Risk Modeling twice the annual average hourly risk assessment methodologies,26 we emission rate. The highest peak generally examine a wider range of The potential for significant human emission event was 74 times the annual available acute health metrics than we health risks due to exposures via routes average hourly emission rate, and the do for our chronic risk assessments. other than inhalation (i.e., multi- 99th percentile ratio of peak hourly This is in response to the SAB’s pathway exposures) and the potential emission rate to the annual average acknowledgement that there are for adverse environmental impacts were hourly emission rate was 9.25 This generally more data gaps and evaluated in a three-step process. In the analysis is provided in Appendix 4 of inconsistencies in acute reference first step, we determined whether any the Draft Residual Risk Assessment for values than there are in chronic facilities emitted any HAP known to be the Oil and Gas Production and Natural reference values. Comparisons of the PB–HAP (HAP known to be persistent Gas Transmission and Storage Source estimated maximum off-site 1-hour and bio-accumulative) in the Categories, which is available in the exposure levels are not typically made environment. There are 14 PB–HAP docket for this action. Considering this to occupational levels for the purpose of compounds or compound classes analysis, unless specific process characterizing public health risks in identified for this screening in the EPA’s knowledge or data are available to RTR assessments. This is because they Air Toxics Risk Assessment Library provide an alternate value, to account are developed for working age adults (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ for more than 99 percent of the peak and are not generally considered fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are hourly emissions, we apply a protective for the general public. We cadmium compounds, chlordane, conservative screening multiplication note that occupational ceiling values chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, factor of 10 to the average annual hourly are, for most chemicals, set at levels emission rate in these acute exposure higher than a 1-hour AEGL–1. 27 29 CFR 1910.1028, Benzene. Available online As discussed in section VII.C.2 of this at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp. screening assessments. The factor of 10 show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_ was used for both the Oil and Natural preamble, the maximum estimated worst-case 1-hour exposure to benzene id=10042. Gas Production and the Natural Gas 28 ACGIH (2001) Benzene. In Documentation of Transmission and Storage source outside the facility fence line for a the TLVs® and BEIs® with Other Worldwide categories. facility in either source category is 12 Occupational Exposure Values. ACGIH, 1300 mg/m3. This estimated exposure Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45240 In cases where acute HQ values from (ISBN: 978–1–882417–74–2) and available online at the screening step were less than or exceeds the 6-hour REL by a factor of 9 (HQ = 9), but is significantly below http://www.acgih.org. equal to 1, acute impacts were deemed REL 29 The ACGIH definition of a TLV–STEL states negligible and no further analysis was the 1-hour AEGL–1 (HQAEGL–1 = 0.07). that ‘‘Exposures above the TLV–TWA up to the performed. In cases where an acute HQ Although this worst-case exposure TLV–STEL should be less than 15 minutes, should occur no more than four times per day, and there from the screening step was greater than 26 The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment should be at least 60 minutes between successive Methodologies is available at: http://yosemite.epa. exposures in this range.’’ 25 See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/ gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A852 30 NIOSH. Occupational Safety and Health field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the 5771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007- Guideline for Benzene; http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ source of these data. unsigned.pdf. 74-137.html.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52774 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, not locally available, multi-pathway g. Conducting Other Analyses: heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, exposures and environmental risks were Demographic Analysis hexachlorocyclohexane, lead deemed negligible, and no further To examine the potential for any compounds, mercury compounds, analysis was performed. For further environmental justice (EJ) issues that methoxychlor, polychlorinated information on the multi-pathway might be associated with each source biphenyls, POM, toxaphene and analysis approach, see the residual risk category, we performed a demographic trifluralin. documentation. analysis of population risk. In this Since one or more of these PB–HAP analysis, we evaluated the distributions are emitted by at least one facility in e. Assessing Risks Considering of HAP-related cancer and noncancer both source categories, we proceeded to Emissions Control Options risks across different social, the second step of the evaluation. In this In addition to assessing baseline demographic and economic groups step, we determined whether the within the populations living near the facility-specific emission rates of each of inhalation risks and screening for facilities where these source categories the emitted PB–HAP were large enough potential multi-pathway risks, where are located. The development of to create the potential for significant appropriate, we also estimated risks demographic analyses to inform the non-inhalation human or environmental considering the potential emission consideration of EJ issues in the EPA risks under reasonable worst-case reductions that would be achieved by conditions. To facilitate this step, we the particular control options under rulemakings is an evolving science. The have developed emission rate consideration. In these cases, the EPA offers the demographic analyses in thresholds for each PB–HAP using a expected emissions reductions were this rulemaking to inform the hypothetical worst-case screening applied to the specific HAP and consideration of potential EJ issues and exposure scenario developed for use in emissions sources in the source category invites public comment on the conjunction with the EPA’s TRIM.FaTE dataset to develop corresponding approaches used and the interpretations model. The hypothetical screening estimates of risk reductions. made from the results, with the hope scenario was subjected to a sensitivity that this will support the refinement f. Conducting Other Risk-Related and improve the utility of such analyses analysis to ensure that its key design Analyses: Facility-Wide Assessments parameters were established such that for future rulemakings. environmental media concentrations For the demographic analyses, we To put the source category risks in focus on the populations within 50 km were not underestimated (i.e., to context, we also examined the risks minimize the occurrence of false of any facility estimated to have from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the exposures to HAP which result in negatives or results that suggest that facility includes all HAP-emitting risks might be acceptable when, in fact, cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater, operations within a contiguous area and or noncancer HI of 1 or greater (based actual risks are high) and to also under common control. In other words, minimize the occurrence of false on the emissions of the source category for each facility that includes one or or the facility, respectively). We positives for human health endpoints. more sources from one of the source We call this application of the examine the distributions of those risks categories under review, we examined across various demographic groups, TRIM.FaTE model TRIM–Screen. The the HAP emissions not only from the facility-specific emission rates of each of comparing the percentages of particular source category of interest, but also from demographic groups to the total number the PB–HAP in each source category all other emission sources at the facility. were compared to the TRIM–Screen of people in those demographic groups The emissions data for generating these nationwide. The results, including other emission threshold values for each of ‘‘facility-wide’’ risks were also obtained the PB–HAP identified in the source risk metrics, such as average risks for from the 2005 NEI. For every facility the exposed populations, are category datasets to assess the potential included in the MACT database, we also for significant human health risks or documented in source-category-specific retrieved emissions data and release environmental risks via non-inhalation technical reports in the docket for both characteristics for all other emission pathways. source categories covered in this There was only one facility in the sources at the same facility. We proposal. Natural Gas Transmission and Storage estimated the risks due to the inhalation The basis for the risk values used in source category with reported emissions of HAP that are emitted ‘‘facility-wide’’ these analyses were the modeling of PB–HAP, and the emission rates were for the populations residing within 50 results based on actual emissions levels less than the emission threshold values. km of each facility, consistent with the obtained from the HEM–3 model There were 29 facilities in the Oil and methods used for the source category described above. The risk values for Natural Gas Production source category analysis described above. For these each census block were linked to a with reported emissions of PB–HAP, facility-wide risk analyses, the modeled database of information from the 2000 and one of these had emission rates source category risks were compared to Decennial census that includes data on greater than the emission threshold the facility-wide risks to determine the race and ethnicity, age distributions, values. In this case, the emission portion of facility-wide risks that could poverty status, household incomes and threshold value for POM was exceeded be attributed to the source categories education level. The Census Department by a factor of 6. For POM, dairy, addressed in this proposal. We Landview® database was the source of vegetables and fruits were the three specifically examined the facilities the data on race and ethnicity and the most dominant exposure pathways associated with the highest estimates of data on age distributions, poverty status, driving human exposures in the risk and determined the percentage of household incomes and education level hypothetical screening exposure that risk attributable to the source were obtained from the 2000 Census of scenario. The single facility with category of interest. The risk Population and Housing Summary File emissions exceeding the emission documentation available through the 3 Long Form. While race and ethnicity threshold value for POM is located in a docket for this action provides the census data are available at the census highly industrialized area. Therefore, methodology and the results of the block level, the age and income census since the exposure pathways which facility-wide analyses for each source data are only available at the census would drive high human exposure are category. block group level (which includes an

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52775

average of 26 blocks or an average of including those performed for the situations to overestimate or 1,350 people). Where census data are source categories addressed in this underestimate ambient impacts. For available at the block group level, but proposal. Although uncertainty exists, example, meteorological data were not the block level, we assumed that all we believe that our approach, which taken from a single year (1991) and census blocks within the block group used conservative tools and facility locations can be a significant have the same distribution of ages and assumptions, ensures that our decisions distance from the site where these data incomes as the block group. are health-protective. A brief discussion were taken. Despite these uncertainties, For each source category, we focused of the uncertainties in the emissions we believe that at off-site locations and on those census blocks where source datasets, dispersion modeling, census block centroids, the approach category risk results show estimated inhalation exposure estimates and dose- considered in the dispersion modeling lifetime inhalation cancer risks above response relationships follows below. A analysis should generally yield 1-in-1 million or chronic noncancer more thorough discussion of these overestimates of ambient HAP indices above 1 and determined the uncertainties is included in the risk concentrations. assessment documentation (referenced relative percentage of different racial iii. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure and ethnic groups, different age groups, earlier) available in the docket for this adults with and without a high school action. The effects of human mobility on diploma, people living in households exposures were not included in the i. Uncertainties in the Emissions assessment. Specifically, short-term below the national median income and Datasets for people living below the poverty line mobility and long-term mobility within those census blocks. The specific Although the development of the between census blocks in the modeling 31 census population categories studied MACT dataset involved QA/quality domain were not considered. The include: control processes, the accuracy of assumption of not considering short or • emissions values will vary depending long-term population mobility does not Total population on the source of the data, the degree to bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR, • White • which data are incomplete or missing, nor does it affect the estimate of cancer African American (or Black) the degree to which assumptions made incidence since the total population • Native Americans • to complete the datasets are inaccurate, number remains the same. It does, Other races and multiracial errors in estimating emissions values however, affect the shape of the • Hispanic or Latino • and other factors. The emission distribution of individual risks across Children 18 years of age and under estimates considered in this analysis the affected population, shifting it • Adults 19 to 64 years of age • generally are annual totals for certain toward higher estimated individual Adults 65 years of age and over years that do not reflect short-term risks at the upper end and reducing the • Adults without a high school diploma • fluctuations during the course of a year number of people estimated to be at Households earning under the or variations from year to year. lower risks, thereby increasing the national median income The estimates of peak hourly emission • estimated number of people at specific People living below the poverty line rates for the acute effects screening risk levels. It should be noted that these assessment were based on a In addition, the assessment predicted categories overlap in some instances, multiplication factor of 10 applied to the chronic exposures at the centroid of resulting in some populations being the average annual hourly emission rate, each populated census block as counted in more than one category (e.g., which is intended to account for surrogates for the exposure other races and multiracial and emission fluctuations due to normal concentrations for all people living in Hispanic). In addition, while not a facility operations. Additionally, that block. Using the census block specific census population category, we although we believe that we have data centroid to predict chronic exposures also examined risks to ‘‘Minorities,’’ a for most facilities in these two source tends to over-predict exposures for classification which is defined for these categories in our RTR dataset, our people in the census block who live purposes as all race population dataset may not include data for all further from the facility, and under- categories except white. existing facilities. Moreover, there are predict exposures for people in the For further information about risks to uncertainties with regard to the census block who live closer to the the populations located near the identification of sources as major or area facility. Thus, using the census block facilities in these source categories, we in the NEI for these source categories. centroid to predict chronic exposures also evaluated the estimated may lead to a potential understatement distribution of inhalation cancer and ii. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling or overstatement of the true maximum chronic noncancer risks associated with While the analysis employed the impact, but is an unbiased estimate of the HAP emissions from all the EPA’s recommended regulatory average risk and incidence. emissions sources at the facility (i.e., dispersion model, AERMOD, we The assessments evaluate the cancer facility-wide). This analysis used the recognize that there is uncertainty in inhalation risks associated with facility-wide RTR modeling results and ambient concentration estimates continuous pollutant exposures over a the census data described above. associated with any model, including 70-year period, which is the assumed The methodology and the results of AERMOD. In circumstances where we lifetime of an individual. In reality, both the demographic analyses for each had to choose between various model the length of time that modeled source category are included in a options, where possible, model options emissions sources at facilities actually source-category-specific technical report (e.g., rural/urban, plume depletion, operate (i.e., more or less than 70 years), for each of the categories, which are chemistry) were selected to provide an and the domestic growth or decline of available in the docket for this action. overestimate of ambient air the modeled industry (i.e., the increase concentrations of the HAP rather than h. Considering Uncertainties in Risk underestimates. However, because of 31 Short-term mobility is movement from one Assessment micro-environment to another over the course of practicality and data limitation reasons, hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement Uncertainty and the potential for bias some factors (e.g., meteorology, building from one residence to another over the course of a are inherent in all risk assessments, downwash) have the potential in some lifetime.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52776 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

or decrease in the number or size of quantitatively, and others generally are consideration of both uncertainty and United States facilities), will influence expressed in qualitative terms. We note variability. When there are gaps in the the risks posed by a given source as a preface to this discussion a point on available information, UF are applied to category. Depending on the dose-response uncertainty that is derive reference values that are characteristics of the industry, these brought out in the EPA 2005 Cancer intended to protect against appreciable factors will, in most cases, result in an Guidelines; namely, that ‘‘the primary risk of deleterious effects. The UF are overestimate both in individual risk goal of the EPA actions is protection of commonly default values,35 e.g., factors levels and in the total estimated number human health; accordingly, as an of 10 or 3, used in the absence of of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, Agency policy, risk assessment compound-specific data; where data are where a facility maintains or increases procedures, including default options available, UF may also be developed its emission levels beyond 70 years, that are used in the absence of scientific using compound-specific information. residents live beyond 70 years at the data to the contrary, should be health When data are limited, more same location, and the residents spend protective.’’ (EPA 2005 Cancer assumptions are needed and more UF most of their days at that location, then Guidelines, pages 1–7.) This is the are used. Thus, there may be a greater the risks could potentially be approach followed here as summarized tendency to overestimate risk in the underestimated. Annual cancer in the next several paragraphs. A sense that further study might support incidence estimates from exposures to complete detailed discussion of development of reference values that are emissions from these sources would not uncertainties and variability in dose- higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer be affected by uncertainty in the length response relationships is given in the default assumptions are needed. of time emissions sources operate. residual risk documentation, which is However, for some pollutants, it is The exposure estimates used in these available in the docket for this action. possible that risks may be analyses assume chronic exposures to Cancer URE values used in our risk underestimated. While collectively ambient levels of pollutants. Because assessments are those that have been termed ‘‘uncertainty factor,’’ these most people spend the majority of their developed to generally provide an upper factors account for a number of different time indoors, actual exposures may not bound estimate of risk. That is, they quantitative considerations when using be as high, depending on the represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the observed animal (usually rodent) or characteristics of the pollutants true value of a quantity’’ (although this human toxicity data in the development modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor is usually not a true statistical of the RfC. The UF are intended to levels are roughly equivalent to ambient confidence limit).33 In some account for: (1) Variation in levels, but for very reactive pollutants or circumstances, the true risk could be as susceptibility among the members of the larger particles, these levels are low as zero; however, in other human population (i.e., inter-individual typically lower. This factor has the circumstances, the risk could also be variability); (2) uncertainty in 34 potential to result in an overstatement of greater. When developing an upper extrapolating from experimental animal 25 to 30 percent of exposures.32 bound estimate of risk and to provide data to humans (i.e., interspecies In addition to the uncertainties risk values that do not underestimate differences); (3) uncertainty in highlighted above, there are several risk, health-protective default extrapolating from data obtained in a factors specific to the acute exposure approaches are generally used. To err on study with less-than-lifetime exposure assessment that should be highlighted. the side of ensuring adequate health- (i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to The accuracy of an acute inhalation protection, the EPA typically uses the chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in exposure assessment depends on the upper bound estimates rather than extrapolating the observed data to simultaneous occurrence of lower bound or central tendency obtain an estimate of the exposure independent factors that may vary estimates in our risk assessments, an associated with no adverse effects; and greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, approach that may have limitations for (5) uncertainty when the database is meteorology, and human activity other uses (e.g., priority-setting or incomplete or there are problems with patterns. In this assessment, we assume expected benefits analysis). the applicability of available studies. that individuals remain for 1 hour at the Chronic noncancer reference (RfC and Many of the UF used to account for point of maximum ambient reference dose (RfD)) values represent variability and uncertainty in the chronic exposure levels that are concentration as determined by the co- development of acute reference values intended to be health-protective levels. occurrence of peak emissions and worst- Specifically, these values provide an case meteorological conditions. These 35 According to the NRC report, Science and estimate (with uncertainty spanning assumptions would tend to overestimate Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily ‘‘[Default] options are generic approaches, based on actual exposures since it is unlikely that oral exposure (RfD) or of a continuous general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, a person would be located at the point inhalation exposure (RfC) to the human that are applied to various elements of the risk of maximum exposure during the time assessment process when the correct scientific population (including sensitive of worst-case impact. model is unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC subgroups) that is likely to be without report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: iv. Uncertainties in Dose-Response an appreciable risk of deleterious effects Managing the Process, defined default option as Relationships during a lifetime. To derive values that ‘‘the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment policy that appears to be the best choice in the There are uncertainties inherent in are intended to be ‘‘without appreciable absence of data to the contrary’’ (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). the development of the dose-response risk,’’ the methodology relies upon an Therefore, default options are not rules that bind values used in our risk assessments for uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. the Agency; rather, the Agency may depart from EPA, 1993, 1994) which includes them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific cancer effects from chronic exposures substance when it believes this to be appropriate. and noncancer effects from both chronic In keeping with EPA’s goal of protecting public and acute exposures. Some 33 IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/ health and the environment, default assumptions help_gloss.htm). are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not uncertainties may be considered 34 An exception to this is the URE for benzene, underestimated (although defaults are not intended which is considered to cover a range of values, each to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An 32 U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics end of which is considered to be equally plausible Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January and which is based on maximum likelihood and Practices, EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: 2001; page 85.) estimates. http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52777

are quite similar to those developed for understatement of risk for these for our source category risk assessments chronic durations, but they more often pollutants at environmental exposure apply to the facility-wide risk use individual UF values that may be levels is possible. For a group of assessments. Additionally, the degree of less than 10. UF are applied based on compounds that are either unspeciated uncertainty associated with facility- chemical-specific or health effect- or do not have reference values for every wide emissions and risks is likely specific information (e.g., simple individual compound (e.g., glycol greater because we generally have not irritation effects do not vary appreciably ethers), we conservatively use the most conducted a thorough engineering between human individuals, hence a protective reference value to estimate review of emissions data for source value of 3 is typically used), or based on risk from individual compounds in the categories not currently undergoing an the purpose for the reference value (see group of compounds. RTR review. the following paragraph). The UF Additionally, chronic reference values vii. Uncertainties in the Demographic applied in acute reference value for several of the compounds included Analysis derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity in this assessment are currently under among humans; (2) uncertainty in the EPA IRIS review and revised Our analysis of the distribution of extrapolating from animals to humans; assessments may determine that these risks across various demographic groups (3) uncertainty in lowest observed pollutants are more or less potent than is subject to the typical uncertainties adverse effect (exposure) level to no the current value. We may re-evaluate associated with census data (e.g., errors observed adverse effect (exposure) level residual risks for the final rulemaking if in filling out and transcribing census adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in these reviews are completed prior to our forms), as well as the additional accounting for an incomplete database taking final action for these source uncertainties associated with the on toxic effects of potential concern. categories and a dose-response metric extrapolation of census-block group data Additional adjustments are often changes enough to indicate that the risk (e.g., income level and education level) applied to account for uncertainty in assessment supporting this notice may down to the census block level. extrapolation from observations at one significantly understate human health 2. What are the results and proposed exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to risk. decisions from the risk review for the derive an acute reference value at v. Uncertainties in the Multi-Pathway Oil and Natural Gas Production source another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). and Environmental Effects Assessment category? Not all acute reference values are We generally assume that when developed for the same purpose and a. Results of the Risk Assessments and exposure levels are not anticipated to Analyses care must be taken when interpreting adversely affect human health, they also the results of an acute assessment of are not anticipated to adversely affect We conducted an inhalation risk human health effects relative to the the environment. For each source assessment for the Oil and Natural Gas reference value or values being category, we generally rely on the site- Production source category. We also exceeded. Where relevant to the specific levels of PB–HAP emissions to conducted an assessment of facility- estimated exposures, the lack of short- determine whether a full assessment of wide risk. Details of the risk term dose-response values at different the multi-pathway and environmental assessments and analyses can be found levels of severity should be factored into effects is necessary. As discussed above, in the residual risk documentation, the risk characterization as potential we conclude that the potential for these which is available in the docket for this uncertainties. types of impacts is low for these source action. For informational purposes and Although every effort is made to categories. to examine the potential for any EJ identify peer-reviewed reference values issues that might be associated with for cancer and noncancer effects for all vi. Uncertainties in the Facility-Wide each source category, we performed a pollutants emitted by the sources Risk Assessment demographic analysis of population included in this assessment, some HAP Given that the same general analytical risks. continue to have no reference values for approach and the same models were i. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results cancer or chronic noncancer or acute used to generate facility-wide risk effects. Since exposures to these results as were used to generate the Table 2 provides an overall summary pollutants cannot be included in a source category risk results, the same of the results of the inhalation risk quantitative risk estimate, an types of uncertainties discussed above assessment.

TABLE 2—OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Maximum individual cancer risk Estimated Maximum chronic noncancer (in 1 million) 2 Estimated pop- annual cancer TOSHI 4 Maximum Number of ulation at risk ≥ incidence off-site acute facilities 1 Actual emis- Allowable emis- 1-in-1 million (cases per Actual emis- Allowable emis- noncancer HQ 5 sions level sions level year) sions level sions level

3 3 3 990 40 100–400 160,000 0.007–0.02 0.1 0.7 HQREL = 9 (benzene) HQAEGL–1 = 0.07 (benzene) 1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 2 Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 3 The EPA IRIS assessment for benzene provides a range of equally-plausible URE (2.2E–06 to 7.8E–06 per ug/m3), giving rise to ranges for the estimates of cancer MIR and cancer incidence. Estimated population values are not scalable with benzene URE range, but would be lower using the lower end of the URE range. 4 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Oil and Natural Gas Production source category is the respiratory system. 5 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ values.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52778 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

As shown in Table 2, the results of the URE range would further reduce this as high as 400-in-1 million (100-in-1 inhalation risk assessment performed population estimate). The maximum million based on the lower end of the using actual emissions data indicate the chronic non-cancer TOSHI value for the benzene URE range) and the maximum maximum lifetime individual cancer source category could be up to 0.1 from chronic noncancer TOSHI value could risk could be as high as 40-in-1 million, emissions of naphthalene, indicating no be as high as 0.7 at the MACT-allowable with POM driving the highest risk, and significant potential for chronic emissions level. benzene driving risks overall. The total noncancer impacts. ii. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment estimated cancer incidence from this As explained above, our analysis of potential differences between actual Results source category is 0.02 excess cancer emission levels and emissions allowable cases per year (0.007 excess cancer cases under the oil and natural gas production A facility-wide risk analysis was also per year based on the lower end of the MACT standard indicate that MACT- conducted based on actual emissions benzene URE range), or one case in allowable emission levels may be up to levels. Table 3 displays the results of the every 50 years. Approximately 160,000 50 times greater than actual emission facility-wide risk assessment. For people are estimated to have cancer levels. Considering this difference, the detailed facility-specific results, see risks at or above 1-in-1 million as a risk results from the inhalation risk Table 2 of Appendix 6 of the risk result of the emissions from 89 facilities assessment indicate the maximum document in the docket for this (use of the lower end of the benzene lifetime individual cancer risk could be rulemaking.

TABLE 3—OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of facilities analyzed ...... 990 Cancer Risk: Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ...... 100 Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more ...... 1 Number of facilities at which the Oil and Natural Gas Production source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facil- ity-wide individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more ...... 0 Number of facilities with facility-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more ...... 140 Number of facilities at which the Oil and Natural Gas Production source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facil- ity-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more ...... 85 Chronic Noncancer Risk: Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI ...... 9 Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 ...... 10 Number of facilities at which the Oil and Natural Gas Production source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facil- ity-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more ...... 0

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP wide MIR of 1-in-1 million or greater. Of values greater than 1. Of these facilities, emissions at a facility that contains these facilities, 85 have oil and natural none had oil and natural gas production sources subject to the oil and natural gas gas production operations that operations that contributed greater than production MACT standards is contribute greater than 50 percent to the 50 percent to these facility-wide risks. estimated to be 100-in-1 million, based facility-wide risks. As discussed above, The chronic noncancer risks at these 10 on actual emissions. Of the 990 facilities we are proposing MACT standards for facilities are primarily driven by included in this analysis, only one has BTEX emissions from small glycol acrolein emissions from RICE. a facility-wide MIR of 100-in-1 million. dehydrators in this action. These iii. Demographic Risk Analysis Results At this facility, oil and natural gas standards would reduce the risk from production accounts for less than 2 benzene emissions at facilities with oil The results of the demographic percent of the total facility-wide risk. and gas production. Formaldehyde analyses performed to investigate the Nickel emissions from oil-fired boilers emissions will be assessed under future distribution of cancer risks at or above and formaldehyde emissions from RTR for RICE. 1-in-1 million among the surrounding reciprocating internal combustion The facility-wide maximum population are summarized in Table 4 engines (RICE) contribute essentially all individual chronic noncancer TOSHI is below. These results, for various the facility-wide risks at this facility, estimated to be 9 based on actual demographic groups, are based on with over 80 percent of the risk emissions. Of the 990 facilities included actual emissions levels for the attributed to the nickel emissions.36 in this analysis, 10 have facility-wide population living within 50 km of the There are 140 facilities with facility- maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI facilities.

TABLE 4—OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to Nationwide Source category Facility-wide HAP HAP emissions emissions

Total Population ...... 285,000,000 160,000 597,000

36 We note that there is an ongoing IRIS risk assessments will use the cancer potency for As a result, the current results may not match those reassessment for formaldehyde, and that future RTR formaldehyde that results from that reassessment. of future assessments.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52779

TABLE 4—OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS—Continued

Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to Nationwide Source category Facility-wide HAP HAP emissions emissions

Race by Percent

White ...... 75 62 61 All Other Races ...... 25 38 39

Race by Percent

White ...... 75 62 61 African American ...... 12 12 8 Native American ...... 0.9 0.7 1.3 Other and Multiracial ...... 12 25 30

Ethnicity by Percent

Hispanic ...... 14 22 34 Non-Hispanic ...... 86 78 66

Income by Percent

Below Poverty Level ...... 13 14 19 Above Poverty Level ...... 87 86 81

Education by Percent

Over 25 and without High School Diploma ...... 13 10 16 Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ...... 87 90 84

The results of the Oil and Natural Gas demographic group, results which are URE range). While the 40-in-1 million Production source category 18, 2, 0.4 and 3 percentage points higher risk due to actual emissions is demographic analysis indicate that there than the percentages for these considerably less than 100-in-1 million, are approximately 160,000 people demographic groups across the United which is the presumptive limit of exposed to a cancer risk at or above 1- States, respectively. The percentages for acceptability, the 400-in-1 million risk in-1 million due to emissions from the the other demographic groups are lower due to allowable emissions is source category, including an estimated than their respective nationwide considerably higher and is considered 38 percent that are classified as minority percentages. unacceptable. We do note, however, that (listed as ‘‘All Other Races’’ in the table b. What are the proposed risk decisions the risk analysis shows low cancer above). Of the 160,000 people with for the Oil and Natural Gas Production incidence (1 case in every 50 years), low estimated cancer risks at or above 1-in- source category? potential for adverse environmental 1 million from the source category, 25 effects or human health multi-pathway percent are in the ‘‘Other and i. Risk Acceptability effects and that chronic noncancer Multiracial’’ demographic group, 22 In the risk analysis we performed for health impacts are unlikely. percent are in the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ this source category, pursuant to CAA We also conclude that acute demographic group, and 14 percent are section 112(f)(2), we considered the noncancer health impacts are unlikely. in the ‘‘Below Poverty Level’’ available health information—the MIR; As discussed above, screening estimates demographic group, results which are the numbers of persons in various risk of acute exposures and risks were 13, 8 and 1 percentage points higher, ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum evaluated for each of the HAP at the respectively, than the respective noncancer HI; the maximum acute point of highest off-site exposure for percentages for these demographic noncancer hazard; the extent of each facility (i.e., not just the census groups across the United States. The noncancer risks; the potential for block centroids) assuming that a person percentages for the other demographic adverse environmental effects; and is located at this spot at a time when groups are lower than their respective distribution of risks in the exposed both the peak emission rate and worst- nationwide percentages. The table also population; and risk estimation case dispersion conditions occur. Under shows that there are approximately uncertainty (54 FR 38044, September these worst-case conditions, we estimate 597,000 people exposed to an estimated 14, 1989). benzene acute HQ values (based on the cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million For the Oil and Natural Gas REL) could be as high as 9. Although the due to facility-wide emissions, Production source category, the risk REL (which indicates the level below including 30 percent in the ‘‘Other and analysis we performed indicates that the which adverse effects are not Multiracial’’ demographic group, 34 cancer risks to the individual most anticipated) is exceeded in this case, we percent in the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ exposed could be as high as 40-in-1 believe the potential for acute effects is demographic group, 1.3 percent in the million due to actual emissions and as low for several reasons. First, the acute ‘‘Native American’’ demographic group high as 400-in-1 million due to MACT- modeling scenario is worst-case because and 16 percent in the ‘‘Over 25 and allowable emissions (100-in-1 million, of the confluence of peak emission rates without High School Diploma’’ based on the lower end of the benzene and worst-case dispersion conditions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:46 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52780 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Second, the benzene REL is based on a effective date. We are requesting $5,170/Mg ($4,700/ton) for control of 6-hour exposure duration because a comment on whether or not this is VOC for the options evaluated. A LDAR 1-hour exposure duration value was sufficient time for the large dehydrators program to control HAP would involve unavailable. An REL based on a 6-hour that have been relying on this similar costs for equipment, labor, etc., exposure duration is generally lower compliance alternative to come into to those considered in the NSPS than an REL based on a 1-hour exposure compliance with the 95-percent control assessment, but since there is duration and, consequently, easier to requirement or if additional time is approximately 20 times less HAP than exceed. Also, although there are needed. See CAA section 112(f)(4)(A). VOC present in material handled in exceedances of the REL, the highest We recognize that our proposal to regulated equipment, the cost estimated 1-hour exposure is less than remove the 0.9 Mg/yr compliance effectiveness to control HAP would be 10 percent of the AEGL–1 value, which alternative for the 95-percent control approximately 20 times greater (i.e., is a level at which effects could be glycol dehydrator MACT standard could $100,000/Mg) for HAP, which we experienced. Finally, the generally have negative impacts on some sources believe is not reasonable. that have come to rely on the flexibility sparse populations near these facilities In accordance with the approach this alternative provides. We solicit make it less likely that a person would established in the Benzene NESHAP, comment on any such impacts and be near the plant to be exposed. For the EPA weighed all health risk example, in the two cases where the whether such impacts warrant adding a measures and information considered in acute HQ value is as high as 9, there are different compliance alternative that the risk acceptability determination, only 30 people associated with the would result in less risk than the 0.9 along with the costs and economic census blocks within 2 miles of the two Mg/yr benzene limit compliance option. impacts of emissions controls, facilities. If a commenter suggests a different While our additional analysis of compliance alternative, the commenter technological feasibility, uncertainties facility-wide risks showed that there is should explain, in detail, what that and other relevant factors in making our one facility with maximum facility-wide alternative would be, how it would ample margin of safety determination. cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or greater work and how it would reduce risk. Considering the health risk information and 10 facilities with a maximum and the high cost effectiveness of the ii. Ample Margin of Safety chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than options identified, we propose that the 1, it also showed that oil and natural gas We next considered whether this existing MACT standards, with the production operations did not drive revised standard (existing MACT plus removal of the 1 tpy benzene limit these risks. removal of 0.9 Mg/yr benzene compliance option from the glycol In determining whether risk is compliance option) provides an ample dehydrator standards, provide an ample acceptable, we considered the available margin of safety. In this analysis, we margin of safety to protect public health. health information, as described above. investigated available emissions control While we are proposing that the oil In this case, although a number of options that might reduce the risk and natural gas production MACT factors we considered indicate relatively associated with emissions from the standards (with the removal of the low risk concern, we are proposing to source category and considered this alternative compliance option of 1 tpy determine that the risks are information along with all of the health benzene limit) provide an ample margin unacceptable, in large part, because the risks and other health information of safety to protect public health, we are MIR is 400-in-1 million due to MACT- considered in the risk acceptability concerned about the estimated facility- allowable emissions, which greatly determination. wide risks identified through these exceeds the ‘‘presumptive limit on For glycol dehydrators, we considered screening analyses. As described maximum individual lifetime risk of the addition of a second control device previously, the highest estimated approximately 1-in-10 thousand [100-in- in the same manner that was discussed facility-wide cancer risks are mostly due 1 million] recognized in the Benzene in the floor evaluation in section VII.B.1 to emissions from oil fired boilers and NESHAP (54 FR 38045).’’ The MIR, above. The cost effectiveness associated RICE. Both of these sources are based on MACT-allowable emissions, is with that option would be $167,200/Mg, regulated under other source categories driven by the allowable emissions of 0.9 which we believe is too high to require and we anticipate that emission Mg/yr benzene under the MACT as a additional controls on glycol reductions from those sources will compliance option. We are, therefore, dehydrators. occur as standards for those source proposing to eliminate the alternative Similarly, we considered the addition categories are implemented. compliance option of 0.9 Mg/yr benzene of a second control device to the from the existing glycol dehydrator required MACT floor control device 3. What are the results and proposed MACT requirements. With this change, (cost effectiveness of $18,300/Mg). decisions from the risk review for the the source category MIR, based on Similar to our discussion of beyond-the- Natural Gas Transmission and Storage MACT-allowable emissions, would be MACT-floor controls for glycol source category? reduced to 40-in-1 million, which we dehydrators in section VII.B.1 of this a. Results of the Risk Assessments and find acceptable in light of all the other preamble, the incremental cost to add a Analyses factors considered. Thus, we are second control device for storage vessels proposing that the risks from the Oil would be approximately 20 times higher We conducted an inhalation risk and Natural Gas Production source than the MACT floor cost effectiveness, assessment for the Natural Gas category are acceptable, with the or $366,000/Mg. We do not believe this Transmission and Storage source removal of the alternative compliance cost effectiveness is reasonable. category. We also conducted an option of 0.9 Mg/yr benzene limit from For leak detection, we considered assessment of facility-wide risk and the current glycol dehydrator MACT implementation of LDAR programs that performed a demographic analysis of requirements. are more stringent than the current population risks. Details of the risk Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(4), we standards. An assessment performed for assessments and analyses can be found are proposing that this change (i.e., various LDAR options under the NSPS in the residual risk documentation, removal of the 0.9 Mg/yr compliance in section VI.B.4.b of this preamble which is available in the docket for this alternative) apply 90 days after its yielded the lowest cost effectiveness of action.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52781

i. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results assessment. For informational purposes each source category, we performed a Table 5 provides an overall summary and to examine the potential for any EJ demographic analysis of population of the results of the inhalation risk issues that might be associated with risks.

TABLE 5—NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Maximum individual cancer risk Estimated Estimated Maximum chronic noncancer (in 1 million) 2 annual cancer TOSHI 4 Maximum Number of population at incidence off-site acute Facilities 1 risk ≥ 1-in-1 Actual Allowable emis- (cases per Actual Allowable emis- noncancer HQ 5 emissions level sions level million year) emissions level sions level

3 3 3 3 321 30–90 30–90 2,500 0.0003–0.001 0.4 0.8 HQREL = 5 (benzene) HQAEGL–1 = 0.2 (chlorobenzene) 1 Number of facilities evaluated in the risk analysis. 2 Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk. 3 The EPA IRIS assessment for benzene provides a range of equally-plausible URE (2.2E–06 to 7.8E–06 per ug/m3), giving rise to ranges for the estimates of cancer MIR and cancer incidence. Estimated population values are not scalable with benzene URE range, but would be lower using the lower end of the URE range. 4 Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage source category is the immune system. 5 The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term dose-response values to develop an array of HQ values.

As shown in Table 5 above, the would further reduce this population maximum lifetime individual cancer results of the inhalation risk assessment estimate). The maximum chronic risk would still be 90-in-1 million (30- performed using actual emissions data noncancer TOSHI value for the source in-1 million based on the lower end of indicate the maximum lifetime category could be up to 0.4 from the benzene URE range), based on both individual cancer risk could be as high emissions of benzene, indicating no actual and allowable emission levels, as 90-in-1 million, (30-in-1 million significant potential for chronic and the maximum chronic noncancer based on the lower end of the benzene noncancer impacts. TOSHI value could be as high as 0.8 at URE range), with benzene as the major As explained above in section the MACT-allowable emissions level. contributor to the risk. The total VII.C.1.b, our analysis of potential estimated cancer incidence from the differences between actual emission ii. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment source category is 0.001 excess cancer levels and emissions allowable under Results cases per year (0.0003 excess cancer the natural gas transmission and storage cases per year based on the lower end MACT standard indicate that MACT- A facility-wide risk analysis was also of the benzene URE range), or one case allowable emission levels may be up to conducted based on actual emissions in every polycyclic organic matter 1,000 50 times greater than actual emission levels. Table 6 below displays the years. Approximately 2,500 people are levels at some sources. However, results of the facility-wide risk estimated to have cancer risks at or because some sources are emitting at the assessment. For detailed facility-specific above 1-in-1 million as a result of the level allowed under the current results, see Table 2 of Appendix 6 of the emissions from 15 facilities (use of the NESHAP, the risk results from the risk document in the docket for this lower end of the benzene URE range inhalation risk assessment indicate the rulemaking.

TABLE 6—NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE FACILITY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Number of Facilities Analyzed ...... 321

Cancer Risk: Estimated maximum facility-wide individual cancer risk (in 1 million) ...... 1 200 Number of facilities with estimated facility-wide individual cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or more ...... 3 Number of facilities at which the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risks of 100-in-1 million or more ...... 1 Number of facilities with facility-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more ...... 74 Number of facilities at which the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide individual cancer risk of 1-in-1 million or more ...... 10 Chronic Noncancer Risk: Maximum facility-wide chronic noncancer TOSHI ...... 80 Number of facilities with facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 ...... 30 Number of facilities at which the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage source category contributes 50 percent or more to the facility-wide maximum noncancer TOSHI of 1 or more ...... 0 1 We note that the MIR would be 100-in-1 million if the CIIT URE for formaldehyde were used instead of the IRIS URE.

The facility-wide MIR from all HAP standards is estimated to be 200-in-1 100-in-1 million or greater. The facility- emissions at any facility that contains million, based on actual emissions. Of wide MIR is 200-in-1 million at two of sources subject to the natural gas the 321 facilities included in this these facilities, driven by formaldehyde transmission and storage MACT analysis, three have facility-wide MIR of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:53 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52782 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

from RICE.37 Another facility has a operations. The facility-wide cancer wide risks. The chronic noncancer risks facility-wide risk of 100-in-1 million, risks at the facilities with risks of 1-in- at these facilities are primarily driven by with 90 percent of the risk attributed to 1 million or more are primarily driven acrolein emissions from RICE. natural gas transmission and storage. by formaldehyde emissions from RICE, There are 74 facilities with facility-wide which will be assessed in a future RTR iii. Demographic Risk Analysis Results MIR of 1-in-1 million or greater. Of for that category. The results of the demographic these facilities, 10 have natural gas The facility-wide maximum analyses performed to investigate the transmission and storage operations that individual chronic noncancer TOSHI is distribution of cancer risks at or above contribute greater than 50 percent to the estimated to be 80, based on actual facility-wide risks. As discussed above, emissions. Of the 321 facilities included 1-in-1 million among the surrounding we are proposing MACT standards for in this analysis, 30 have facility-wide population are summarized in Table 7 benzene emissions from small glycol maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI below. These results, for various dehydrators in this action. These values greater than 1. Of these facilities, demographic groups, are based on standards would reduce the risk from none had natural gas transmission and actual emissions levels for the benzene emissions at facilities with storage operations that contributed population living within 50 km of the natural gas transmission and storage greater than 50 percent to these facility- facilities.

TABLE 7—NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE DEMOGRAPHIC RISK ANALYSIS RESULTS

Population with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million due to . . . Nationwide Source category Facility-wide HAP HAP emissions emissions

Total Population ...... 285,000,000 2,500 99,000

Race by Percent

White ...... 75 92 58 All Other Races ...... 25 8 42

Race by Percent

White ...... 75 92 58 African American ...... 12 6 40 Native American ...... 0.9 0.1 0.2 Other and Multiracial ...... 12 1 2

Ethnicity by Percent

Hispanic ...... 14 1 2 Non-Hispanic ...... 86 99 98

Income by Percent

Below Poverty Level ...... 13 17 20 Above poverty level ...... 87 83 80

Education by Percent

Over 25 and without High School Diploma ...... 13 20 15 Over 25 and with a High School Diploma ...... 87 80 85

The results of the Natural Gas High School Diploma’’ demographic the 99,000 people with estimated cancer Transmission and Storage source group, results which are 4 and 7 risk at or above 1-in-1 million from category demographic analysis indicate percentage points higher, respectively, facility-wide emissions, 40 percent are that there are approximately 2,500 than the percentages for these in the ‘‘African American’’ demographic people exposed to a cancer risk at or demographic groups across the United group, 20 percent are in the ‘‘Below above 1-in-1 million due to emissions States. The percentages for the other Poverty Level’’ demographic group, and from the source category, including an demographic groups are lower than 15 percent are in the ‘‘Over 25 and estimated 8 percent that are classified as their respective nationwide percentages. without High School Diploma’’ minority (listed as ‘‘All Other Races’’ in The table also shows that there are demographic group, results which are Table 7 above). Of the 2,500 people with approximately 99,000 people exposed to 28, 7 and 2 percentage points higher, estimated cancer risks at or above 1-in- an estimated cancer risk at or above 1- respectively, than the percentages for 1 million from the source category, 17 in-1 million due to facility-wide these demographic groups across the percent are in the ‘‘Below Poverty emissions, including an estimated 42 Level’’ demographic group, and 20 percent that are classified as minority United States. The percentages for the percent are in the ‘‘Over 25 and without (‘‘All Other Races’’ in Table 7 above). Of other demographic groups are equal to

37 We note that there is an ongoing IRIS risk assessments will use the cancer potency for As a result, the current results may not match those reassessment for formaldehyde, and that future RTR formaldehyde that results from that reassessment. of future assessments.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:49 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52783

or lower than their respective proposing to determine that the risks are the risk acceptability determination, nationwide percentages. acceptable. along with the costs and economic impacts of emissions controls, b. What are the proposed risk decisions ii. Ample Margin of Safety technological feasibility, uncertainties for the Natural Gas Transmission and We next considered whether the Storage source category? and other relevant factors in making our existing MACT standard provides an ample margin of safety determination. i. Risk Acceptability ample margin of safety. In this analysis, Considering the health risk information we investigated available emissions and the reasonable cost effectiveness of In the risk analysis we performed for control options that might reduce the this source category, pursuant to CAA the option identified, we propose that risk associated with emissions from the the existing MACT standards, with the section 112(f)(2), we considered the source category and considered this removal of the 0.9 Mg benzene limit available health information—the MIR; information, along with all of the health compliance option from the glycol the numbers of persons in various risk risks and other health information dehydrator standards, provide an ample ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum considered in the risk acceptability noncancer HI; the maximum acute determination. The estimated MIR of 90- margin of safety to protect public health. noncancer hazard; the extent of in-1 million discussed above is driven Pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(4), we noncancer risks; the potential for by the 0.9 Mg/year benzene limit are proposing that this change (i.e., adverse environmental effects; compliance alternative for the glycol removal of the 0.9 Mg/yr compliance distribution of risks in the exposed dehydrator MACT standard in the alternative) apply 90 days after its population; and risk estimation current NESHAP. Removal of this effective date. We are requesting uncertainty (54 FR 38044, September compliance alternative would lower the comment on whether or not there is 14, 1989). MIR for the source category to 20-in-1 sufficient time for the large dehydrators For the Natural Gas Transmission and million. We, therefore, considered that have been relying on this Storage source category, the risk removing this compliance alternative as compliance alternative to come into analysis we performed indicates that the an option for reducing risk and assessed compliance with the 95-percent control cancer risks to the individual most the cost of such alternative. Without the requirement or if additional time is exposed could be as high as 90-in-1 compliance alternative, affected glycol needed. See CAA section 112(f)(4)(A). million due to actual and allowable dehydrators (i.e., those units with annual average benzene emissions of 0.9 We recognize that our proposal to emissions (30-in-1 million, based on the remove the one-ton compliance lower end of the benzene URE range). Mg/yr or greater and an annual average natural gas throughput of 283,000 scmd alternative for the 95-percent control These risks are near 100-in-1 million, glycol dehydrator MACT standard could which is the presumptive limit of or greater) must demonstrate compliance with the 95-percent control have negative impacts on some sources acceptability. On the other hand, the that have come to rely on the flexibility risk analysis shows low cancer requirement, which we believe can be this alternative provides. We solicit incidence (1 case in every 1,000 years), shown with their existing control comment on any such impacts and low potential for adverse environmental devices in most cases, although, in some whether such impacts warrant adding a effects or human health multi-pathway instances, installation of a different or different compliance alternative that effects and that chronic and acute an additional control may be necessary. would result in less risk than the 0.9 noncancer health impacts are unlikely. In section VII.B.1 above, we discuss We conclude that acute noncancer the costs for requiring controls on Mg/yr benzene limit compliance option. health impacts are unlikely for reasons currently unregulated ‘‘small glycol If a commenter suggests a different similar to those described in section dehydrators,’’ which are similar, in compliance alternative, the commenter VII.C.2.b.i of this preamble. operation and type of emission controls, should explain, in detail, what that to the dehydrators subject to the current alternative would be, how it would Our additional analysis of facility- MACT (‘‘large dehydrators’’). The HAP work, and how it would reduce risk. wide risks showed that, among three cost effectiveness determined for small As described above, we are proposing facilities with maximum facility-wide dehydrators at the floor level of control that the natural gas transmission and cancer risk of 100-in-1 million or was $1,650/Mg. Although control storage MACT standards (with the greater, one facility has a facility-wide methodologies are similar for large and removal of the 0.9 Mg/yr benzene limit cancer risk of 100-in-1 million, with 90 small dehydrators, we expect that the compliance option) provide an ample percent of the risk attributed to natural costs for controls on large units could be gas and transmission and storage. There as much as twice as high as for small margin of safety to protect public health. are 30 facilities with a maximum units because of the large gas flow being We recognize that one facility has a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than processed. However, we also expect that facility-wide cancer risk of 100-in-1 1, but natural gas transmission and the amount of HAP emission reduction million, with 90 percent of the risk storage operations did not drive this for the large dehydrators, in general, to attributed to natural gas transmission risk. be as much as, or more than, the amount and storage. This risk is driven by In determining whether risk is achieved by small dehydrators. In light benzene emissions from glycol acceptable, we considered the available of the above, we do not expect the cost dehydrators and is being addressed by health information, as described above. effectiveness of the control device our proposed revision to the Natural Gas In this case, because the MIR is needed to meet the 95-percent control Transmission and Storage NESHAP approaching, but still less than 100-in- requirement for large dehydrators to (removal of the 0.9 Mg/yr benzene limit 1 million risk, and because a number of exceed $3,300/Mg (i.e., twice the cost compliance option). As previously other factors indicate relatively low risk effectiveness for small dehydrators), mentioned, two facilities have facility- concern (e.g., low cancer incidence, low which we consider to be reasonable. wide MIR of 200-in-1 million, driven by potential for adverse environmental In accordance with the approach formaldehyde from RICE. Emissions effects or human health multi-pathway established in the Benzene NESHAP, from RICE are regulated under another effects, chronic and acute noncancer the EPA weighed all health risk source category and will be assessed health impacts unlikely), we are measures and information considered in under a future RTR for that category.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52784 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

D. How did we perform the technology emission sources in the source addressed by both 40 CFR part 63, review and what are the results and categories under this current RTR subpart HH and 40 CFR part 63, subpart proposed decisions? review. HHH, while equipment leaks and We also consulted the EPA’s RBLC. storage vessels with the PFE are only 1. What was the methodology for the The terms ‘‘RACT,’’ ‘‘BACT,’’ and covered by subpart HH. technology review? ‘‘LAER’’ are acronyms for different Since the promulgation of 40 CFR part Our technology review is focused on program requirements under the CAA 63, subpart HH, which established the identification and evaluation of provisions addressing the NAAQS. MACT standards to address HAP ‘‘developments in practices, processes, Control technologies classified as RACT, emissions from equipment leaks at gas and control technologies’’ since the BACT or LAER apply to stationary processing plants, the EPA has promulgation of the MACT standards sources depending on whether the developed LDAR programs that are for the two oil and gas source categories. source exists or is new and on the size, more stringent than what is required in If a review of available information age and location of the facility. The subpart HH. The most prevalent identifies such developments, then we BACT and LAER (and sometimes RACT) differences between these more conduct an analysis of the technical are determined on a case-by-case basis, stringent programs and subpart HH feasibility of requiring the usually by state or local permitting relate to the frequency of monitoring implementation of these developments, agencies. The EPA established the RBLC and the concentration which constitutes along with the impacts (costs, emission to provide a central database of air a ‘‘leak.’’ We do consider these reductions, risk reductions, etc.). We pollution technology information programs to represent a development in then make a decision on whether it is (including technologies required in practices and evaluated whether to necessary to amend the regulation to source-specific permits) to promote the revise the MACT standards for require these developments. sharing of information among equipment leaks at natural gas Based on specific knowledge of each permitting agencies and to aid in processing plants under subpart HH in source category, we began by identifying identifying future possible control light of this development. known developments in practices, technology options that might apply An analysis was performed above in processes and control technologies. For broadly to numerous sources within a section VI.B.1 to assess the VOC the purpose of this exercise, we category or apply only on a source-by- reduction, costs and other impacts considered any of the following to be a source basis. The RBLC contains over associated with these more stringent ‘‘development’’: 5,000 air pollution control permit LDAR program options at natural gas • Any add-on control technology or determinations that can help identify processing plants. One option other equipment that was not identified appropriate technologies to mitigate considered was to require compliance and considered during MACT many air pollutant emission streams. with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa development; We searched this database to determine • instead of 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV Any improvements in add-on whether any practices, processes or (the current NSPS requirement for control technology or other equipment control technologies are included for the equipment leaks of VOC at natural gas (that was identified and considered types of processes used for emission processing plants), which changes the during MACT development) that could sources (e.g., spray booths) in the source leak definition (based on methane) from result in significant additional emission categories under consideration in this 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm and requires reduction; proposal. monitoring of connectors. Because the • Any work practice or operational We also consulted information from current leak definition under NESHAP procedure that was not identified and the Natural Gas STAR program. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH is the same considered during MACT development; Natural Gas STAR program is a flexible, as that in NSPS subpart VV, and the and voluntary partnership that encourages ratio of VOC to HAP is approximately • Any process change or pollution oil and natural gas companies to adopt prevention alternative that could be 20 to 1, we expect that the HAP cost effective technologies and practices reduction would be 1/20th of the VOC broadly applied that was not identified that improve operational efficiency and and considered during MACT reduction under subpart VVa. The reduce pollutant emissions. The estimated incremental cost for that development. program provides the oil and gas In addition to looking back at option was determined to be $3,340 per industry with information on new ton of VOC. Based on the 20-to-1 ratio, practices, processes or control techniques and developments to reduce technologies reviewed at the time we we estimate the incremental cost to pollutant emissions from the various control HAP at the subpart VVa level developed the MACT standards, we processes. reviewed a variety of sources of data to would be approximately $66,800 per ton aid in our evaluation of whether there 2. What are the results and proposed of HAP ($73,480/Mg). Other options were additional practices, processes or decisions from the technology review? considered in section VI.B.1 of this controls to consider. One of these There are three types of emission preamble (and the incremental cost of sources of data was subsequent air sources covered by the two oil and gas each option for reducing HAP) are as toxics rules. Since the promulgation of NESHAP. These sources and the control follows: The use of an optical gas the MACT standards for the source technologies (including add-on control imaging camera monthly with an annual categories addressed in this proposal, devices and process modifications) EPA Method 21 check ($129,000 per ton the EPA has developed air toxics considered during the development of of HAP/$143,600 per Mg, if purchasing regulations for a number of additional the MACT standards are: Glycol the camera; $93,000 per ton of HAP/ source categories. We reviewed the dehydrators (combustion devices, $103,300 per Mg, if renting the camera); regulatory requirements and/or recovery devices, process monthly optical gas imagining alone; 38 technical analyses associated with these modifications), storage vessels with the and annual optical gas imaging. In subsequent regulatory actions to PFE (combustion devices, recovery 38 As stated above in section VI.B.1, emissions for identify any practices, processes and devices) and equipment leaks (LDAR the two options using the optical gas imaging control technologies considered in these programs, specific equipment camera alone cannot be quantified and, therefore, efforts that could possibly be applied to modifications). Dehydrators are no cost effectiveness values were determined.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52785

light of the above, we do not believe that Our review of the RBLC did not clearance above the flame zone. Such the additional costs of these programs identify any practices, processes and extensions can more easily be are justified. control technologies applicable to the configured by the manufacturer of the In addition to the plant-wide emission sources in these categories that control device rather than having to evaluations, a component analysis was were not identified and evaluated modify an extension in the field to fit also evaluated at gas processing plants during the original MACT development. devices at every site. Issues related to for the 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVa- In light of the above, we are not transporting, installing and supporting level of control (option 1 considered in proposing any revisions to the existing the extension in the field are also section VI.B.1).39 That assessment MACT standards for storage vessels eliminated through manufacturer shows that the subpart VVa-level of pursuant to section 112(d)(6) of the testing. Another concern is that the pitot control for connectors has an CAA. tube used to measure flow can be incremental cost effectiveness of $4,360 altered by radiant heat from the flame E. What other actions are we proposing? per ton for VOC for connectors and $144 such that gas flow rates are not accurate. per ton for VOC for valves. This means 1. Combustion Control Device Testing This issue is best overcome by having the incremental cost to control HAP As explained below in section VII.E.2, the manufacturer select and use the would be approximately $87,200 per ton under our proposal, performance testing pitot tube best suited to their specific ($96,900/Mg) for connectors and $2,880 would be required initially and every 5 unit. For these reasons, we believe the manufacturers’ test is appropriate for per ton ($3,200/Mg) for valves. We do years for non-condenser control devices. these control devices with ongoing not believe the additional cost for the However, for certain enclosed performance ensured by periodic more stringent requirement for combustion control devices, we are inspection and maintenance. connectors is justified, but the proposing to allow, as an alternative to additional cost for valves is justified. This proposed alternative does not on-site testing, a performance test apply to flares, as defined in 40 CFR Therefore, we are proposing to revise conducted by a control device the equipment leak requirements in 40 63.761 and 40 CFR 63.1271, which must manufacturer in accordance with the demonstrate compliance by meeting the CFR part 63, subpart HH to lower the procedures provided in this proposal. leak definition for valves to an design and operation requirements in 40 We propose to allow a unit whose CFR 63.11(b), 40 CFR 63.772(e)(2) and instrument reading of at least 500 ppm model meets the proposed performance as a result of our technology review. 40 CFR 63.1282(d)(2). It also would not criteria to claim a BTEX or HAP apply to thermal oxidizers having a Some of the practices, processes or destruction efficiency of 98 percent at control technologies listed by the combustion chamber/firebox where the facility. This value is lower than the combustion temperature and residence Natural Gas STAR program applicable 99.9-percent destruction efficiency to the emission sources in these time can be measured during an on-site required in the manufacturers’ test due performance test and are valid categories were not identified and to variations between the test fuel evaluated during the original MACT indicators of performance. These specified and the gas streams combusted thermal oxidizers do not present the development. While the Natural Gas at the actual facility. A source subject to STAR program does contain information issues described above relative to on- the small dehydrator BTEX limit would site performance testing and, therefore, regarding new innovative techniques use the 98-percent destruction that are available to reduce HAP do not need an alternative testing efficiency to calculate their dehydrator’s option. The proposed alternative would, emissions, they are not considered to BTEX emissions for the purpose of have emission reductions higher than therefore, apply to enclosed combustion demonstrating compliance. For the control devices except for these thermal what is set by the original MACT. One 95-percent control MACT standard, a control technology identified in the oxidizers. control device matching the tested In conjunction with the proposed Natural Gas STAR program that would model would be considered to meet that manufacturer testing alternative, we are result in no HAP emissions from glycol requirement. Once a device has been proposing to add a definition for flare to dehydration units would be the demonstrated to meet the proposed clarify that flares, as referenced in the replacement of a glycol dehydration performance criteria (and, therefore, is NESHAP (and to which the proposed unit with a desiccant dehydrator. This assigned a 98-percent destruction testing alternative does not apply), technology cannot be used for natural efficiency), installation of a unit refers to a thermal oxidation system gas operations with gas streams having matching the tested model at a facility with an open flame (i.e., without high temperature, high volume, and low would require no further performance enclosure). Accordingly, any thermal pressure. Due to the limitations posed testing (i.e., periodic tests would not be oxidation system that does not meet the by these conditions, we do not consider required every 5 years). proposed flare definition would be desiccant dehydrators as MACT. We are proposing this alternative to considered an enclosed combustion For storage vessels, the applicable minimize issues associated with control device. technologies identified by the Gas STAR performance testing of certain We estimate that there are many program, which are evaluated above for combustion control devices. We believe existing facilities currently using proposal under NSPS in section VI.B.4, that testing units that are not configured enclosed combustion control devices are similar to the cover and control with a distinct combustion chamber that would be required to either conduct technologies currently required for present several technical issues that are an on-site performance test or install storage vessels under the existing more optimally addressed through and operate a control device tested by MACT. Therefore, these technologies manufacturer testing, and once these the manufacturer under our proposal. would not result in any further units are installed at a facility, through Given the estimated number of these emissions reductions than what is periodic inspection and maintenance in combustion control devices in use, the achieved by the original MACT. accordance with manufacturers’ time required for manufacturers to test recommendations. One issue is that an and manufacture such units, we are 39 Because optical gas imaging is used to view extension above certain existing proposing that existing sources have up several pieces of equipment at a facility at once to survey for leaks, options involving imaging are not combustion control device enclosures to 3 years from the date of the final amenable to a component by component analysis. will be necessary to get adequate rules’ publication date to comply with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52786 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the initial performance testing There are variables (e.g., air to fuel minimum temperature of 760 degrees requirements. ratios and waste constituents for Celsius. We are proposing to remove the combustion; varying organic residence time requirement. The 2. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and concentrations, constituents and residence time requirement is not Reporting capacity issues, including break-through needed because the compliance We are proposing to make changes to for carbon adsorption) that make demonstration made during the the monitoring requirements described theoretical predictions less reliable. The performance test is sufficient to ensure below to address issues we have effects of these site-specific variables on that the combustion device has adequate identified through a monitoring emissions are not easily predictable and residence time to ensure the needed sufficiency review performed during the establishing monitoring conditions (e.g., destruction efficiency. Therefore, we are RTR process. First, we are including combustion temperature, vacuum proposing to remove the residence time calibration procedures associated with regeneration) based on vendor data will requirement. parametric monitoring requirements in likely not account for those variables. We are also clarifying at 40 CFR the existing NESHAP. The NESHAP Therefore, we propose to eliminate the 63.773(d)(3)(i) and 40 CFR require parametric monitoring of control design evaluation alternative for non- 63.1283(d)(3)(i) for thermal vapor device parameters (e.g., temperatures or condenser controls. incinerators, boilers and process flowrate monitoring), but did not For non-condenser controls (and heaters, that the temperature sensor include information on calibration or condensers not using the design shall be installed at a location included inadequate information on analysis option), in addition to the representative of the combustion zone calibration of monitoring devices. initial compliance testing, we are temperature. Currently, the regulation Therefore, we are specifying the proposing that performance tests be requires that the temperature sensor be calibration requirements for temperature conducted at least once every 5 years installed at a location ‘‘downstream of and flow monitors that the NESHAP and whenever sources desire to the combustion zone’’ because we had currently lacks. establish new operating limits. Under thought that the temperature In addition, under the current the current NESHAP, a performance test downstream would be representative of NESHAP, a design analysis can be used is only conducted in two instances: (1) combustion zone temperature. We have in lieu of performance testing to As an alternative to a design analysis for now learned that may or may not be the demonstrate compliance and establish their compliance demonstration and case. We are, therefore, proposing to operating parameter limits. We are identification of operating parameter amend this provision to more accurately proposing to allow the use of the design ranges and (2) as a requirement to reflect the intended requirement. evaluation alternative only when the resolve a disagreement between the EPA Next, consistent with revisions for and the owner or operator regarding the control device being used is a SSM, we’ve revised 40 CFR design analysis. The current NESHAP condenser. The design evaluation 63.771(d)(4)(i) and 40 CFR do not require additional performance option is appropriate for condensers 63.1281(d)(4)(i), except when testing beyond these two cases (i.e., because their emissions can be maintenance or repair on a unit cannot there is no periodic testing accurately predicted using readily be completed without a shutdown of the requirement). As mentioned above, we available physical property information control device. (e.g., vapor pressure data and are proposing to remove the design evaluation option for non-condenser Also, we’ve updated the criteria for condensation calculations). In those prior performance test results that can cases, one would not need to conduct controls. For non-condenser controls (and condensers not using the design be used to demonstrate compliance in emissions testing to determine actual lieu of conducting a performance test. emissions to demonstrate compliance analysis option), the proposed periodic testing would ensure compliance with These updates ensure that data for with the MACT standard. For example, determining compliance are accurate, a requirement that ‘‘the temperature at the emission standards by verifying that the control device is meeting the up-to-date, and truly representative of the outlet of the condenser shall be actual operating conditions. ° necessary HAP destruction efficiency maintained at 50 Fahrenheit below the In addition, we are proposing to condensation temperature calculated for determined in the initial performance test. As discussed above in section revise the temperature monitoring the compound of interest using the device minimum accuracy criteria in 40 reference equation’’ (e.g., National VII.E.1, we are proposing that combustion control devices tested under CFR 63.773(d)(3)(i) to better reflect the Institute of Standards and Technology the manufacturers’ procedure are not level of performance that is required of Chemistry WebBook at http:// required to conduct periodic testing. In the temperature monitoring devices. We webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/) is addition, we are also proposing that believe that temperature monitoring adequate to assure proper operation of combustion control devices that can devices currently used to meet the the condenser and, therefore, demonstrate a uniform combustion zone requirements of the NESHAP can meet compliance with the required emission temperature meeting the required the proposed revised criteria without standard. control efficiency during the initial modification. For other types of control performance test are exempt from Also, we are proposing to revise the technologies, such as carbon adsorption periodic testing. The requirement for calibration gas concentration for the no systems and enclosed combustion detectable emissions procedure 40 continuous monitoring of combustion devices, the ability to predict zone temperature is an accurate applicable to closed vent systems in 40 emissions depends on data developed indicator of control device performance CFR 63.772(c)(4)(ii) from 10,000 ppmv by the vendor and such data may not and eliminates the need for future to 500 ppmv methane to be consistent reliably result in an accurate prediction testing. with the leak threshold of 500 ppmv in of emissions from a specific facility. The current NESHAP (40 CFR 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH. The current 63.771(d) and 40 CFR 63.1281(d)) calibration level is inconsistent with 40 The design analysis alternative in the existing MACT does not apply to flares. As previously require operating an enclosed achieving accurate readings at the level mentioned, the existing MACT provides separate combustion device at a minimum necessary to demonstrate there are no design and operation requirements for flares. residence time of 0.5 seconds at a detectable emissions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52787

Also, we are proposing recordkeeping exempt sources from the requirement to the innumerable types of potential and reporting requirements for carbon comply with the otherwise applicable malfunction events in setting emission adsorption systems. The current CAA section 112(d) emission standard standards. See Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, NESHAP require the replacement of all during periods of SSM. 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978), carbon in the carbon adsorption system We are proposing the elimination of (‘‘In the nature of things, no general with fresh carbon on a regular, the SSM exemption in the two oil and limit, individual permit, or even any predetermined time interval that is no gas NESHAP. Consistent with Sierra upset provision can anticipate all upset longer than the carbon service life Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing to situations. After a certain point, the established for the carbon system, but apply the standards in these NESHAP at transgression of regulatory limits caused provide no recordkeeping or reporting all times. In addition, we are proposing by ‘‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’’ requirement to document and assure to revise 40 CFR 63.771(d)(4)(i) and 40 such as strikes, sabotage, operator compliance with this standard. We CFR 63.1281(d)(4)(i) to remove the intoxication or insanity, and a variety of believe that maintaining some sort of log provision allowing shutdown of the other eventualities, must be a matter for book is a reasonable alternative control device during maintenance or the administrative exercise of case-by- combined with a requirement to report repair. We are also proposing several case enforcement discretion, not for instances when specified practices are revisions to the General Provisions specification in advance by not followed. Therefore, the proposed applicability table for the MACT regulation.’’). rule adds reporting and recordkeeping standard. For example, we are Further, it is reasonable to interpret requirements for establishing a schedule proposing to eliminate the incorporation CAA section 112(d) as not requiring the and maintaining logs of carbon of the General Provisions’ requirement EPA to account for malfunctions in replacement. that the source develop a SSM plan. We setting emissions standards. For Finally, as noted above in section are also proposing to eliminate or revise example, we note that CAA section 112 VII.B.1, we are proposing a BTEX certain recordkeeping and reporting uses the concept of ‘‘best performing’’ emissions limit for small glycol requirements related to the SSM sources in defining MACT, the level of dehydration unit process vents. For the exemption. The EPA has attempted to stringency that major source standards compliance demonstration, we propose ensure that we have not included in the must meet. Applying the concept of that parametric monitoring of the proposed regulatory language any ‘‘best performing’’ to a source that is control device be performed. We believe provisions that are inappropriate, malfunctioning presents significant that parametric monitoring is adequate unnecessary or redundant in the difficulties. The goal of best performing for glycol dehydrators in these two absence of the SSM exemption. We are sources is to operate in such a way as source categories because temperature specifically seeking comment on to avoid malfunctions of their units. monitoring, whether it be to verify whether there are any such provisions Moreover, even if malfunctions were proper condenser or combustion device that we have inadvertently incorporated considered a distinct operating mode, operation, is a reliable indicator of or overlooked. we believe it would be impracticable to performance for reducing organic HAP In proposing the MACT standards in emissions. We also considered the use these rules, the EPA has taken into take malfunctions into account in of a continuous emissions monitoring account startup and shutdown periods. setting CAA section 112(d) standards for system (CEMS) to monitor compliance. We believe that operations and oil and natural gas production facility However, for glycol dehydrators in the emissions do not differ from normal and natural gas transmission and storage oil and natural gas sector, the necessary operations during these periods such operations. As noted above, by electricity, weather-protective that it warrants a separate standard. definition, malfunctions are sudden and enclosures and daily staffing are not Therefore, we have not proposed unexpected events, and it would be usually available. We, therefore, different standards for these periods. difficult to set a standard that takes into question the technical feasibility of Periods of startup, normal operations account the myriad different types of operating a CEMS correctly in this and shutdown are all predictable and malfunctions that can occur across all sector. We request comment on the routine aspects of a source’s operations. sources in each source category. practicality of including provisions in However, by contrast, malfunction is Moreover, malfunctions can also vary in the final rule for a CEMS to monitor defined as a ‘‘sudden, infrequent and frequency, degree and duration, further BTEX emissions for small glycol not reasonably preventable failure of air complicating standard setting. dehydration units. pollution control and monitoring In the event that a source fails to equipment, process equipment or a comply with the applicable CAA section 3. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction process to operate in a normal or usual 112(d) standards as a result of a The United States Court of Appeals manner * * *’’ (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA malfunction event, the EPA would for the District of Columbia Circuit has determined that malfunctions determine an appropriate response vacated portions of two provisions in should not be viewed as a distinct based on, among other things, the good the EPA’s CAA section 112 regulations operating mode and, therefore, any faith efforts of the source to minimize governing the emissions of HAP during emissions that occur at such times do emissions during malfunction periods, periods of SSM. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 not need to be factored into including preventative and corrective F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, development of CAA section 112(d) actions, as well as root cause analyses 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, standards, which, once promulgated, to ascertain and rectify excess the Court vacated the SSM exemption apply at all times. In Mossville emissions. The EPA would also contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 consider whether the source’s failure to CFR 63.6(h)(1), that is part of a F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the comply with the CAA section 112(d) regulation, commonly referred to as the Court upheld as reasonable, standards standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, General Provisions Rule, that the EPA that had factored in variability of infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ promulgated under section 112 of the emissions under all operating and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by CAA. When incorporated into CAA conditions. However, nothing in CAA poor maintenance or careless section 112(d) regulations for specific section 112(d) or in case law requires operation.’’ 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of source categories, these two provisions that the EPA anticipate and account for malfunction).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52788 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even accordance with 40 CFR 63.762 for this occurrence and data demonstrating equipment that is properly designed and sources subject to the oil and natural gas the circumstances where it occurs. In maintained can sometimes fail and that production facilities MACT standards or light of the potential issue, we are such failure can sometimes cause or 40 CFR 63.1272 for sources subject to asking for comment regarding the contribute to an exceedance of the the natural gas transmission and storage addition of provisions in the NESHAP relevant emission standard. (See, e.g., facilities MACT standards and to to require area sources to recalculate State Implementation Plans: Policy prevent future malfunctions. For their PTE to confirm that they are Regarding Excessive Emissions During example, the source must prove by a indeed area sources and whether that Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown preponderance of evidence that calculation should be performed on an (September 20, 1999); Policy on Excess ‘‘[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as annual or biannual basis to verify that Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, possible when the applicable emission changes in gas composition have not Maintenance, and Malfunctions limitations were being exceeded * * *’’ increased their emissions. (February 15, 1983)). The EPA is, and that ‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken b. Definition of Facility and therefore, proposing to add to the final to minimize the impact of the excess Applicability Criteria rule an affirmative defense to civil emissions on ambient air quality, the Subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63 (section penalties for exceedances of emission environment and human health * * *.’’ 63.760(a)(2)) currently defines facilities limits that are caused by malfunctions In any judicial or administrative as those where hydrocarbon liquids are in both of the MACT standards proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the assertion of the affirmative processed, upgraded or stored prior to addressed in this proposal. See 40 CFR the point of custody transfer or where 63.761 for sources subject to the oil and defense and, if the respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the natural gas is processed, upgraded or natural gas production MACT stored prior to entering the Natural Gas standards, or 40 CFR 63.1271 for requirements in the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed Transmission and Storage source sources subject to the natural gas category. We are proposing to remove transmission and storage MACT in accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.77). the references to ‘‘point of custody standards (defining ‘‘affirmative transfer’’ and ‘‘transmission and storage defense’’ to mean, in the context of an 4. Applicability and Compliance source categories’’ from the definition enforcement proceeding, a response or a. Calculating Potential To Emit (PTE) because the operations performed at a defense put forward by a defendant, site sufficiently define a facility and the regarding which the defendant has the We are proposing to amend section 40 scope of the subpart is specified already burden of proof and the merits of which CFR 63.760(a)(1)(iii) to clarify that under 40 CFR 63.760. In addition, we are independently and objectively sources must use a glycol circulation are removing the custody transfer evaluated in a judicial or administrative rate consistent with the definition of reference from the applicability criteria proceeding). We also are proposing PTE in 40 CFR 63.2 in calculating in 40 CFR 63.760(a)(2). Since other regulatory provisions to specify emissions for purposes of determining hydrocarbon liquids can pass through the elements that are necessary to PTE. Affected parties have several custody transfer points between establish this affirmative defense; a misinterpreted the current language the well and the final destination, the source subject to the oil and natural gas concerning measured values or annual custody transfer criteria is not clear production facilities or natural gas average to apply to a broader range of enough. We are, therefore, proposing to transmission MACT standards must parameters than was intended. Those replace the reference to ‘‘point of prove by a preponderance of the qualifiers were meant to apply to gas custody transfer’’ with a more specific evidence that it has met all of the characteristics that are measured, such description of the point up to which the elements set forth in 40 CFR 63.762 and as inlet gas composition, pressure and subpart applies (i.e., the point where a source subject to the natural gas temperature rather than process hydrocarbon liquids enter either the transmission and storage facilities equipment settings. That means that the organic liquids distribution or MACT standards must prove by a circulation rate used in PTE petroleum refineries source categories) preponderance of the evidence that it determinations shall be the maximum and exclude custody transfer from that has met all of the elements set forth in under its physical and operational criteria. We believe this change 40 CFR 63.1272. (See 40 CFR 22.24.) design. eliminates ambiguity and is consistent The criteria ensure that the affirmative In addition to the proposed changes with the oil and natural gas production- defense is available only where the described above, we are seeking specific provisions in the organic event that causes an exceedance of the comment on several PTE related issues. liquids distribution MACT. emission limit meets the narrow According to the data available to the definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 Administrator, when 40 CFR part 63, 5. Other Proposed Changes To Clarify (sudden, infrequent, not reasonably subpart HH was promulgated, the level These Rules preventable and not caused by poor of HAP emissions was predominantly The following lists additional changes maintenance and or careless operation). driven by natural gas throughput (i.e., to the NESHAP we are proposing. This For example, to successfully assert the HAP emissions went up or down in list includes proposed rule changes that affirmative defense, the source must concert with natural gas throughput). address editorial corrections and plain prove by a preponderance of evidence Since promulgation, we have learned language revisions: that excess emissions ‘‘[w]ere caused by that there is not always a direct • Revise 40 CFR 63.769(b) to clarify a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable correlation between HAP emissions and that the equipment leak provisions in 40 failure of air pollution control and natural gas throughput. We have CFR part 63, subpart HH do not apply monitoring equipment, process received information suggesting that, in to a source if that source is required to equipment, or a process to operate in a some cases, HAP emissions can increase control equipment leaks under either 40 normal or usual manner * * *.’’ The despite decreasing natural gas CFR part 63, subpart H or 40 CFR part criteria also are designed to ensure that throughput due to changes in gas 60, subpart KKK. The current 40 CFR steps are taken to correct the composition. We are asking for 63.769(b), which states that subpart HH malfunction, to minimize emissions in comment regarding the likelihood of does not apply if a source meets the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52789

requirements in either of the subparts A. What are the affected sources? B. How are the impacts for this proposal mentioned above, does not clearly evaluated? We expect that by 2015, the year express our intent that such source must For these proposed Oil and Natural be implementing the LDAR provisions when all existing sources will be required to come into compliance in the Gas Production and Natural Gas in the other 40 CFR part 60 or 40 CFR Transmission and Storage NESHAP United States, there will be 97 oil and part 63 subparts to qualify for the amendments and NSPS, the EPA used natural gas production facilities and 15 exemption. two models to evaluate the impacts of • Revise 40 CFR 63.760(a)(1) to natural gas transmission and storage the regulation on the industry and the clarify that an existing area source that facilities with one or more existing economy. Typically, in a regulatory increases its emissions to major source glycol dehydration units. We also analysis, the EPA determines the levels has up to the first substantive estimate that there will be an additional regulatory options suitable to meet compliance date to either reduce its 329 (there are 47 facilities that already statutory obligations under the CAA. emissions below major source levels by have an affected glycol dehydration Based on the stringency of those obtaining a practically enforceable unit) existing oil and natural gas permit or comply with the applicable options, the EPA then determines the production facilities with existing control technologies and monitoring major source provisions of 40 CFR part storage vessels that we expect to be 63, subpart HH. We have revised the requirements that sources might affected by these final amendments. second to last sentence in 40 CFR rationally select to comply with the 63.760(a)(1) by removing the These facilities operate approximately regulation. This analysis is documented parenthetical statement because it 134 glycol dehydration units (115 in in an engineering analysis. The selected simply reiterates the last sentence of production and 19 in transmission and control technologies and monitoring this section and is, therefore, storage) and 1,970 storage vessels. requirements are then evaluated in a unnecessary. Approximately 10 oil and natural gas cost model to determine the total • Revise 40 CFR 63.771(d)(1)(ii) and production and two transmission and annualized control costs. The 40 CFR 63.1281(d)(1)(ii) to clarify that storage facilities would have new glycol annualized control costs serve as inputs the vapor recovery device and ‘‘other dehydration units and 38 production to an Economic Impact Analysis model control device’’ described in those facilities would have new dehydration that evaluates the impacts of those costs provisions refer to non-destructive units. We expect new production on the industry and society as a whole. control devices only. facilities would operate approximately The Economic Impact Analysis used • Revise the last sentence of 40 CFR 12 production glycol dehydration units the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate the impacts of the 63.764(i) and 40 CFR 63.1274(g) to and 197 storage vessels and new proposed NSPS on the United States clarify the requirements following an transmission and storage would operate energy system. The NEMS is a unsuccessful attempt to repair a leak. approximately two glycol dehydration • Updated the e-mail and physical publically-available model of the United units. address for area source reporting in 40 States energy economy developed and CFR 63.775(c)(1). Based on data provided by the United maintained by the Energy Information States Energy Information Administration of the United States VIII. What are the cost, environmental, Administration, we anticipate that by DOE and is used to produce the Annual energy and economic impacts of the 2015 there will be approximately 21,800 Energy Outlook, a reference publication proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart gas wellhead facilities, 790 that provides detailed forecasts of the OOOO and amendments to subparts HH reciprocating compressors, 30 energy economy from the current year to and HHH of 40 CFR part 63? centrifugal compressors, 14,000 2035. The impacts we estimated We are presenting a combined pneumatic devices and 300 storage included changes in drilling activity, discussion of the estimates of the vessels subject to the new NSPS for price and quantity changes in the impacts for the proposed 40 CFR part VOC. Some of these affected facilities production and consumption of crude 60, subpart OOOO and proposed will be built at existing facilities and oil and natural gas and changes in amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart some at new greenfield facilities. Based international trade of crude oil and HH and 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH. on data limitations, we assume impacts natural gas. We evaluated whether and The cost, environmental and economic are equal regardless of location. to what extent the increased production impacts presented in this section are costs imposed by the NSPS might alter expressed as incremental differences There are about 21 glycol dehydration the mix of fuels consumed at a national between the impacts of an oil and units with high enough HAP emissions level. Additionally, we combined natural gas facility complying with the that we believe cannot meet the estimated emissions co-reductions of amendments to subparts HH and HHH emissions limit without using more than methane from the engineering analysis and new standards under 40 CFR 60, one control technique. In developing the with NEMS analysis to estimate the net subpart OOOO and the baseline, i.e., the cost impacts, we assume that they change in CO2e GHG from energy- standards before these amendments. would require multiple controls. The related sources. The impacts are presented for the year controls for which we have detailed cost C. What are the air quality impacts? 2015, which will be the year that all data are condensers and VRU, so we existing oil and natural gas facilities developed costs for both controls to For the oil and natural gas sector will have to be in compliance, and also develop what we consider to be a NESHAP and NSPS, we estimated the the year that will represent reasonable cost estimate for these emission reductions that will occur due approximately 5 years of construction of facilities. This does not imply that we to the implementation of the final new oil and natural gas facilities subject believe these facilities will specifically emission limits. The EPA estimated to the NSPS emissions limits. The use a combination of a condenser and emission reductions based on the analyses and the documents referenced control technologies selected by the vapor recovery limit, but we do believe below can be found in Docket ID engineering analysis. These emission the combination of these control results Numbers EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0877 reductions associated with the proposed and EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0051. is a reasonable estimate of cost. amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52790 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

HH and 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH impacts from the implementation of the the recovery of salable natural gas and are based on the estimated population proposed NESHAP amendments and the condensate. Thus, the final standards in 2008. Under the proposed limits for proposed NSPS. have a positive impact associated with glycol dehydration units and storage the recovery of non-renewable energy E. What are the secondary impacts? vessels, we have estimated that the HAP resources. emissions reductions will be 1,400 tpy Indirect or secondary air quality G. What are the cost impacts? for existing units subject to the impacts include impacts that will result proposed emissions limits. from the increased electricity usage The estimated total capital cost to For the NSPS, we estimated the associated with the operation of control comply with the proposed amendments emission reductions that will occur due devices, as well as water quality and to 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH for major to the implementation of the final solid waste impacts (which were just sources in the Oil and Natural Gas emission limits. The EPA estimated discussed) that might occur as a result Production source category is emission reductions based on the of these proposed actions. We estimate approximately $51.5 million. The total control technologies selected by the the proposed amendments to 40 CFR capital cost for the proposed engineering analysis. These emission part 63, subpart HH and 40 CFR part 63, amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart reductions are based on the estimated subpart HHH will increase emissions of HHH for major sources in the Natural population in 2015. Under the proposed criteria pollutants due to the potential Gas Transmission and Storage source NSPS, we have estimated that the use of flares for the control of storage category is estimated to be emissions reductions will be 540,000 vessels. We do not estimate an increased approximately $370 thousand. All costs tpy VOC for affected facilities subject to energy demand associated with the are in 2008 dollars. the NSPS. installation of condensers, VRU or The total estimated net annual cost to The control strategies likely adopted flares. The increases in criteria pollutant industry to comply with the proposed to meet the proposed NESHAP emissions associated with the use of amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart amendments and the proposed NSPS flares to control storage vessels subject HH for major sources in the Oil and will result in concurrent control of HAP, to existing source standards are Natural Gas Production source category methane and VOC emissions. We estimated to be 5,500 tpy of CO2, 16 tpy is approximately $16 million. The total estimate that direct reductions in HAP, of carbon monoxide (CO), 3 tpy of NOX, net annual cost for proposed methane and VOC for the proposed less than 1 tpy of particulate matter amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart rules combined total about 38,000 tpy, (PM) and 6 tpy total hydrocarbons. For HHH for major sources in the Natural 3.4 million tpy and 540,000 tpy, storage vessels subject to new source Gas Transmission and Storage source respectively. standards, increases in secondary air category is estimated to be Under the final standards, new pollutants are estimated to be less than approximately $360,000. These monitoring requirements are being 900 tpy of CO2, 3 tpy of CO, 1 tpy of estimated annual costs include: (1) The added. NOX, 1 tpy of PM and 1 tpy total cost of capital, (2) operating and hydrocarbons. maintenance costs, (3) the cost of D. What are the water quality and solid In addition, we estimate that the monitoring, inspection, recordkeeping waste impacts? secondary impacts associated with the and reporting (MIRR) and (4) any We estimated minimal water quality pneumatic controller requirements to associated product recovery credits. All impacts for the proposed amendments comply with the proposed NSPS would costs are in 2008 dollars. and proposed NSPS. For the proposed be about 22 tpy of CO2, 1 tpy of NOX The estimated total capital cost to amendments to the NESHAP, we and 3 tpy PM. For gas wellhead affected comply with the proposed NSPS is anticipate that the water impacts facilities, we estimate that the use of approximately $740 million in 2008 associated with the installation of a flares would result in increases in dollars. The total estimated net annual condenser system for the glycol criteria pollutant emissions of about cost to industry to comply with the dehydration unit process vent would be 990,000 tons of CO2, 2,800 tpy of CO, proposed NSPS is approximately $740 minimal. This is because the condensed 500 tpy of NOX, 5 tpy of PM and 1,000 million in 2008 dollars. This annual water collected with the hydrocarbon tpy total hydrocarbons. cost estimate includes: (1) The cost of condensate can be directed back into the capital, (2) operating and maintenance system for reprocessing with the F. What are the energy impacts? costs and (3) the cost of MIRR. This hydrocarbon condensate or, if separated, Energy impacts in this section are estimated annual cost does not take into combined with produced water for those energy requirements associated account any producer revenues disposal, usually by reinjection. with the operation of emission control associated with the recovery of salable Similarly, the water impacts devices. Potential impacts on the natural gas and hydrocarbon associated with installation of a vapor national energy economy from the rule condensates. control system either on a glycol are discussed in the economic impacts When revenues from additional dehydration unit or a storage vessel section. There would be little national product recovery are considered, the would be minimal. This is because the energy demand increase from the proposed NSPS is estimated to result in water vapor collected along with the operation of any of the control options a net annual engineering cost savings hydrocarbon vapors in the vapor analyzed under the proposed NESHAP overall. When including the additional collection and redirect system can be amendments and proposed NSPS. natural gas recovery in the engineering directed back into the system for The proposed NESHAP amendments cost analysis, we assume that producers reprocessing with the hydrocarbon and proposed NSPS encourage the use are paid $4 per thousand cubic feet condensate or, if separated, combined of emission controls that recover (Mcf) for the recovered gas at the with the produced water for disposal for hydrocarbon products, such as methane wellhead. The engineering analysis cost reinjection. and condensate that can be used on-site analysis assumes the value of recovered There would be no water impacts as fuel or reprocessed within the condensate is $70 per barrel. Based on expected for facilities subject to the production process for sale. We the engineering analysis, about proposed NSPS. Further, we do not estimated that the proposed standards 180,000,000 Mcf (180 billion cubic feet) anticipate any adverse solid waste will result in a net cost savings due to of natural gas and 730,000 barrels of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52791

condensate are estimated to be change, while average crude oil prices associated with exposure to HAP, ozone recovered by control requirements in are estimated to decrease slightly and PM2.5 in the RIA for this rule. These 2015. Using the price assumptions, the ($0.02/barrel in 2008 dollars or less than qualitative effects are briefly estimated revenues from natural gas 0.1 percent at the wellhead for onshore summarized below, but for more product recovery are approximately producers in the lower 48 states) in the detailed information, please refer to the $780 million in 2008 dollars. This year of analysis, 2015. The NEMS-based RIA, which is available in the docket. savings is estimated at $45 million in analysis estimates in the year of One of the HAP of concern from the oil 2008 dollars. analysis, 2015, that net imports of and natural gas sector is benzene, which Using the engineering cost estimates, natural gas and crude will not change is a known human carcinogen, and estimated natural gas product recovery, significantly. formaldehyde, which is a probable and natural gas product price Total CO2e emissions from energy- human carcinogen. VOC emissions are assumptions, the net annual engineering related sources are expected to increase precursors to both PM2.5 and ozone cost savings is estimated for the about 2.0 million metric tons CO2e or formation. As documented in previous proposed NSPS at about $45 million in 0.04 percent under the proposed NSPS, analyses (U.S. EPA, 2006 41 and U.S. 42 2008 dollars. Totals may not sum due to according to the NEMS analysis. This EPA, 2010 ), exposure to PM2.5 and independent rounding. increase is attributable largely to natural ozone is associated with significant As the price assumption is very gas consumption increases. This public health effects. PM2.5 is associated influential on estimated annualized estimate does not include CO2e with health effects such as premature engineering costs, we performed a reductions from the implementation of mortality for adults and infants, simple sensitivity analysis of the the controls; these reductions are cardiovascular morbidity, such as heart influence of the assumed wellhead price discussed in more detail in the benefits attacks, hospital admissions and paid to natural gas producers on the section that follows. respiratory morbidity such as asthma overall engineering annualized costs We did not estimate the energy attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis, estimate of the proposed NSPS. At economy impacts of the proposed hospital and emergency room visits, $4.22/Mcf, the price forecast reported in NESHAP amendments using NEMS, as work loss days, restricted activity days the 2011 Annual Energy Outlook in the expected costs of the rule are not and respiratory symptoms, as well as 2008 dollars, the annualized costs are likely to have estimable impacts on the visibility impairment.43 Ozone is estimated at about ¥$90 million, which national energy economy. associated with health effects such as would approximately double the I. What are the benefits? respiratory morbidity such as asthma estimate of net cost savings of the attacks, hospital and emergency proposed NSPS. As indicated by this The proposed Oil and Natural Gas department visits, school loss days and difference, EPA has chosen a relatively NSPS and NESHAP amendments are premature mortality, as well as injury to conservative assumption (leading to an expected to result in significant vegetation and climate effects.44 estimate of few savings and higher net reductions in existing emissions and In addition to the improvements in air costs) for the engineering costs analysis. prevent new emissions from expansions quality and resulting benefits to human The natural gas price at which the of the industry. These proposed rules health and non-climate welfare effects proposed NSPS breaks-even from an combined are anticipated to reduce previously discussed, this proposed rule estimated engineering costs perspective 38,000 tons of HAP, 540,000 tons of is expected to result in significant is around $3.77/Mcf. A $1/Mcf change VOC and 3.4 million tons of methane. climate co-benefits due to anticipated in the wellhead natural gas price leads These pollutants are associated with methane reductions. Methane is a to about a $180 million change in the substantial health effects, welfare effects potent GHG that, once emitted into the annualized engineering costs of the and climate effects. With the data atmosphere, absorbs terrestrial infrared proposed NSPS. Consequently, available, we are not able to provide radiation, which contributes to annualized engineering costs estimates credible health benefit estimates for the increased global warming and would increase to about $140 million reduction in exposure to HAP, ozone continuing climate change. Methane under a $3/Mcf price or decrease to and PM (2.5 microns and less) (PM2.5) reacts in the atmosphere to form ozone about ¥$230 million under a $5/Mcf for these rules, due to the differences in and ozone also impacts global price. For further details on this the locations of oil and natural gas temperatures. According to the sensitivity analysis, please refer the emission points relative to existing regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for this information and the highly localized 41 U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality rulemaking located in the docket. nature of air quality responses Standards for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5. Office associated with HAP and VOC of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research H. What are the economic impacts? Triangle Park, NC. October 2006. Available on the reductions. Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/ The NEMS analysis of energy system This is not to imply that there are no RIAs/Chapter%205-Benefits.pdf. impacts for the proposed NSPS option benefits of the rules; rather, it is a 42 U.S. EPA. RIA. National Ambient Air Quality estimates that domestic natural gas reflection of the difficulties in modeling Standards for Ozone. Office of Air Quality Planning production is likely to increase slightly the direct and indirect impacts of the and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 2010. Available on the Internet at http:// (about 20 billion cubic feet or 0.1 reductions in emissions for this www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/s1- percent) and average natural gas prices industrial sector with the data currently supplemental_analysis_full.pdf. to decrease slightly ($0.04 per Mcf in available. In addition to health 43 U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for 2008 dollars or 0.9 percent at the improvements, there will be Particulate Matter (Final Report). EPA–600–R–08– wellhead for onshore producers in the improvements in visibility effects, 139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment—RTP Division. December 2009. lower 48 states) for 2015, the year of ecosystem effects and climate effects, as Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ analysis. This increase in production well as additional product recovery. recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546. and decrease in wellhead price is Although we do not have sufficient 44 U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and largely a result of the increased natural information or modeling available to Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final). EPA/600/ R–05/004aF–cF. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. gas and condensate recovery as a result provide quantitative estimates for this February 2006. Available on the Internet at http:// of complying with the NSPS. Domestic rulemaking, we include a qualitative cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/ crude oil production is not expected to assessment of the health effects recordisplay.cfm?deid=149923.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52792 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climate benefits of taking approximately Alternatively, if the fraction of GDP lost Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report 11 million typical passenger cars off the due to climate change is assumed to be (2007), methane is the second leading road or eliminating electricity use from similar across countries, the domestic long-lived climate forcer after CO2 about 7 million typical homes each benefit would be proportional to the globally. Total methane emissions from year.46 U.S. share of global GDP, which is the oil and gas industry represent about The EPA recognizes that the methane currently about 23 percent. On the basis 40 percent of the total methane reductions proposed in this rule will of this evidence, values from 7 to 23 emissions from all sources and account provide for significant economic climate percent should be used to adjust the for about 5 percent of all CO2e benefits to society just described. global SCC to calculate domestic effects. emissions in the United States, with However, there is no interagency- It is recognized that these values are natural gas systems being the single accepted methodology to place approximate, provisional and highly largest contributor to United States monetary values on these benefits. A speculative. There is no a priori reason anthropogenic methane emissions.45 ‘global warming potential (GWP) why domestic benefits should be a Methane, in addition to other GHG approach’ of converting methane to constant fraction of net global damages emissions, contributes to warming of the CO2e using the GWP of methane over time.49 atmosphere, which, over time, leads to provides an approximation method for These co-benefits equate to a range of increased air and ocean temperatures, estimating the monetized value of the approximately $110 to $1,400 per short changes in precipitation patterns, methane reductions anticipated from ton of methane reduced, depending melting and thawing of global glaciers this rule. This calculation uses the GWP upon the discount rate assumed with a and ice, increasingly severe weather of the non-CO2 gas to estimate CO2 per ton estimate of $480 at the 3-percent events, such as hurricanes of greater equivalents and then multiplies these discount rate. Methane climate co- intensity and sea level rise, among other CO2 equivalent emission reductions by benefit estimates for additional impacts. the social cost of carbon developed by regulatory alternatives are included in This rulemaking proposes emission the Interagency Social Cost of Carbon the RIA for this proposed rule. These control technologies and regulatory Work Group to generate monetized social cost of methane benefit estimates alternatives that will significantly estimates of the benefits. are not the same as would be derived decrease methane emissions from the oil The social cost of carbon is an from direct computations (using the and natural gas sector in the United estimate of the net present value of the integrated assessment models employed States. The regulatory alternatives flow of monetized damages from a 1- to develop the Interagency Social Cost proposed for the NESHAP and the NSPS metric ton increase in CO2 emissions in of Carbon estimates) for a variety of are expected to reduce methane a given year (or from the alternative reasons, including the shorter emissions annually by about 3.4 million perspective, the benefit to society of atmospheric lifetime of methane relative reducing CO emissions by 1 ton). For short tons or 65 million metric tons 2 to CO2 (about 12 years compared to CO2 more information about the social cost CO e. After considering the secondary whose concentrations in the atmosphere 2 of carbon, see the Support Document: impacts of this proposal previously decay on timescales of decades to Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory discussed, such as increased CO millennia). The climate impacts also 2 Impact Analysis Under Executive Order emissions from well completion differ between the pollutants for reasons 12866 47 and RIA for the Light-Duty combustion and decreased CO e other than the radiative forcing profiles 2 Vehicle GHG rule.48 Applying this emissions because of fuel-switching by and atmospheric lifetimes of these approach to the methane reductions consumers, the methane reductions gases. estimated for the proposed NESHAP become about 62 million metric tons Methane is a precursor to ozone and and NSPS of the oil and gas rule, the ozone is a short-lived climate forcer that CO2e. These reductions represent about 2015 climate co-benefits vary by 26 percent of the baseline methane contributes to global warming. The use discount rate and range from about $370 of the IPCC Second Assessment Report emissions for this sector reported in the million to approximately $4.7 billion; EPA’s U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory GWP to approximate co-benefits may the mean social cost of carbon at the 3- underestimate the direct radiative Report for 2009 (251.55 million metric percent discount rate results in an tons CO2e when petroleum refineries forcing benefits of reduced ozone levels estimate of about $1.6 billion in 2015. and does not capture any secondary and petroleum transportation are The ratio of domestic to global excluded because these sources are not climate co-benefits involved with benefits of emission reductions varies ozone-ecosystem interactions. In examined in this proposal). After with key parameter assumptions. For addition, a recent EPA National Center considering the secondary impacts of example, with a 2.5 or 3 percent of Environmental Economics working this proposal, such as increased CO2 discount rate, the U.S. benefit is about paper suggests that this quick ‘GWP emissions from well completion 7–10 percent of the global benefit, on approach’ to benefits estimation will combustion and decreased CO2 average, across the scenarios analyzed. emissions because of fuel-switching by likely understate the climate benefits of methane reductions in most cases.50 consumers, the CO2e GHG reductions 46 U.S. EPA. Greenhouse Gas Equivalency are reduced to about 62 million metric Calculator available at: http://www.epa.gov/ This conclusion is reached using the cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html tons CO2e. However, it is important to 100-year GWP for methane of 25 as put note that the emission reductions are accessed 07/19/11. forth in the IPCC Fourth Assessment 47 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Report (AR 4), as opposed to the lower based upon predicted activities in 2015; Carbon (IWGSC). 2010. Technical Support the EPA did not forecast sector-level Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory emissions in 2015 for this rulemaking. Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 49 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Docket ID EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–114577. Carbon (IWGSC). 2010. Technical Support These emission reductions equate to the http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/scc- Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory tsd.pdf; Accessed March 30, 2011. Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 45 U.S. EPA (2011), 2011 U.S. Greenhouse Gas 48 U.S. EPA. Final Rulemaking: Light-Duty 50 Marten and Newbold (2011), Estimating the Inventory Report Executive Summary available on Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Social Cost of Non-CO2 GHG Emissions: Methane the internet at http://www.epa.gov/ Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. May and Nitrous Oxide, NCEE Working Paper Series climateexchange/emissions/downloads11/US-GHG- 2010. Available on the Internet at http:// #11–01. http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE/epa/eed.nsf/ Inventory-2011-Executive Summary.pdf. www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm#finalR. WPNumber/2011-01?OpenDocument.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52793

value of 21 used in this analysis. Using For the proposed NESHAP actions, we are also interested in any the higher GWP estimate of 25 would amendments, a break-even analysis additional data that may help to reduce increase these reported methane climate suggests that HAP emissions would the uncertainties inherent in the risk co-benefit estimates by about 19 need to be valued at $12,000 per ton for assessments. We are specifically percent. Although the IPCC Assessment the benefits to exceed the costs if the interested in receiving corrections to the Report (AR4) suggested a GWP of 25 for health, ecosystem and climate benefits datasets used for MACT analyses and methane, the EPA has used GWP of 21 from the reductions in VOC and risk modeling. Such data should include to estimate the methane climate co- methane emissions are assumed to be supporting documentation in sufficient benefits for this oil and gas proposal in zero. Even though emission reductions detail to allow characterization of the order to provide estimates more of VOC and methane are co-benefits for quality and representativeness of the consistent with global GHG inventories, the proposed NESHAP amendments, data or information. Please see the which currently use GWP from the IPCC they are legitimate components of the following section for more information Second Assessment Report. total benefit-cost comparison. If we on submitting data. assume the health benefits from HAP Due to the uncertainties involved X. Submitting Data Corrections emission reductions are zero, the VOC with the ‘GWP approach’ estimates emissions would need to be valued at The facility-specific data used in the presented and methane climate co- $1,700 per ton or the methane emissions source category risk analyses, facility- benefits estimates available in the would need to be valued at $3,300 per wide analyses and demographic literature, the EPA chooses not to ton for the co-benefits to exceed the analyses for each source category compare these co-benefit estimates to costs. All estimates are in 2008 dollars. subject to this action are available for the costs of the rule for this proposal. For the proposed NSPS, the revenue download on the RTR Web page at Rather, the EPA presents the ‘GWP from additional product recovery http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/ approach’ climate co-benefit estimates exceeds the costs, which renders a rtrpg.html. These data files include as an interim method to produce these break-even analysis unnecessary when detailed information for each HAP estimates until the Interagency Social these revenues are included in the emissions release point at each facility Cost of Carbon Work Group develops analysis. Based on the methodology included in the source category and all values for non-CO2 GHG. The EPA from Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell other HAP emissions sources at these requests comments from interested (2009),51 ranges of benefit-per-ton facilities (facility-wide emissions parties and the public about this interim estimates for emissions of VOC indicate sources). However, it is important to approach specifically and more broadly that on average in the United States, note that the source category risk about appropriate methods to monetize VOC emissions are valued from $1,200 analysis included only those emissions the climate benefits of methane to $3,000 per ton as a PM2.5 precursor, tagged with the MACT code associated reductions. In particular, the EPA seeks but emission reductions in specific with the source category subject to the public comments to this proposed areas are valued from $280 to $7,000 per risk analysis. rulemaking regarding social cost of ton in 2008 dollars. As a result, even if If you believe the data are not methane estimates that may be used to VOC emissions from oil and natural gas representative or are inaccurate, please value the co-benefits of methane operations result in monetized benefits identify the data in question, provide emission reductions anticipated for the that are substantially below the national your reason for concern and provide any oil and gas industry from this rule. average, there is a reasonable chance ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if Comments specific to whether GWP is that the benefits of the rule would available. When you submit data, we an acceptable method for generating a exceed the costs, especially if we were request that you provide documentation placeholder value for the social cost of able to monetize all of the additional of the basis for the revised values to methane until interagency-modeled benefits associated with ozone support your suggested changes. To estimates become available are formation, visibility, HAP and methane. submit comments on the data welcome. Public comments may be downloaded from the RTR Web page, provided in the official docket for this IX. Request for Comments complete the following steps: proposed rulemaking in accordance We are soliciting comments on all 1. Within this downloaded file, enter with the process outlined earlier in this aspects of this proposed action. All suggested revisions to the data fields notice. These comments will be comments received during the comment appropriate for that information. The considered in developing the final rule period will be considered. In addition to data fields that may be revised include for this rulemaking. general comments on the proposed the following:

Data element Definition

Control Measure ...... Are control measures in place? (yes or no). Control Measure Comment ...... Select control measure from list provided and briefly describe the control measure. Delete ...... Indicate here if the facility or record should be deleted. Delete Comment ...... Describes the reason for deletion. Emission Calculation Method Code for Revised Emis- Code description of the method used to derive emissions. For example, CEM, mate- sions. rial balance, stack test, etc. Emission Process Group ...... Enter the general type of emission process associated with the specified emission point. Fugitive Angle ...... Enter release angle (clockwise from true North); orientation of the y-dimension rel- ative to true North, measured positive for clockwise starting at 0 degrees (max- imum 89 degrees). Fugitive Length ...... Enter dimension of the source in the east-west (x-) direction, commonly referred to as length (ft).

51 Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. The estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual Atmos Health (2009) influence of location, source, and emission type in 2:169–176.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52794 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Data element Definition

Fugitive Width ...... Enter dimension of the source in the north-south (y-) direction, commonly referred to as width (ft). Malfunction Emissions ...... Enter total annual emissions due to malfunctions (TPY). Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly ...... Enter maximum hourly malfunction emissions here (lb/hr). North American Datum ...... Enter datum for latitude/longitude coordinates (NAD27 or NAD83); if left blank, NAD83 is assumed. Process Comment ...... Enter general comments about process sources of emissions. REVISED Address ...... Enter revised physical street address for MACT facility here. REVISED City ...... Enter revised city name here. REVISED County Name ...... Enter revised county name here. REVISED Emission Release Point Type ...... Enter revised Emission Release Point Type here. REVISED End Date ...... Enter revised End Date here. REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate ...... Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate here (ft3/sec). REVISED Exit Gas Temperature ...... Enter revised Exit Gas Temperature here (OF). REVISED Exit Gas Velocity ...... Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity here (ft/sec). REVISED Facility Category Code ...... Enter revised Facility Category Code here, which indicates whether facility is a major or area source. REVISED Facility Name ...... Enter revised Facility Name here. REVISED Facility Registry Identifier ...... Enter revised Facility Registry Identifier here, which is an ID assigned by the EPA Facility Registry System. REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Level Code ...... Enter revised HAP Emissions Performance Level here. REVISED Latitude ...... Enter revised Latitude here (decimal degrees). REVISED Longitude ...... Enter revised Longitude here (decimal degrees). REVISED MACT Code ...... Enter revised MACT Code here. REVISED Pollutant Code ...... Enter revised Pollutant Code here. REVISED Routine Emissions ...... Enter revised routine emissions value here (TPY). REVISED SCC Code ...... Enter revised SCC Code here. REVISED Stack Diameter ...... Enter revised Stack Diameter here (ft). REVISED Stack Height ...... Enter revised Stack Height here (Ft). REVISED Start Date ...... Enter revised Start Date here. REVISED State ...... Enter revised state here. REVISED Tribal Code ...... Enter revised Tribal Code here. REVISED Zip Code ...... Enter revised Zip Code here. Shutdown Emissions ...... Enter total annual emissions due to shutdown events (TPY). Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly ...... Enter maximum hourly shutdown emissions here (lb/hr). Stack Comment ...... Enter general comments about emission release points. Startup Emissions ...... Enter total annual emissions due to startup events (TPY). Startup Emissions Max Hourly ...... Enter maximum hourly startup emissions here (lb/hr). Year Closed ...... Enter date facility stopped operations.

2. Fill in the commenter information categories, you need only submit one under Executive Order 12866 and fields for each suggested revision (i.e., file for that facility, which should Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, commenter name, commenter contain all suggested changes for all January 21, 2011) and any changes made organization, commenter e-mail address, source categories at that facility. We in response to OMB recommendations commenter phone number and revision request that all data revision comments have been documented in the docket for comments). be submitted in the form of updated this action. 3. Gather documentation for any Microsoft® Access files, which are In addition, the EPA prepared a RIA suggested emissions revisions (e.g., provided on the http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ performance test reports, material atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html Web page. of the potential costs and benefits balance calculations, etc.). associated with this action. The RIA 4. Send the entire downloaded file XI. Statutory and Executive Order available in the docket describes in with suggested revisions in Microsoft® Reviews detail the empirical basis for the EPA’s Access format and all accompanying A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory assumptions and characterizes the documentation to Docket ID Number Planning and Review and Executive various sources of uncertainties EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505 (through one Order 13563: Improving Regulation and affecting the estimates below. Table 8 of the methods described in the Regulatory Review shows the results of the cost and ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To benefits analysis for these proposed expedite review of the revisions, it Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR rules. For more information on the would also be helpful if you submitted 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is benefit and cost analysis, as well as a copy of your revisions to the EPA an ‘‘economically significant regulatory details on the regulatory options directly at [email protected] in addition to action’’ because it is likely to have an considered, please refer to the RIA for annual effect on the economy of $100 submitting them to the docket. this rulemaking, which is available in 5. If you are providing comments on million or more. Accordingly, the EPA the docket. a facility with multiple source submitted this action to OMB for review

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52795

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS, COSTS AND NET BENEFITS FOR THE PROPOSED OIL AND NATURAL GAS NSPS AND NEHSAP AMENDMENTS IN 2015 [Millions of 2008$] 1

Proposed NSPS and Proposed NSPS Proposed NESHAP NESHAP amendments amendments combined

Total Monetized Benefits 2 ...... N/A N/A N/A. Total Costs 3 ...... ¥$45 million $16 million ¥$29 million. Net Benefits ...... N/A N/A N/A. Non-monetized Benefits 45 ...... 37,000 tons of HAP 1,400 tons of HAP 38,000 tons of HAP. 540,000 tons of VOC 9,200 tons of VOC 540,000 tons of VOC. 3.4 million tons of methane 4,900 tons of methane 3.4 million tons of meth- ane.

Health effects of HAP exposure. Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure. Visibility impairment. Vegetation effects. Climate effects. 1 All estimates are for the implementation year (2015). 2 While we expect that these avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reductions in health effects associated with HAP, ozone and PM, as well as climate effects associated with methane, we have determined that quantification of those benefits cannot be accom- plished for this rule in a defensible way. This is not to imply that there are no benefits of the rules; rather, it is a reflection of the difficulties in modeling the direct and indirect impacts of the reductions in emissions for this industrial sector with the data currently available. 3 The engineering compliance costs are annualized using a 7-percent discount rate. The negative cost for the proposed NSPS reflects the in- clusion of revenues from additional natural gas and hydrocarbon condensate recovery that are estimated as a result of the proposed NSPS. 4 For the NSPS, reduced exposure to HAP and climate effects are co-benefits. For the NESHAP, reduced VOC emissions, PM2.5 and ozone exposure, visibility and vegetation effects and climate effects are co-benefits. 5 The specific control technologies for these proposed rules are anticipated to have minor secondary disbenefits. The net CO2-equivalent emis- sion reductions are 93,000 metric tons for the NESHAP and 62 million metric tons for the NSPS.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act only the specific information needed to the cost of reporting, including reading determine compliance. instructions and information gathering. The information collection For sources subject to the proposed Recordkeeping cost estimates include requirements in this proposed action NSPS, burden changes associated with reading instructions, planning activities have been submitted for approval to these amendments result from the and conducting compliance monitoring. OMB under the Paperwork Reduction respondents’ annual reporting and The average hours and cost per Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The ICR recordkeeping burden associated with regulated entity subject to the Oil and document prepared by the EPA has been this proposed rule for this collection Natural Gas Production NESHAP would assigned EPA ICR Numbers 1716.07 (40 (averaged over the first 3 years after the be 72 hours per year and $2,500 per CFR part 60, subpart OOOO), 1788.10 effective date of the standards). The year, based on an average of 846 (40 CFR part 63, subpart HH), 1789.07 burden is estimated to be 560,000 labor facilities per year and three responses (40 CFR part 63, subpart HHH) and hours at a cost of $18 million per year. per facility. For the Natural Gas 1086.10 (40 CFR part 60, subparts KKK This includes the burden previously Transmission and Storage NESHAP, the and subpart LLL). estimated for sources subject to 40 CFR average hours and cost per regulated The information to be collected for part 60, subpart KKK (which is being entity would be 50 hours per year and the proposed NSPS and the proposed incorporated into 40 CFR part 60, $1,600 per year, based on an average of NESHAP amendments are based on subpart OOOO). The average hours and 53 facilities per year and three notification, recordkeeping and cost per regulated entity subject to the responses per facility. Burden is defined reporting requirements in the NESHAP NSPS for oil and natural gas production at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, and natural gas transmissions and An agency may not conduct or subpart A), which are mandatory for all distribution facilities would be 110 sponsor, and a person is not required to operators subject to national emission hours per response and $3,693 per respond to, a collection of information standards. These recordkeeping and response, based on an average of 1,459 unless it displays a currently valid OMB reporting requirements are specifically operators responding per year and 16 control number. The OMB control authorized by section 114 of the CAA responses per year. numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information The estimated recordkeeping and CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. submitted to the EPA pursuant to the reporting burden after the effective date To comment on the Agency’s need for recordkeeping and reporting of the proposed amendments is this information, the accuracy of the requirements for which a claim of estimated for all affected major and area provided burden estimates and any confidentiality is made is safeguarded sources subject to the Oil and Natural suggested methods for minimizing according to Agency policies set forth in Gas Production NESHAP to be respondent burden, the EPA has 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. approximately 63,000 labor hours per established a public docket for this rule, These proposed rules would require year at a cost of $2.1 million per year. which includes this ICR, under Docket maintenance inspections of the control For the Natural Gas Transmission and ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505. devices, but would not require any Storage NESHAP, the recordkeeping and Submit any comments related to the ICR notifications or reports beyond those reporting burden is estimated to be to the EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES required by the General Provisions. The 2,500 labor hours per year at a cost of section at the beginning of this notice recordkeeping requirements require $86,800 per year. This estimate includes for where to submit comments to the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52796 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

EPA. Send comments to OMB at the the impact on well-related compliance this proposed rule is not subject to the Office of Information and Regulatory costs to be significantly mitigated. This requirements of sections 202 or 205 of Affairs, Office of Management and conclusion is enhanced because the UMRA. This proposed rule is also not Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., returns to REC activities occur without subject to the requirements of section Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk a significant time lag between 203 of UMRA because it contains no Office for the EPA. Since OMB is implementing the control and obtaining regulatory requirements that might required to make a decision concerning the recovered product, unlike many significantly or uniquely affect small the ICR between 30 and 60 days after control options where the emissions governments. This action contains no August 23, 2011, a comment to OMB is reductions accumulate over long requirements that apply to such best assured of having its full effect if periods of time; the reduced emission governments nor does it impose OMB receives it by September 22, 2011. completions and recompletions occur obligations upon them. The final rule will respond to any OMB over a short span of time, during which or public comments on the information the additional product recovery is also E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism collection requirements contained in accomplished. This proposed rule does not have this proposal. Proposed NESHAP Amendments federalism implications. It will not have C. Regulatory Flexibility Act substantial direct effects on the states, After considering the economic on the relationship between the national The Regulatory Flexibility Act impact of the proposed NESHAP government and the states, or on the generally requires an agency to prepare amendments on small entities, I certify distribution of power and a regulatory flexibility analysis of any that this action will not have a responsibilities among the various rule subject to notice and comment SISNOSE. Based upon the analysis in levels of government, as specified in rulemaking requirements under the the RIA, which is in the Docket, we Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Administrative Procedure Act or any estimate that 62 of the 118 firms (53 Order 13132 does not apply to this other statute, unless the agency certifies percent) that own potentially affected proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive that the rule will not have a significant facilities are small entities. The EPA Order 13132 and consistent with the economic impact on a substantial performed a screening analysis for EPA policy to promote communications number of small entities (SISNOSE). impacts on all expected affected small between the EPA and state and local Small entities include small businesses, entities by comparing compliance costs governments, the EPA specifically small organizations, and small to entity revenues. Among the small solicits comment on this proposed rule governmental jurisdictions. For firms, 52 of the 62 (84 percent) are likely from state and local officials. purposes of assessing the impact of this to have impacts of less than 1 percent rule on small entities, a small entity is in terms of the ratio of annualized F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation defined as: (1) A small business whose compliance costs to revenues. and Coordination With Indian Tribal parent company has no more than 500 Meanwhile, 10 firms (16 percent) are Governments employees (or revenues of less than $7 likely to have impacts greater than 1 This action does not have tribal million for firms that transport natural percent. Four of these 10 firms are likely implications, as specified in Executive gas via pipeline); (2) a small to have impacts greater than 3 percent. Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, governmental jurisdiction that is a While these 10 firms might receive 2000). It will not have substantial direct government of a city, county, town, significant impacts from the proposed effect on tribal governments, on the school district, or special district with a NESHAP amendments, they represent a relationship between the Federal population of less than 50,000; and (3) very small slice of the oil and gas government and Indian tribes or on the a small organization that is any not-for- industry in its entirety, less than 0.2 distribution of power and profit enterprise which is independently percent of the estimated 6,427 small responsibilities between the Federal owned and operated and is not firms in NAICS 211. Although this final government and Indian tribes, as dominant in its field. rule will not impact a substantial specified in Executive Order 13175. number of small entities, the EPA, Proposed NSPS Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not nonetheless, has tried to reduce the apply to this action. After considering the economic impact of this rule on small entities by impact of the proposed NSPS on small setting the final emissions limits at the The EPA specifically solicits entities, I certify that this action will not MACT floor, the least stringent level additional comment on this proposed have a SISNOSE. The EPA performed a allowed by law. action from tribal officials. screening analysis for impacts on a We continue to be interested in the G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of sample of expected affected small potential impacts of the proposed rule Children From Environmental Health entities by comparing compliance costs on small entities and welcome Risks and Safety Risks to entity revenues. Based upon the comments on issues related to such analysis in the RIA, which is in the impacts. This proposed rule is not subject to Docket, EPA concludes the number of Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, impacted small businesses is unlikely to D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act April 23, 1997) because the Agency does be sufficiently large to declare a This action contains no Federal not believe the environmental health SISNOSE. Our judgment in this mandates under the provisions of title II risks or safety risks addressed by this determination is informed by the fact of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act action present a disproportionate risk to that many affected firms are expected to of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538 for children. This actions’ health and risk receive revenues from the additional state, local or tribal governments or the assessments are contained in section natural gas and condensate recovery private sector. This proposed rule does VII.C of this preamble. engendered by the implementation of not contain a Federal mandate that may The public is invited to submit the controls evaluated in this RIA. As result in expenditures of $100 million or comments or identify peer-reviewed much of the additional natural gas more for state, local and tribal studies and data that assess effects of recovery is estimated to arise from governments, in the aggregate, or to the early life exposure to HAP from oil and completion-related activities, we expect private sector in any one year. Thus, natural gas sector activities.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52797

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions directed into natural gas production the American Society of Mechanical Concerning Regulations That streams and sold. One pollution control Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, Significantly Affect Energy Supply, requirement of the proposed NSPS also New York, NY 10016–5990. Also, we Distribution or Use captures saleable condensates. The are proposing to revise subpart HHH to Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28,355, revenues from additional natural gas allow ASTM D6420–99 (2004), Test May 22, 2001), provides that agencies and condensate recovery are expected to Method for Determination of Gaseous shall prepare and submit to the offset the costs of implementing the Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Administrator of the Office of proposed NSPS. Gas Chromatography/Mass The analysis of energy impacts for the Information and Regulatory Affairs, Spectrometry, to be used in lieu of EPA proposed NSPS that includes the Method 18. For a detailed discussion of OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for additional product recovery shows that this VCS, and its appropriateness as a certain actions identified as significant domestic natural gas production is substitute for Method 18, see the final energy actions. Section 4(b) of Executive estimated to increase (20 billion cubic Oil and Natural Gas Production Order 13211 defines ‘‘significant energy feet or 0.1 percent) and natural gas NESHAP (Area Sources) (72 FR 36, actions’’ as ‘‘any action by an agency prices to decrease ($0.04/Mcf or 0.9 January 3, 2007). (normally published in the Federal percent at the wellhead for producers in As a result, the EPA is proposing Register) that promulgates or is the lower 48 states) in 2015, the year of ASTM D6420–99 (2004) for use in 40 expected to lead to the promulgation of analysis. Domestic crude oil production CFR part 63, subpart HHH. The EPA a final rule or regulation, including is not estimated to change, while crude also proposes to allow Method 18 as an notices of inquiry, advance notices of oil prices are estimated to decrease option in addition to ASTM D6420–99 proposed rulemaking, and notices of slightly ($0.02/barrel or less than 0.1 (2004). This would allow the continued proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a percent at the wellhead for producers in use of gas chromatography significant regulatory action under the lower 48 states) in 2015, the year of configurations other than gas Executive Order 12866 or any successor analysis. All prices are in 2008 dollars. chromatography/mass spectrometry. order and (ii) is likely to have a Additionally, the NSPS establishes The EPA welcomes comments on this significant adverse effect on the supply, several performance standards that give aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that regulated entities flexibility in specifically, invites the public to is designated by the Administrator of determining how to best comply with identify potentially-applicable VCS and the Office of Information and Regulatory the regulation. In an industry that is to explain why such standards should Affairs as a significant energy action.’’ geographically and economically be used in this regulation. The proposed rules will result in the heterogeneous, this flexibility is an J. Executive Order 12898: Federal addition of control equipment and important factor in reducing regulatory Actions To Address Environmental monitoring systems for existing and new burden. sources within the oil and natural gas For more information on the Justice in Minority Populations and industry. The proposed NESHAP estimated energy effects, please refer to Low-Income Populations amendments are unlikely to have a the economic impact analysis for this Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, significant adverse effect on the supply, proposed rule. The analysis is available February 16, 1994) establishes Federal distribution or use of energy. As such, in the RIA, which is in the public executive policy on EJ. Its main the proposed NESHAP amendments are docket. provision directs Federal agencies, to not ‘‘significant energy actions’’ as the greatest extent practicable and defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 I. National Technology Transfer and permitted by law, to make EJ part of FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Advancement Act their mission by identifying and The proposed NSPS is also unlikely to Section 12(d) of the National addressing, as appropriate, have a significant effect on the supply, Technology Transfer and Advancement disproportionately high and adverse distribution or use of energy. As such, Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. human health or environmental effects the proposed NSPS is not a ‘‘significant 104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the of their programs, policies and activities energy action’’ as defined in Executive EPA to use voluntary consensus on minority populations and low- Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, standards (VCS) in its regulatory income populations in the United 2001). The basis for the determination is activities unless to do so would be States. as follows. inconsistent with applicable law or The EPA has determined that this As discussed in the impacts section of otherwise impractical. VCS are proposed rule will not have the Preamble, we use the NEMS to technical standards (e.g., materials disproportionately high and adverse estimate the impacts of the proposed specifications, test methods, sampling human health or environmental effects NSPS on the United States energy procedures, and business practices) that on minority or low-income populations system. The NEMS is a publically are developed or adopted by VCS because it increases the level of available model of the United States bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to environmental protection for all affected energy economy developed and provide Congress, through OMB, populations without having any maintained by the Energy Information explanations when the Agency decides disproportionately high and adverse Administration of the United States not to use available and applicable VCS. human health or environmental effects DOE and is used to produce the Annual The proposed rule involves technical on any population, including any Energy Outlook, a reference publication standards. Therefore, the requirements minority or low-income population. that provides detailed forecasts of the of the NTTAA apply to this action. We To examine the potential for any EJ United States energy economy. are proposing to revise 40 CFR part 63, issues that might be associated with Proposed emission controls for the subpart HH and 40 CFR part 63, subpart each source category, we evaluated the NSPS capture VOC emissions that HHH to allow ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10– distributions of HAP-related cancer and otherwise would be vented to the 1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses noncancer risks across different social, atmosphere. Since methane is co- (Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus) to demographic and economic groups emitted with VOC, a large proportion of be used in lieu of EPA Methods 3B, 6 within the populations living near the the averted methane emissions can be and 16A. This standard is available from facilities where these source categories

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52798 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

are located. The methods used to 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart LLL—Standards of conduct demographic analyses for this Environmental protection, Air Performance for SO2 Emissions From rule are described in section VII.C of the pollution control, Reporting and Onshore Natural Gas Processing for preamble for this rule. The development recordkeeping requirements, Volatile Which Construction, Reconstruction, of demographic analyses to inform the organic compounds. or Modification Commenced After consideration of EJ issues in EPA January 20, 1984, and on or Before Dated: July 28, 2011. rulemakings is an evolving science. The August 23, 2011 EPA offers the demographic analyses in Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator. 5. The heading for Subpart LLL is this proposed rulemaking as examples revised to read as set out above. of how such analyses might be For the reasons set out in the 6. Section 60.640 is amended by developed to inform such consideration, preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code revising paragraph (d) to read as and invites public comment on the of Federal Regulations is proposed to be follows: approaches used and the interpretations amended as follows: made from the results, with the hope § 60.640 Applicability and designation of PART 60—[AMENDED] that this will support the refinement affected facilities. and improve utility of such analyses for 1. The authority citation for part 60 * * * * * future rulemakings. continues to read as follows: (d) The provisions of this subpart apply to each affected facility identified For the demographic analyses, we Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. in paragraph (a) of this section which focused on the populations within 50 2. Section 60.17 is amended by: commences construction or km of any facility estimated to have a. Revising paragraph (a)(7); and modification after January 20, 1984, and exposures to HAP which result in b. Revising paragraphs (a)(91) and on or before August 23, 2011. cancer risks of 1-in-1 million or greater, (a)(92) to read as follows: * * * * * or noncancer HI of 1 or greater (based § 60.17 Incorporations by reference. 7. Add subpart OOOO to part 60 to on the emissions of the source category read as follows: or the facility, respectively). We * * * * * examined the distributions of those (a) * * * Subpart OOOO—Standards of Performance (7) ASTM D86–78, 82, 90, 93, 95, 96, for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, risks across various demographic Transmission, and Distribution groups, comparing the percentages of Distillation of Petroleum Products, IBR Sec. particular demographic groups to the approved for §§ 60.562–2(d), 60.593(d), 60.593a(d), 60.633(h) and 60.5401(h). 60.5360 What is the purpose of this total number of people in those subpart? demographic groups nationwide. The * * * * * 60.5365 Am I subject to this subpart? results, including other risk metrics, (91) ASTM E169–63, 77, 93, General 60.5370 When must I comply with this such as average risks for the exposed Techniques of Ultraviolet Quantitative subpart? populations, are documented in source Analysis, IBR approved for 60.5375 What standards apply to gas category-specific technical reports in the §§ 60.485a(d)(1), 60.593(b)(2), wellhead affected facilities? 60.593a(b)(2), 60.632(f) and 60.5400(f). 60.5380 What standards apply to docket for both source categories (92) ASTM E260–73, 91, 96, General centrifugal compressor affected covered in this proposal. Gas Chromatography Procedures, IBR facilities? As described in the preamble, our risk approved for §§ 60.485a(d)(1), 60.5385 What standards apply to assessments demonstrate that the reciprocating compressor affected 60.593(b)(2), 60.593a(b)(2), 60.632(f), facilities? regulations for the oil and natural gas 60.5400(f) and 60.5406(b). 60.5390 What standards apply to pneumatic production and natural gas transmission * * * * * controller affected facilities? and storage source categories, are 60.5395 What standards apply to storage associated with an acceptable level of Subpart KKK—Standards of vessel affected facilities? risk and that the proposed additional Performance for Equipment Leaks of 60.5400 What VOC standards apply to requirements will provide an ample VOC From Onshore Natural Gas affected facilities at an onshore natural margin of safety to protect public health. Processing Plants for Which gas processing plant? Construction, Reconstruction, or 60.5401 What are the exceptions to the VOC Our analyses also show that, for these standards for affected facilities at source categories, there is no potential Modification Commenced After onshore natural gas processing plants? for an adverse environmental effect or January 20, 1984, and on or Before 60.5402 What are the alternative emission human health multi-pathway effects, August 23, 2011 limitations for equipment leaks from and that acute and chronic noncancer onshore natural gas processing plants? 3. The heading for Subpart KKK is 60.5405 What standards apply to health impacts are unlikely. The EPA revised to read as set out above. has determined that, although there may sweetening units at onshore natural gas 4. Section 60.630 is amended by processing plants? be an existing disparity in HAP risks revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 60.5406 What test methods and procedures from these sources between some must I use for my sweetening units demographic groups, no demographic § 60.630 Applicability and designation of affected facilities at onshore natural gas group is exposed to an unacceptable affected facility. processing plants? level of risk. * * * * * 60.5407 What are the requirements for (b) Any affected facility under monitoring of emissions and operations List of Subjects paragraph (a) of this section that from my sweetening unit affected facilities at onshore natural gas 40 CFR Part 60 commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after processing plants? January 20, 1984, and on or before 60.5408 What is an optional procedure for Environmental protection, Air measuring hydrogen sulfide in acid gas— pollution control, Reporting and August 23, 2011, is subject to the Tutwiler Procedure? recordkeeping requirements, Volatile requirements of this subpart. 60.5410 How do I demonstrate initial organic compounds. * * * * * compliance with the standards for my

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52799

gas wellhead affected facility, my following hydraulic fracturing or located at the onshore natural gas centrifugal compressor affected facility, refracturing that occurs at a gas processing plant site is exempt from the my reciprocating compressor affected wellhead facility that commenced provisions of §§ 60.5400, 60.5401, facility, my pneumatic controller construction, modification, or 60.5402, 60.5421 and 60.5422 of this affected facility, my storage vessel affected facility, and my affected reconstruction on or before August 23, subpart. facilities at onshore natural gas 2011 is considered a modification of the (5) Affected facilities located at processing plants? gas wellhead facility, but does not affect onshore natural gas processing plants 60.5415 How do I demonstrate continuous other equipment, process units, storage and described in paragraphs (f)(1) and compliance with the standards for my vessels, or pneumatic devices located at (f)(2) of this section are exempt from gas wellhead affected facility, my the well site. this subpart if they are subject to and centrifugal compressor affected facility, (a) A gas wellhead affected facility, is controlled according to subparts VVa, my stationary reciprocating compressor a single natural gas well. GGG or GGGa of this part. affected facility, my pneumatic (b) A centrifugal compressor affected controller affected facility, my storage (g) Sweetening units located onshore vessel affected facility, and my affected facility, which is defined as a single that process natural gas produced from facilities at onshore natural gas centrifugal compressor located between either onshore or offshore wells. processing plants? the wellhead and the city gate (as (1) Each sweetening unit that 60.5420 What are my notification, defined in § 60.5430), except that a processes natural gas is an affected reporting, and recordkeeping centrifugal compressor located at a well facility; and requirements? site (as defined in § 60.5430) is not an (2) Each sweetening unit that 60.5421 What are my additional affected facility under this subpart. For processes natural gas followed by a recordkeeping requirements for my the purposes of this subpart, your sulfur recovery unit is an affected affected facility subject to VOC requirements for onshore natural gas centrifugal compressor is considered to facility. processing plants? have commenced construction on the (3) Facilities that have a design 60.5422 What are my additional reporting date the compressor is installed at the capacity less than 2 long tons per day requirements for my affected facility facility. (LT/D) of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in the subject to VOC requirements for onshore (c) A reciprocating compressor acid gas (expressed as sulfur) are natural gas processing plants? affected facility, which is defined as a required to comply with recordkeeping 60.5423 What additional recordkeeping and single reciprocating compressor located and reporting requirements specified in reporting requirements apply to my between the wellhead and the city gate § 60.5423(c) but are not required to sweetening unit affected facilities at (as defined in § 60.5430), except that a comply with §§ 60.5405 through onshore natural gas processing plants? reciprocating compressor located at a 60.5425 What part of the General Provisions 60.5407 and paragraphs 60.5410(g) and apply to me? well site (as defined in § 60.5430) is not 60.5415(g) of this subpart. 60.5430 What definitions apply to this an affected facility under this subpart. (4) Sweetening facilities producing subpart? For the purposes of this subpart, your acid gas that is completely reinjected Table 1 to Subpart OOOO of Part 60— reciprocating compressor is considered into oil-or-gas-bearing geologic strata or Required Minimum Initial SO2 Emission to have commenced construction on the that is otherwise not released to the Reduction Efficiency (Zi) date the compressor is installed at the atmosphere are not subject to §§ 60.5405 Table 2 to Subpart OOOO of Part 60— facility. through 60.5407, and §§ 60.5410(g), Required Minimum SO2 Emission (d) A pneumatic controller affected 60.5415(g), and § 60.5423 of this Reduction Efficiency (Z ) c facility, which is defined as a single subpart. Table 3 to Subpart OOOO of Part 60— pneumatic controller. Applicability of General Provisions to (e) A storage vessel affected facility, § 60.5370 When must I comply with this Subpart OOOO which is defined as a single storage subpart? Subpart OOOO—Standards of vessel. (a) You must be in compliance with Performance for Crude Oil and Natural (f) Compressors and equipment (as the standards of this subpart no later Gas Production, Transmission, and defined in § 60.5430) located at onshore than the date of publication of the final Distribution natural gas processing plants. rule in the Federal Register or upon (1) Each compressor in VOC service or startup, whichever is later. § 60.5360 What is the purpose of this in wet gas service is an affected facility. (b) The provisions for exemption from subpart? (2) The group of all equipment, except compliance during periods of startup, This subpart establishes emission compressors, within a process unit is an shutdown, and malfunctions provided standards and compliance schedules for affected facility. for in 40 CFR 60.8(c) do not apply to the control of volatile organic (3) Addition or replacement of this subpart. compounds (VOC) and sulfur dioxide equipment, as defined in § 60.5430, for (c) You are exempt from the (SO2) emissions from affected facilities the purpose of process improvement obligation to obtain a permit under 40 that commenced construction, that is accomplished without a capital CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided modification or reconstruction after expenditure shall not by itself be you are not otherwise required by law August 23, 2011. considered a modification under this to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) subpart. or 40 CFR 71.3(a). Notwithstanding the § 60.5365 Am I subject to this subpart? (4) Equipment (as defined in previous sentence, you must continue to If you are the owner or operator of one § 60.5430) associated with a compressor comply with the provisions of this or more of the affected facilities listed station, dehydration unit, sweetening subpart. in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this unit, underground storage tank, field gas section that commenced construction, gathering system, or liquefied natural § 60.5375 What standards apply to gas modification, or reconstruction after gas unit is covered by §§ 60.5400, wellhead affected facilities? August 23, 2011 your affected facility is 60.5401, 60.5402, 60.5421 and 60.5422 If you are the owner or operator of a subject to the applicable provisions of of this subpart if it is located at an gas wellhead affected facility, you must this subpart. For the purposes of this onshore natural gas processing plant. comply with paragraphs (a) through (g) subpart, a well completion operation Equipment (as defined in § 60.5430) not of this section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52800 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (f) (b) You must demonstrate initial emissions no greater than 6 standard of this section, for each well completion compliance with the standards that cubic feet per hour. operation with hydraulic fracturing, as apply to centrifugal compressor affected (d) You must demonstrate initial defined in § 60.5430, you must control facilities as required by § 60.5410. compliance with standards that apply to emissions by the operational procedures (c) You must demonstrate continuous pneumatic controller affected facilities found in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) compliance with the standards that as required by § 60.5410. of this section. apply to centrifugal compressor affected (e) You must demonstrate continuous (1) You must minimize the emissions facilities as required by § 60.5415. compliance with standards that apply to associated with venting of hydrocarbon (d) You must perform the required pneumatic controller affected facilities fluids and gas over the duration of notification, recordkeeping, and as required by § 60.5415. flowback by routing the recovered reporting as required by § 60.5420. (f) You must perform the required liquids into storage vessels and routing notification, recordkeeping, and the recovered gas into a gas gathering § 60.5385 What standards apply to reciprocating compressor affected reporting as required by § 60.5420, line or collection system. facilities? except that you are not required to (2) You must employ sand traps, surge You must comply with the standards submit the notifications specified in vessels, separators, and tanks during § 60.5420(a). flowback and cleanout operations to in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this safely maximize resource recovery and section for each reciprocating § 60.5395 What standards apply to storage minimize releases to the environment. compressor affected facility. vessel affected facilities? All salable quality gas must be routed to (a) You must replace the reciprocating You must comply with the standards the gas gathering line as soon as compressor rod packing before the in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this practicable. compressor has operated for 26,000 section for each storage vessel affected (3) You must capture and direct hours. The number of hours of operation facility. must be continuously monitored flowback emissions that cannot be (a) You must comply with the beginning upon initial startup of your directed to the gathering line to a standards for storage vessels specified in reciprocating compressor affected completion combustion device, except § 63.766(b) and (c) of this chapter, facility, or the date of publication of the in conditions that may result in a fire except as specified in paragraph (b) of final rule in the Federal Register, or the hazard or explosion. Completion this section. Storage vessels that meet date of the previous reciprocating combustion devices must be equipped either one or both of the throughput compressor rod packing replacement, with a reliable continuous ignition conditions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) whichever is later. source over the duration of flowback. or (a)(2) of this section are not subject (b) You must demonstrate initial (b) You must maintain a log for each to the standards of this section. well completion operation at each gas compliance with standards that apply to reciprocating compressor affected (1) The annual average condensate wellhead affected facility. The log must throughput is less than 1 barrel per day be completed on a daily basis and must facilities as required by § 60.5410. (c) You must demonstrate continuous per storage vessel. contain the records specified in (2) The annual average crude oil § 60.5420(c)(1)(iii). compliance with standards that apply to reciprocating compressor affected throughput is less than 20 barrels per (c) You must demonstrate initial day per storage vessel. compliance with the standards that facilities as required by § 60.5415. (b) This standard does not apply to apply to gas wellhead affected facilities (d) You must perform the required storage vessels already subject to and as required by § 60.5410. notification, recordkeeping, and (d) You must demonstrate continuous reporting as required by § 60.5420. controlled in accordance with the compliance with the standards that requirements for storage vessels in § 60.5390 What standards apply to § 63.766(b)(1) or (2) of this chapter. apply to gas wellhead affected facilities pneumatic controller affected facilities? as required by § 60.5415. (c) You must demonstrate initial (e) You must perform the required For each pneumatic controller compliance with standards that apply to notification, recordkeeping, and affected facility you must comply with storage vessel affected facilities as reporting as required by § 60.5420. the VOC standards, based on natural gas required by § 60.5410. (f) For wells meeting the criteria for as a surrogate for VOC, in either (d) You must demonstrate continuous wildcat or delineation wells, each well paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, as compliance with standards that apply to completion operation with hydraulic applicable. Pneumatic controllers storage vessel affected facilities as fracturing at a gas wellhead affected meeting the conditions in paragraph (a) required by § 60.5415. facility must reduce emissions by using are exempt from this requirement. (e) You must perform the required a completion combustion device (a) The requirements of paragraph (b) notification, recordkeeping, and meeting the requirements of paragraph or (c) of this section are not required if reporting as required by § 60.5420. (a)(3) of this section. You must also you demonstrate, to the Administrator’s § 60.5400 What VOC standards apply to maintain records specified in satisfaction, that the use of a high bleed device is predicated. The demonstration affected facilities at an onshore natural gas § 60.5420(c)(1)(iii) for wildcat or processing plant? delineation wells. may include, but is not limited to, response time, safety and actuation. This section applies to each § 60.5380 What standards apply to (b) Each pneumatic controller affected compressor in VOC service or in wet gas centrifugal compressor affected facilities? facility located at a natural gas service and the group of all equipment You must comply with the standards processing plant (as defined in (as defined in § 60.5430), except in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this § 60.5430) must have zero emissions of compressors, within a process unit. section, as applicable for each natural gas. (a) You must comply with the centrifugal compressor affected facility. (c) Each pneumatic controller affected requirements of § 60.482–1a(a), (b), and (a) You must equip each rotating facility not located at a natural gas (d), § 60.482–2a, and § 60.482–4a compressor shaft with a dry seal system processing plant (as defined in through 60.482–11a, except as provided upon initial startup. § 60.5430) must have natural gas in § 60.5401.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52801

(b) You may elect to comply with the detected, except as provided in reduction in VOC emissions at least requirements of §§ 60.483–1a and § 60.482–9a. equivalent to the reduction in VOC 60.483–2a, as an alternative. (ii) A first attempt at repair must be emissions achieved under any design, (c) You may apply to the made no later than 5 calendar days after equipment, work practice or operational Administrator for permission to use an each leak is detected. standard, the Administrator will alternative means of emission limitation (4)(i) Any pressure relief device that publish, in the Federal Register, a that achieves a reduction in emissions is located in a nonfractionating plant notice permitting the use of that of VOC at least equivalent to that that is monitored only by non-plant alternative means for the purpose of achieved by the controls required in this personnel may be monitored after a compliance with that standard. The subpart according to the requirements of pressure release the next time the notice may condition permission on § 60.5402 of this subpart. monitoring personnel are on-site, requirements related to the operation (d) You must comply with the instead of within 5 days as specified in and maintenance of the alternative provisions of § 60.485a of this part paragraph (b)(1) of this section and means. except as provided in paragraph (f) of § 60.482–4a(b)(1) of subpart VVa. (b) Any notice under paragraph (a) of this section. (ii) No pressure relief device this section must be published only after notice and an opportunity for a (e) You must comply with the described in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this public hearing. provisions of §§ 60.486a and 60.487a of section must be allowed to operate for (c) The Administrator will consider this part except as provided in more than 30 days after a pressure release without monitoring. applications under this section from §§ 60.5401, 60.5421, and 60.5422 of this either owners or operators of affected part. (c) Sampling connection systems are exempt from the requirements of facilities, or manufacturers of control (f) You must use the following equipment. provision instead of § 60.485a(d)(1): § 60.482–5a. (d) Pumps in light liquid service, (d) The Administrator will treat Each piece of equipment is presumed to valves in gas/vapor and light liquid applications under this section be in VOC service or in wet gas service service, and pressure relief devices in according to the following criteria, unless an owner or operator gas/vapor service that are located at a except in cases where the Administrator demonstrates that the piece of nonfractionating plant with a design concludes that other criteria are equipment is not in VOC service or in capacity to process 283,200 standard appropriate: wet gas service. For a piece of cubic meters per day (scmd) (10 million (1) The applicant must collect, verify equipment to be considered not in VOC standard cubic feet per day) or more of and submit test data, covering a period service, it must be determined that the field gas are exempt from the routine of at least 12 months, necessary to VOC content can be reasonably monitoring requirements of §§ 60.482– support the finding in paragraph (a) of expected never to exceed 10.0 percent 2a(a)(1) and 60.482–7a(a), and this section. by weight. For a piece of equipment to (2) If the applicant is an owner or paragraph (b)(1) of this section. be considered in wet gas service, it must (e) Pumps in light liquid service, operator of an affected facility, the be determined that it contains or valves in gas/vapor and light liquid applicant must commit in writing to contacts the field gas before the service, and pressure relief devices in operate and maintain the alternative extraction step in the process. For gas/vapor service within a process unit means so as to achieve a reduction in purposes of determining the percent that is located in the Alaskan North VOC emissions at least equivalent to the VOC content of the process fluid that is Slope are exempt from the routine reduction in VOC emissions achieved contained in or contacts a piece of monitoring requirements of §§ 60.482– under the design, equipment, work equipment, procedures that conform to 2a(a)(1), 60.482–7a(a), and paragraph practice or operational standard. the methods described in ASTM E169– (b)(1) of this section. 63, 77, or 93, E168–67, 77, or 92, or § 60.5405 What standards apply to (f) Flares used to comply with this sweetening units at onshore natural gas E260–73, 91, or 96 (incorporated by subpart must comply with the processing plants? reference as specified in § 60.17) must requirements of § 60.18. be used. (a) During the initial performance test (g) An owner or operator may use the required by § 60.8(b), you must achieve § 60.5401 What are the exceptions to the following provisions instead of at a minimum, an SO2 emission VOC standards for affected facilities at § 60.485a(e): reduction efficiency (Zi) to be onshore natural gas processing plants? (1) Equipment is in heavy liquid determined from Table 1 of this subpart (a) You may comply with the service if the weight percent evaporated based on the sulfur feed rate (X) and the ° ° following exceptions to the provisions is 10 percent or less at 150 C (302 F) sulfur content of the acid gas (Y) of the of subpart VVa of this part. as determined by ASTM Method D86– affected facility. (b)(1) Each pressure relief device in 78, 82, 90, 95, or 96 (incorporated by (b) After demonstrating compliance gas/vapor service may be monitored reference as specified in § 60.17). with the provisions of paragraph (a) of quarterly and within 5 days after each (2) Equipment is in light liquid this section, you must achieve at a service if the weight percent evaporated minimum, an SO2 emission reduction pressure release to detect leaks by the ° is greater than 10 percent at 150 C (302 efficiency (Zc) to be determined from methods specified in § 60.485a(b) except ° as provided in § 60.5400(c) and in F) as determined by ASTM Method Table 2 of this subpart based on the paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and D86–78, 82, 90, 95, or 96 (incorporated sulfur feed rate (X) and the sulfur § 60.482–4a(a) through (c) of subpart by reference as specified in § 60.17). content of the acid gas (Y) of the affected facility. VVa. § 60.5402 What are the alternative (2) If an instrument reading of 5000 emission limitations for equipment leaks 60.5406 What test methods and ppm or greater is measured, a leak is from onshore natural gas processing procedures must I use for my sweetening detected. plants? units affected facilities at onshore natural (3)(i) When a leak is detected, it must (a) If, in the Administrator’s gas processing plants? be repaired as soon as practicable, but judgment, an alternative means of (a) In conducting the performance no later than 15 calendar days after it is emission limitation will achieve a tests required in § 60.8, you must use

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52802 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the test methods in Appendix A of this product storage tanks. You must use content of the effluent gas is greater than part or other methods and procedures as readings taken at the beginning and end 1.0 percent by volume. You must take specified in this section, except as of each run, the tank geometry, sulfur eight samples of 20 minutes each at 30- provided in paragraph § 60.8(b). density at the storage temperature, and minute intervals. The arithmetic average (b) During a performance test required sample duration to determine the sulfur must be the concentration for the run. by § 60.8, you must determine the production rate (S) in kg/hr (lb/hr) for The concentration in ppm reduced minimum required reduction each run. sulfur as sulfur must be multiplied by ¥ efficiencies (Z) of SO2 emissions as (3) You must compute the emission 1.333 × 10 3 to convert the results to required in § 60.5405(a) and (b) as rate of sulfur for each run as follows: sulfur equivalent. follows: (iv) You must use Method 2 of (1) The average sulfur feed rate (X) appendix A to part 60 of this chapter to must be computed as follows: determine the volumetric flow rate of X ¥ KQ g the effluent gas. A velocity traverse a Where: Where: must be conducted at the beginning and E = emission rate of sulfur per run, kg/hr. end of each run. The arithmetic average X = average sulfur feed rate, Mg/D (LT/D). Ce = concentration of sulfur equivalent (SO2 of the two measurements must be used Qa = average volumetric flow rate of acid gas + reduced sulfur), g/dscm (lb/dscf). to calculate the volumetric flow rate from sweetening unit, dscm/day (dscf/ Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, day). dscm/hr (dscf/hr). (Qsd) for the run. For the determination Y = average H2S concentration in acid gas K1 = conversion factor, 1000 g/kg of the effluent gas molecular weight, a feed from sweetening unit, percent by (7000 gr/lb). single integrated sample over the 4-hour volume, expressed as a decimal. (4) The concentration (C ) of sulfur period may be taken and analyzed or K = (32 kg S/kg-mole) / ((24.04 dscm/kg- e grab samples at 1-hour intervals may be mole) (1000 kg S/Mg)) equivalent must be the sum of the SO2 ¥ taken, analyzed, and averaged. For the = 1.331 × 10 3 Mg/dscm, for metric units and TRS concentrations, after being = (32 lb S/lb-mole) / ((385.36 dscf/lb-mole) converted to sulfur equivalents. For moisture content, you must take two (2240 lb S/long ton)) each run and each of the test methods samples of at least 0.10 dscm (3.5 dscf) ¥ = 3.707 × 10 5 long ton/dscf, for English specified in this paragraph (c) of this and 10 minutes at the beginning of the units. section, you must use a sampling time 4-hour run and near the end of the time (2) You must use the continuous of at least 4 hours. You must use period. The arithmetic average of the readings from the process flowmeter to Method 1 of Appendix A to part 60 of two runs must be the moisture content determine the average volumetric flow this chapter to select the sampling site. for the run. rate (Qa) in dscm/day (dscf/day) of the The sampling point in the duct must be § 60.5407 What are the requirements for acid gas from the sweetening unit for at the centroid of the cross-section if the monitoring of emissions and operations each run. area is less than 5 m2 (54 ft2) or at a from my sweetening unit affected facilities (3) You must use the Tutwiler point no closer to the walls than at onshore natural gas processing plants? procedure in § 60.5408 or a 1 m (39 in) if the cross-sectional area is (a) If your sweetening unit affected chromatographic procedure following 5 m2 or more, and the centroid is more facility is located at an onshore natural ASTM E–260 (incorporated by than 1 m (39 in.) from the wall. gas processing plant and is subject to reference—see § 60.17) to determine the (i) You must use Method 6 of the provisions of § 60.5405(a) or (b) you H2S concentration in the acid gas feed Appendix A to part 60 of this chapter must install, calibrate, maintain, and from the sweetening unit (Y). At least to determine the SO2 concentration. You operate monitoring devices or perform one sample per hour (at equally spaced must take eight samples of 20 minutes measurements to determine the intervals) must be taken during each each at 30-minute intervals. The following operations information on a 4-hour run. The arithmetic mean of all arithmetic average must be the daily basis: samples must be the average H2S concentration for the run. The (1) The accumulation of sulfur concentration (Y) on a dry basis for the concentration must be multiplied by product over each 24-hour period. The run. By multiplying the result from the 0.5 × 10¥3 to convert the results to monitoring method may incorporate the Tutwiler procedure by 1.62 × 10¥3, the sulfur equivalent. use of an instrument to measure and units gr/100 scf are converted to volume (ii) You must use Method 15 of record the liquid sulfur production rate, percent. appendix A to part 60 of this chapter to or may be a procedure for measuring (4) Using the information from determine the TRS concentration from and recording the sulfur liquid levels in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of this reduction-type devices or where the the storage tanks with a level indicator section, Tables 1 and 2 of this subpart oxygen content of the effluent gas is less or by manual soundings, with must be used to determine the required than 1.0 percent by volume. The subsequent calculation of the sulfur initial (Zi) and continuous (Zc) sampling rate must be at least 3 liters/ production rate based on the tank reduction efficiencies of SO2 emissions. min (0.1 ft3/min) to insure minimum geometry, stored sulfur density, and (c) You must determine compliance residence time in the sample line. You elapsed time between readings. The with the SO2 standards in § 60.5405(a) must take sixteen samples at 15-minute method must be designed to be accurate or (b) as follows: intervals. The arithmetic average of all within ± 2 percent of the 24-hour sulfur (1) You must compute the emission the samples must be the concentration accumulation. reduction efficiency (R) achieved by the for the run. The concentration in ppm (2) The H2S concentration in the acid sulfur recovery technology for each run reduced sulfur as sulfur must be gas from the sweetening unit for each using the following equation: multiplied by 1.333 × 10¥3 to convert 24-hour period. At least one sample per the results to sulfur equivalent. 24-hour period must be collected and (iii) You must use Method 16A or analyzed using the equation specified in Method 15 of appendix A to part 60 of § 60.5406(b)(1). The Administrator may (2) You must use the level indicators this chapter to determine the reduced require you to demonstrate that the H2S or manual soundings to measure the sulfur concentration from oxidation- concentration obtained from one or liquid sulfur accumulation rate in the type devices or where the oxygen more samples over a 24-hour period is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP23AU11.005 EP23AU11.006 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52803

within ± 20 percent of the average of 12 determined using the monitoring internal. The 24-hour interval may begin samples collected at equally spaced device. If the volumetric ratio of sulfur and end at any selected clock time, but intervals during the 24-hour period. In dioxide to sulfur dioxide plus total must be consistent. You must compute instances where the H2S concentration reduced sulfur (expressed as SO2) in the the 24-hour average reduction efficiency of a single sample is not within ± 20 gas leaving the incinerator is equal to or (R) based on the 24-hour average sulfur percent of the average of the 12 equally less than 0.98, then temperature production rate (S) and sulfur emission spaced samples, the Administrator may monitoring may be used to demonstrate rate (E), using the equation in require a more frequent sampling that sulfur dioxide emission monitoring § 60.5406(c)(1). schedule. is sufficient to determine total sulfur (1) You must use data obtained from (3) The average acid gas flow rate emissions. At all times during the from the sweetening unit. You must operation of the facility, you must the sulfur production rate monitoring install and operate a monitoring device maintain the average temperature of the device specified in paragraph (a) of this to continuously measure the flow rate of gas leaving the combustion zone of the section to determine S. acid gas. The monitoring device reading incinerator at or above the appropriate (2) You must use data obtained from must be recorded at least once per hour level determined during the most recent the sulfur emission rate monitoring during each 24-hour period. The average performance test to ensure the sulfur systems specified in paragraphs (b) or acid gas flow rate must be computed compound oxidation criteria are met. (c) of this section to calculate a 24-hour from the individual readings. Operation at lower average temperatures average for the sulfur emission rate (E). (4) The sulfur feed rate (X). For each may be considered by the Administrator The monitoring system must provide at 24-hour period, you must compute X to be unacceptable operation and least one data point in each successive using the equation specified in maintenance of the affected facility. You 15-minute interval. You must use at § 60.5406(b)(3). may request that the minimum least two data points to calculate each (5) The required sulfur dioxide incinerator temperature be reestablished 1-hour average. You must use a emission reduction efficiency for the by conducting new performance tests minimum of 18 1-hour averages to 24-hour period. You must use the sulfur under § 60.8. compute each 24-hour average. feed rate and the H2S concentration in (4) Upon promulgation of a the acid gas for the 24-hour period, as performance specification of continuous (e) In lieu of complying with applicable, to determine the required monitoring systems for total reduced paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section, reduction efficiency in accordance with sulfur compounds at sulfur recovery those sources with a design capacity of the provisions of § 60.5405(b). plants, you may, as an alternative to less than 152 Mg/D (150 LT/D) of H2S (b) Where compliance is achieved paragraph (b)(2) of this section, install, expressed as sulfur may calculate the through the use of an oxidation control calibrate, maintain, and operate a sulfur emission reduction efficiency system or a reduction control system continuous emission monitoring system achieved for each 24-hour period by: followed by a continually operated for total reduced sulfur compounds as incineration device, you must install, required in paragraph (d) of this section calibrate, maintain, and operate in addition to a sulfur dioxide emission monitoring devices and continuous monitoring system. The sum of the emission monitors as follows: equivalent sulfur mass emission rates (1) A continuous monitoring system to from the two monitoring systems must Where: measure the total sulfur emission rate be used to compute the total sulfur R = The sulfur dioxide removal efficiency (E) of SO2 in the gases discharged to the emission rate (E). achieved during the 24-hour period, atmosphere. The SO2 emission rate (c) Where compliance is achieved percent. must be expressed in terms of through the use of a reduction control K = Conversion factor, 0.02400 Mg/D per kg/ equivalent sulfur mass flow rates (kg/hr system not followed by a continually 2 hr (0.01071 LT/D per lb/hr). (lb/hr)). The span of this monitoring operated incineration device, you must S = The sulfur production rate during the 24- system must be set so that the install, calibrate, maintain, and operate hour period, kg/hr (lb/hr). equivalent emission limit of a continuous monitoring system to X = The sulfur feed rate in the acid gas, Mg/ § 60.5405(b) will be between 30 percent measure the emission rate of reduced D (LT/D). and 70 percent of the measurement sulfur compounds as SO2 equivalent in range of the instrument system. the gases discharged to the atmosphere. (f) The monitoring devices required in (2) Except as provided in paragraph The SO2 equivalent compound emission paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3) and (c) of this (b)(3) of this section: A monitoring rate must be expressed in terms of section must be calibrated at least device to measure the temperature of equivalent sulfur mass flow rates (kg/hr annually according to the the gas leaving the combustion zone of (lb/hr)). The span of this monitoring manufacturer’s specifications, as the incinerator, if compliance with system must be set so that the required by § 60.13(b). § 60.5405(a) is achieved through the use equivalent emission limit of of an oxidation control system or a § 60.5405(b) will be between 30 and 70 (g) The continuous emission reduction control system followed by a percent of the measurement range of the monitoring systems required in continually operated incineration system. This requirement becomes paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(3), and (c) of this device. The monitoring device must be effective upon promulgation of a section must be subject to the emission certified by the manufacturer to be performance specification for monitoring requirements of § 60.13 of accurate to within ± 1 percent of the continuous monitoring systems for total the General Provisions. For conducting temperature being measured. reduced sulfur compounds at sulfur the continuous emission monitoring (3) When performance tests are recovery plants. system performance evaluation required conducted under the provision of § 60.8 (d) For those sources required to by § 60.13(c), Performance Specification to demonstrate compliance with the comply with paragraph (b) or (c) of this 2 of appendix B to part 60 of this standards under § 60.5405, the section, you must calculate the average chapter must apply, and Method 6 must temperature of the gas leaving the sulfur emission reduction efficiency be used for systems required by incinerator combustion zone must be achieved (R) for each 24-hour clock paragraph (b) of this section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP23AU11.000 52804 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

§ 60.5408 What is an optional procedure proper volume, and store in glass- disconnect it from burette. Rinse for measuring hydrogen sulfide in acid stoppered brown glass bottle. graduated cylinder with a standard 1 gas—Tutwiler Procedure? (2) Standard iodine solution, 1 ml = iodine solution (0.00171 g I per ml); fill (a) When an instantaneous sample is 0.001771 g I. Transfer 33.7 ml of above cylinder and record reading. Introduce desired and H2S concentration is ten 0.1N stock solution into a 250 ml successive small amounts of iodine thru grains per 1000 cubic foot or more, a volumetric flask; add water to mark and (F); shake well after each addition; 100 ml Tutwiler burette is used. For mix well. Then, for 100 ml sample of continue until a faint permanent blue concentrations less than ten grains, a gas, 1 ml of standard iodine solution is color is obtained. Record reading; 500 ml Tutwiler burette and more dilute equivalent to 100 grains H2S per cubic subtract from previous reading, and call solutions are used. In principle, this feet of gas. difference D. method consists of titrating hydrogen (3) Starch solution. Rub into a thin (e) With every fresh stock of starch sulfide in a gas sample directly with a paste about one teaspoonful of wheat solution perform a blank test as follows: standard solution of iodine. starch with a little water; pour into Introduce fresh starch solution into (b) Apparatus. (See Figure 1 of this about a pint of boiling water; stir; let burette up to 100 ml mark. Close (F) and subpart) A 100 or 500 ml capacity cool and decant off clear solution. Make (G). Lower (L) and open (G). When Tutwiler burette, with two-way glass fresh solution every few days. liquid level reaches the 10 ml mark, stopcock at bottom and three-way (d) Procedure. Fill leveling bulb with close (G). With air in burette, titrate as stopcock at top which connect either starch solution. Raise (L), open cock (G), during a test and up to same end point. with inlet tubulature or glass-stoppered open (F) to (A), and close (F) when Call ml of iodine used C. Then, cylinder, 10 ml capacity, graduated in solutions starts to run out of gas inlet. Grains H2S per 100 cubic foot of gas = 0.1 ml subdivision; rubber tubing Close (G). Purge gas sampling line and 100 (D¥C) connecting burette with leveling bottle. connect with (A). Lower (L) and open (f) Greater sensitivity can be attained (c) Reagents. (1) Iodine stock solution, (F) and (G). When liquid level is several if a 500 ml capacity Tutwiler burette is 0.1N. Weight 12.7 g iodine, and 20 to 25 ml past the 100 ml mark, close (G) and used with a more dilute (0.001N) iodine g cp potassium iodide for each liter of (F), and disconnect sampling tube. Open solution. Concentrations less than 1.0 solution. Dissolve KI in as little water as (G) and bring starch solution to 100 ml grains per 100 cubic foot can be necessary; dissolve iodine in mark by raising (L); then close (G). Open determined in this way. Usually, the concentrated KI solution, make up to (F) momentarily, to bring gas in burette starch-iodine end point is much less to atmospheric pressure, and close (F). distinct, and a blank determination of 1 Gas Engineers Handbook, Fuel Gas Engineering end point, with H S-free gas or air, is practices, The Industrial Press, 93 Worth Street, Open (G), bring liquid level down to 10 2 New York, NY, 1966, First Edition, Second Printing, ml mark by lowering (L). Close (G), required. page 6/25 (Docket A–80–20–A, Entry II–I–67). clamp rubber tubing near (E) and BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52805

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C begins on the date of publication of the commencement of the well completion § 60.5410 How do I demonstrate initial final rule in the Federal Register or operation, the date of the compliance with the standards for my gas upon initial startup, whichever is later, commencement of the well completion wellhead affected facility, my centrifugal and ends on the date the first annual operation, the latitude and longitude compressor affected facility, my report is due as specified in coordinates of the well in decimal reciprocating compressor affected facility, § 60.5420(b). degrees to an accuracy and precision of my pneumatic controller affected facility, my storage vessel affected facility, and my (a) You have achieved initial five (5) decimals of a degree using the affected facilities at onshore natural gas compliance with standards for each well North American Datum (NAD) of 1983. processing plants? completion operation conducted at your (2) You have maintained a log of You must determine initial gas wellhead affected facility if you records as specified in § 60.5375(b) or (f) compliance with the standards for each have complied with paragraphs (a)(1) for each well completion operation affected facility using the requirements and (a)(2) of this section. conducted during the initial compliance in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this (1) You have notified the period. section. The initial compliance period Administrator within 30 days of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP23AU11.001 52806 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

(3) You have submitted the initial publication of the final rule in the (3) You have submitted the results of annual report for your wellhead affected Federal Register and have conducted paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this facility as required in § 60.5420(b). the compliance demonstration in section in the initial annual report (b) You have achieved initial § 63.772(f). submitted for your sweetening unit compliance with standards for your (3) You have conducted the initial affected facilities at onshore natural gas centrifugal compressor affected facility inspections required in § 63.773(c) of processing plants. if the centrifugal compressor is fitted this chapter. with a dry seal system upon initial (4) You have installed and operated § 60.5415 How do I demonstrate startup as required by § 60.5380. continuous compliance with the standards continuous parameter monitoring for my gas wellhead affected facility, my (c) You have achieved initial systems in accordance with § 63.773(d) centrifugal compressor affected facility, my compliance with standards for each of this chapter. stationary reciprocating compressor reciprocating compressor affected (5) If you are exempt from the affected facility, my pneumatic controller facility if you have complied with standards of § 60.5395 according to affected facility, my storage vessel affected paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this § 60.5395(a)(1) or (a)(2), you have facility, and my affected facilities at onshore section. determined the condensate or crude oil natural gas processing plants? (1) During the initial compliance throughput, as applicable, according to (a) For each gas wellhead affected period, you have continuously paragraphs (e)(5)(i) or (e)(5)(ii) of this facility, you must demonstrate monitored the number of hours of section and demonstrated to the continuous compliance by maintaining operation. Administrator’s satisfaction that your the records for each completion (2) You have included the cumulative annual average condensate throughput operation (as defined in § 60.5430) number of hours of operation for your is less than 1 barrel per day per tank and specified in § 60.5420. reciprocating compressor affected your annual average crude oil (b) For each centrifugal compressor facility during the initial compliance throughput is less than 20 barrels per affected facility, continuous compliance period in your initial annual report day per tank. is demonstrated if the rotating required in § 60.5420(b). (i) You have installed and operated a compressor shaft is equipped with a dry (d) You have achieved initial flow meter to measure condensate or seal. compliance with emission standards for crude oil throughput in accordance with (c) For each reciprocating compressor your pneumatic controller affected the manufacturer’s procedures or affected facility, you have demonstrated facility if you comply with the specifications. continuous compliance according to requirements specified in paragraphs (ii) You have used any other method paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this section. approved by the Administrator to (1) You have continuously monitored (1) You have demonstrated, to the determine annual average condensate or the number of hours of operation for Administrator’s satisfaction, the use of a crude oil throughput. each reciprocating compressor affected high bleed device is predicated as (6) You have submitted the facility since initial startup, or the date specified in § 60.5490(a). (2) You own or operate a pneumatic information in paragraphs (e)(1) through of publication of the final rule in the controller affected facility located at a (e)(5) of this section in the initial annual Federal Register, or the date of the natural gas processing plant and your report for your storage vessel affected previous reciprocating compressor rod pneumatic controller is driven other facility as required in § 60.5420(b). packing replacement, whichever is later. than by use of natural gas and therefore (f) For affected facilities at onshore The cumulative number of hours of emits zero natural gas. natural gas processing plants, initial operation must be included in the (3) You own or operate a pneumatic compliance with the VOC requirements annual report as required in controller affected facility not located at is demonstrated if you are in § 60.5420(b)(4). a natural gas processing plant and the compliance with the requirements of (2) You have replaced the manufacturer’s design specifications § 60.5400. reciprocating compressor rod packing guarantee the controller emits less than (g) For sweetening unit affected before the total number of hours of or equal to 6.0 standard cubic feet of gas facilities at onshore natural gas operation reaches 26,000 hours. per hour. processing plants, initial compliance is (d) For each pneumatic controller (4) You have included the information demonstrated according to paragraphs affected facility, continuous compliance in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3) of (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this section. is demonstrated by maintaining the this section in the initial annual report (1) To determine compliance with the records demonstrating that you have submitted for your pneumatic controller standards for SO2 specified in installed and operated the pneumatic affected facilities according to the § 60.5405(a), during the initial controllers as required in § 60.5390(a), requirements of § 60.5420(b). performance test as required by § 60.8, (b) or (c). (e) You have demonstrated initial the minimum required sulfur dioxide (e) For each storage vessel affected compliance with emission standards for emission reduction efficiency (Zi) is facility, continuous compliance is your storage vessel affected facility if compared to the emission reduction demonstrated according to § 63.772(f) of you are complying with paragraphs efficiency (R) achieved by the sulfur this chapter. (e)(1) through (e)(7) of this section. recovery technology as specified in (f) For affected facilities at onshore (1) You have equipped the storage paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this natural gas processing plants, vessel with a closed vent system that section. continuous compliance with VOC meets the requirements of § 63.771(c) of (i) If R ≥ Zi, your affected facility is requirements is demonstrated if you are this chapter connected to a control in compliance. in compliance with the requirements of device that meets the conditions (ii) If R < Zi, your affected facility is § 60.5400. specified in § 63.771(d). not in compliance. (g) For each sweetening unit affected (2) You have conducted an initial (2) The emission reduction efficiency facility at onshore natural gas performance test as required in (R) achieved by the sulfur reduction processing plants, you must § 63.772(e) of this chapter within 180 technology must be determined using demonstrate continuous compliance days after initial startup or the date of the procedures in § 60.5406(c)(1). with the standards for SO2 specified in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52807

§ 60.5405(b) according to paragraphs personal injury, or severe property operate one or more of the affected (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section. damage; and facilities specified in § 60.5365. For the (1) The minimum required SO2 (v) All possible steps were taken to purposes of this subpart, a workover emission reduction efficiency (Zc) is minimize the impact of the excess that occurs after August 23, 2011 at each compared to the emission reduction emissions on ambient air quality, the affected facility for which construction, efficiency (R) achieved by the sulfur environment and human health; and reconstruction, or modification recovery technology. (vi) All emissions monitoring and commenced on or before August 23, (i) If R ≥ Zc, your affected facility is control systems were kept in operation 2011 is considered a modification for in compliance. if at all possible, consistent with safety which a notification must be submitted (ii) If R < Zc, your affected facility is and good air pollution control practices; under § 60.7(a)(4). not in compliance. and (1) If you own or operate a pneumatic (2) The emission reduction efficiency (vii) All of the actions in response to controller affected facility you are not (R) achieved by the sulfur reduction the excess emissions were documented required to submit the notifications technology must be determined using by properly signed, contemporaneous required in § 60.7(a)(1), (a)(3) and (a)(4). the procedures in § 60.5406(c)(1). operating logs; and (2) If you own or operate a gas (h) Affirmative defense for (viii) At all times, the facility was wellhead affected facility, you must exceedance of emission limit during operated in a manner consistent with submit a notification to the malfunction. In response to an action to good practices for minimizing Administrator within 30 days of the enforce the standards set forth in emissions; and commencement of the well completion §§ 60.5375, 60.5380, 60.5385, 60.5390, (ix) A written root cause analysis has operation. The notification must include 60.5395, 60.5400, and 60.5405, you may been prepared, the purpose of which is the date of commencement of the well assert an affirmative defense to a claim to determine, correct, and eliminate the completion operation, the latitude and for civil penalties for exceedances of primary causes of the malfunction and longitude coordinates of the well in such standards that are caused by the excess emissions resulting from the decimal degrees to an accuracy and malfunction, as defined at § 60.2. malfunction event at issue. The analysis precision of five (5) decimals of a degree Appropriate penalties may be assessed, shall also specify, using best monitoring using the North American Datum of however, if you fail to meet your burden methods and engineering judgment, the 1983. of proving all of the requirements in the amount of excess emissions that were (b) Reporting requirements. You must affirmative defense. The affirmative the result of the malfunction. submit annual reports containing the defense shall not be available for claims (2) The owner or operator of the information specified in paragraphs for injunctive relief. facility experiencing an exceedance of (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section to the (1) To establish the affirmative its emission limit(s) during a Administrator. The initial annual report defense in any action to enforce such a malfunction shall notify the is due 1 year after the initial startup date limit, you must timely meet the Administrator by telephone or facsimile for your affected facility or 1 year after notification requirements in (FAX) transmission as soon as possible, the date of publication of the final rule § 60.5420(a), and must prove by a but no later than 2 business days after in the Federal Register, whichever is preponderance of evidence that: the initial occurrence of the later. Subsequent annual reports are due (i) The excess emissions: malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself on the same date each year as the initial (A) Were caused by a sudden, of an affirmative defense to civil annual report. If you own or operate infrequent, and unavoidable failure of penalties for that malfunction. The more than one affected facility, you may air pollution control and monitoring owner or operator seeking to assert an submit one report for multiple affected equipment, process equipment, or a affirmative defense shall also submit a facilities provided the report contains process to operate in a normal or usual written report to the Administrator all of the information required as manner, and within 45 days of the initial occurrence specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (B) Could not have been prevented of the exceedance of the standards in through careful planning, proper design (b)(6) of this section. §§ 60.5375, 60.5380, 60.5385, 60.5390, (1) The general information specified or better operation and maintenance 60.5395, and 60.5400 to demonstrate, practices; and in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) with all necessary supporting of this section. (C) Did not stem from any activity or documentation, that it has met the (i) The company name and address of event that could have been foreseen and requirements set forth in paragraph (a) the affected facility. avoided, or planned for; and of this section. The owner or operator (ii) An identification of each affected (D) Were not part of a recurring may seek an extension of this deadline facility being included in the annual pattern indicative of inadequate design, for up to 30 additional days by report. operation, or maintenance; and submitting a written request to the (iii) Beginning and ending dates of the (ii) Repairs were made as Administrator before the expiration of reporting period. expeditiously as possible when the the 45-day period. Until a request for an (2) For each gas wellhead affected applicable emission limitations were extension has been approved by the facility, the information in paragraphs being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime Administrator, the owner or operator is (b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(iii) of this labor were used, to the extent subject to the requirement to submit section. practicable to make these repairs; and such report within 45 days of the initial (i) An identification of each well (iii) The frequency, amount and occurrence of the exceedance. duration of the excess emissions completion operation, as defined in (including any bypass) were minimized § 60.5420 What are my notification, § 60.5430, for each gas wellhead affected to the maximum extent practicable reporting, and recordkeeping facility conducted during the reporting during periods of such emissions; and requirements? period; (iv) If the excess emissions resulted (a) You must submit the notifications (ii) A record of deviations in cases from a bypass of control equipment or required in § 60.7(a)(1), (a)(3) and (a)(4), where well completion operations with a process, then the bypass was and according to paragraphs (a)(1) and hydraulic fracturing were not performed unavoidable to prevent loss of life, (a)(2) of this section, if you own or in compliance with the requirements

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52808 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

specified in § 60.5375 for each gas well wellhead affected facility conducted emissions are less than 6 standard cubic affected facility. during the reporting period; feet per hour. (iii) Records specified in § 60.5375(b) (ii) Record of deviations in cases (iv) If the pneumatic controller for each well completion operation that where well completion operations with affected facility is located at a natural occurred during the reporting period. hydraulic fracturing were not performed gas processing plant, records of the (3) For each centrifugal compressor in compliance with the requirements documentation that only instrument air affected facility installed during the specified in § 60.5375. controllers are used. reporting period, documentation that (iii) Records required in § 60.5375(b) (5) For each storage vessel affected the centrifugal compressor is equipped or (f) for each well completion operation facility, you must maintain the records with dry seals. conducted for each gas wellhead identified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (4) For each reciprocating compressor affected facility that occurred during the (c)(5)(ii) of this section. affected facility, the information reporting period. You must maintain the (i) If required to reduce emissions by specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and records specified in paragraphs complying with § 63.766, the records (b)(4)(ii) of this section. (c)(1)(iii)(A) and (c)(1)(iii)(B) of this specified in § 63.774(b)(2) through (8) of (i) The cumulative number of hours or section. this chapter. (ii) Records of the determination that operation since initial startup, the date (A) For each gas wellheads affected the annual average condensate of publication of the final rule in the facility required to comply with the throughput is less than 1 barrel per day Federal Register, or since the previous requirements of § 60.5375(a), you must per storage vessel and crude oil reciprocating compressor rod packing record: The location of the well; the throughput is less than 21 barrels per replacement, whichever is later. duration of flowback; duration of day per storage vessel for the exemption (ii) Documentation that the recovery to the sales line; duration of under § 60.5395(a)(1) and (a)(2). reciprocating compressor rod packing combustion; duration of venting; and was replaced before the cumulative specific reasons for venting in lieu of § 60.5421 What are my additional number of hours of operation reached capture or combustion. The duration recordkeeping requirements for my affected 24,000 hours. must be specified in hours of time. facility subject to VOC requirements for (5) For each pneumatic controller (B) For each gas wellhead affected onshore natural gas processing plants? affected facility, the information facility required to comply with the (a) You must comply with the specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through requirements of § 60.5375(f), you must requirements of paragraph (b) of this (b)(5)(iv) of this section. maintain the records specified in section in addition to the requirements (i) The date, location and paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this section of § 60.486a. manufacturer specifications for each except that you do not have to record (b) The following recordkeeping pneumatic controller installed. the duration of recovery to the sales requirements apply to pressure relief (ii) If applicable, documentation that line. In addition, you must record the devices subject to the requirements of the use of high bleed pneumatic devices distance, in miles, of the nearest § 60.5401(b)(1) of this subpart. is predicated and the reasons why. gathering line. (1) When each leak is detected as (iii) For pneumatic controllers not (2) For each centrifugal compressor specified in § 60.5401(b)(2), a installed at a natural gas processing affected facility, you must maintain weatherproof and readily visible plant, the manufacturer’s guarantee that records on the type of seal system identification, marked with the the device is designed such that natural installed. equipment identification number, must gas emissions are less than 6 standard be attached to the leaking equipment. cubic feet per hour. (3) For each reciprocating compressors affected facility, you must The identification on the pressure relief (iv) For pneumatic controllers device may be removed after it has been installed at a natural gas processing maintain the records in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii) of this section. repaired. plant, documentation that each (2) When each leak is detected as (i) Records of the cumulative number controllers has zero natural gas specified in § 60.5401(b)(2), the of hours of operation since initial emissions. following information must be recorded startup or the date of publication of the (6) For each storage vessel affected in a log and shall be kept for 2 years in final rule in the Federal Register, or the facility, the information in paragraphs a readily accessible location: previous replacement of the (b)(6)(i) and (b)(6)(ii) of this section. (i) The instrument and operator reciprocating compressor rod packing, (i) If required to reduce emissions by identification numbers and the whichever is later. complying with § 60.5395(a)(1), the equipment identification number. records specified in § 63.774(b)(2) (ii) Records of the date and time of (ii) The date the leak was detected through (b)(8) of this chapter. each reciprocating compressor rod and the dates of each attempt to repair (ii) Documentation that the annual packing replacement. the leak. average condensate throughput is less (4) For each pneumatic controller (iii) Repair methods applied in each than 1 barrel per day per storage vessel affected facility, you must maintain the attempt to repair the leak. and crude oil throughput is less than 21 records identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) (iv) ‘‘Above 500 ppm’’ if the barrels per day per storage for meeting through (c)(4)(iv) of this section. maximum instrument reading measured the requirements in § 60.5395(a)(1) or (i) Records of the date, location and by the methods specified in paragraph (a)(2). manufacturer specifications for each (a) of this section after each repair (c) Recordkeeping requirements. You pneumatic controller installed. attempt is 500 ppm or greater. must maintain the records identified as (ii) Records of the determination that (v) ‘‘Repair delayed’’ and the reason specified in § 60.7(f) and in paragraphs the use of high bleed pneumatic devices for the delay if a leak is not repaired (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this section is predicated and the reasons why. within 15 calendar days after discovery (1) The records for each gas wellhead (iii) If the pneumatic controller of the leak. affected facility as specified in affected facility is not located at a (vi) The signature of the owner or paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (c)(1)(iii). natural gas processing plant, records of operator (or designate) whose decision it (i) Records identifying each well the manufacturer’s guarantee that the was that repair could not be effected completion operation for each gas device is designed such that natural gas without a process shutdown.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52809

(vii) The expected date of successful (2) For any affected facility electing to Centrifugal compressor means a piece repair of the leak if a leak is not repaired comply with the provisions of of equipment that compresses a process within 15 days. § 60.5407(b)(2), any 24-hour period gas by means of mechanical rotating (viii) Dates of process unit shutdowns during which the average temperature of vanes or impellers. that occur while the equipment is the gases leaving the combustion zone City gate means the delivery point at unrepaired. of an incinerator is less than the which natural gas is transferred from a (ix) The date of successful repair of appropriate operating temperature as transmission pipeline to the local gas the leak. determined during the most recent utility. (x) A list of identification numbers for performance test in accordance with the Completion combustion device means equipment that are designated for no provisions of § 60.5407(b)(2). Each 24- any ignition device, installed detectable emissions under the hour period must consist of at least 96 horizontally or vertically, used in provisions of § 60.482–4a(a). The temperature measurements equally exploration and production operations designation of equipment subject to the spaced over the 24 hours. to combust otherwise vented emissions provisions of § 60.482–4a(a) must be (c) To certify that a facility is exempt from completions or workovers. signed by the owner or operator. from the control requirements of these Compressor means a piece of standards, for each facility with a design equipment that compresses process gas § 60.5422 What are my additional reporting capacity less that 2 LT/D of H2S in the and is usually a centrifugal compressor requirements for my affected facility subject to VOC requirements for onshore natural acid gas (expressed as sulfur) you must or a reciprocating compressor. gas processing plants? keep, for the life of the facility, an Compressor station means any permanent combination of compressors (a) You must comply with the analysis demonstrating that the facility’s design capacity is less than 2 LT/D of that move natural gas at increased requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of H2S expressed as sulfur. pressure from fields, in transmission this section in addition to the (d) If you elect to comply with pipelines, or into storage. requirements of § 60.487a(a), (b), (c)(2)(i) § 60.5407(e) you must keep, for the life Condensate means a hydrocarbon through (iv), and (c)(2)(vii) through of the facility, a record demonstrating liquid separated from natural gas that (viii). that the facility’s design capacity is less (b) An owner or operator must condenses due to changes in the than 150 LT/D of H S expressed as include the following information in the 2 temperature, pressure, or both, and sulfur. remains liquid at standard conditions, initial semiannual report in addition to (e) The requirements of paragraph (b) the information required in as specified in § 60.2. For the purposes of this section remain in force until and of this subpart, a hydrocarbon liquid § 60.487a(b)(1) through (4): Number of unless the EPA, in delegating pressure relief devices subject to the with an API gravity equal to or greater enforcement authority to a state under than 40 degrees is considered requirements of § 60.5401(b) except for section 111(c) of the Act, approves those pressure relief devices designated condensate. reporting requirements or an alternative Crude oil means crude petroleum oil for no detectable emissions under the means of compliance surveillance or any other hydrocarbon liquid, which provisions of § 60.482–4a(a) and those adopted by such state. In that event, are produced at the well in liquid form pressure relief devices complying with affected sources within the state will be by ordinary production methods, and § 60.482–4a(c). relieved of obligation to comply with which are not the result of condensation (c) An owner or operator must include paragraph (b) of this section, provided the following information in all of gas before or after it leaves the that they comply with the requirements reservoir. For the purposes of this semiannual reports in addition to the established by the state. information required in subpart, a hydrocarbon liquid with an § 60.487a(c)(2)(i) through (vi): § 60.5425 What part of the General API gravity less than 40 degrees is (1) Number of pressure relief devices Provisions apply to me? considered crude oil. for which leaks were detected as Table 3 to this subpart shows which Dehydrator means a device in which required in § 60.5401(b)(2); and parts of the General Provisions in an absorbent directly contacts a natural (2) Number of pressure relief devices §§ 60.1 through 60.19 apply to you. gas stream and absorbs water in a for which leaks were not repaired as contact tower or absorption column required in § 60.5401(b)(3). § 60.5430 What definitions apply to this (absorber). subpart? Delineation well means a well drilled § 60.5423 What additional recordkeeping As used in this subpart, all terms not in order to determine the boundary of a and reporting requirements apply to my defined herein shall have the meaning field or producing reservoir. sweetening unit affected facilities at given them in the Act, in subpart A or Equipment means each pump, onshore natural gas processing plants? subpart VVa of part 60; and the pressure relief device, open-ended valve (a) You must retain records of the following terms shall have the specific or line, valve, compressor, and flange or calculations and measurements required meanings given them. other connector that is in VOC service in § 60.5405(a) and (b) and § 60.5407(a) Acid gas means a gas stream of or in wet gas service, and any device or through (g) for at least 2 years following hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon system required by this subpart. the date of the measurements. This dioxide (CO2) that has been separated Field gas means feedstock gas requirement is included under § 60.7(d) from sour natural gas by a sweetening entering the natural gas processing of the General Provisions. unit. plant. (b) You must submit a written report Alaskan North Slope means the Field gas gathering means the system of excess emissions to the Administrator approximately 69,000 square-mile area used to transport field gas from a field semiannually. For the purpose of these extending from the Brooks Range to the to the main pipeline in the area. reports, excess emissions are defined as: Arctic Ocean. Flare means a thermal oxidation (1) Any 24-hour period (at consistent API Gravity means the weight per unit system using an open (without intervals) during which the average volume of hydrocarbon liquids as enclosure) flame. sulfur emission reduction efficiency (R) measured by a system recommended by Flowback means the process of is less than the minimum required the American Petroleum Institute (API) allowing fluids to flow from the well efficiency (Z). and is expressed in degrees. following a treatment, either in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52810 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

preparation for a subsequent phase of at a rate equal to or less than six Reciprocating compressor rod packing treatment or in preparation for cleanup standard cubic feet per hour. means a series of flexible rings in and returning the well to production. Modification means any physical machined metal cups that fit around the Flow line means surface pipe through change in, or change in the method of reciprocating compressor piston rod to which oil and/or natural gas travels operation of, an affected facility which create a seal limiting the amount of from the well. increases the amount of VOC or natural compressed natural gas that escapes to Gas-driven pneumatic controller gas emitted into the atmosphere by that the atmosphere. means a pneumatic controller powered facility or which results in the emission Reduced emissions completion means by pressurized natural gas. of VOC or natural gas into the a well completion where gas flowback Gas processing plant process unit atmosphere not previously emitted. For that is otherwise vented is captured, means equipment assembled for the the purposes of this subpart, each cleaned, and routed to the sales line. extraction of natural gas liquids from recompletion of a fractured or Reduced emissions recompletion field gas, the fractionation of the liquids refractured existing gas well is means a well completion following into natural gas products, or other considered to be a modification. refracturing of a gas well where gas operations associated with the Natural gas liquids means the flowback that is otherwise vented is processing of natural gas products. A hydrocarbons, such as ethane, propane, captured, cleaned, and routed to the process unit can operate independently butane, and pentane that are extracted sales line. if supplied with sufficient feed or raw from field gas. Reduced sulfur compounds means materials and sufficient storage facilities Natural gas processing plant (gas H2S, carbonyl sulfide (COS), and carbon for the products. plant) means any processing site disulfide (CS2). Gas well means a well, the principal engaged in the extraction of natural gas Routed to a process or route to a production of which at the mouth of the liquids from field gas, fractionation of process means the emissions are well is gas. mixed natural gas liquids to natural gas conveyed to any enclosed portion of a High-bleed pneumatic devices means products, or both. process unit where the emissions are automated, continuous bleed flow Nonfractionating plant means any gas predominantly recycled and/or control devices powered by pressurized plant that does not fractionate mixed consumed in the same manner as a natural gas and used for maintaining a natural gas liquids into natural gas material that fulfills the same function process condition such as liquid level, products. in the process and/or transformed by pressure, delta-pressure and Non gas-driven pneumatic device chemical reaction into materials that are temperature. Part of the gas power means an instrument that is actuated not regulated materials and/or stream which is regulated by the process using other sources of power than incorporated into a product; and/or condition flows to a valve actuator pressurized natural gas; examples recovered. controller where it vents continuously include solar, electric, and instrument Salable quality gas means natural gas (bleeds) to the atmosphere at a rate in air. that meets the composition, moisture, or excess of six standard cubic feet per Onshore means all facilities except other limits set by the purchaser of the hour. those that are located in the territorial natural gas. Hydraulic fracturing means the seas or on the outer continental shelf. Sales line means pipeline, generally process of directing pressurized liquids, Plunger lift system means an small in diameter, used to transport oil containing water, proppant, and any intermittent gas lift that uses gas or gas from the well to a processing added chemicals, to penetrate tight pressure buildup in the casing-tubing facility or a mainline pipeline. sand, shale, or coal formations that annulus to push a steel plunger, and the Storage vessel means a stationary involve high rate, extended back flow to column of fluid ahead of it, up the well vessel or series of stationary vessels that expel fracture fluids and sand during tubing to the surface. are either manifolded together or are completions and well workovers. Pneumatic controller means an located at a single well site and that In light liquid service means that the automated instrument used for have potential for VOC emissions equal piece of equipment contains a liquid maintaining a process condition such as to or greater than 10 tpy. that meets the conditions specified in liquid level, pressure, delta-pressure Sulfur production rate means the rate § 60.485a(e) or § 60.5401(h)(2) of this and temperature. of liquid sulfur accumulation from the part. Pneumatic pump means a pump that sulfur recovery unit. In wet gas service means that a uses pressurized natural gas to move a Sulfur recovery unit means a process compressor or piece of equipment piston or diaphragm, which pumps device that recovers element sulfur from contains or contacts the field gas before liquids on the opposite side of the acid gas. the extraction step at a gas processing piston or diaphragm. Surface site means any combination plant process unit. Process unit means components of one or more graded pad sites, gravel Liquefied natural gas unit means a assembled for the extraction of natural pad sites, foundations, platforms, or the unit used to cool natural gas to the point gas liquids from field gas, the immediate physical location upon at which it is condensed into a liquid fractionation of the liquids into natural which equipment is physically affixed. which is colorless, odorless, non- gas products, or other operations Sweetening unit means a process corrosive and non-toxic. associated with the processing of device that removes hydrogen sulfide Low-bleed pneumatic controller natural gas products. A process unit can and/or carbon dioxide from the natural means automated flow control devices operate independently if supplied with gas stream. powered by pressurized natural gas and sufficient feed or raw materials and Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) means the used for maintaining a process sufficient storage facilities for the sum of the sulfur compounds hydrogen condition such as liquid level, pressure, products. sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl delta-pressure and temperature. Part of Reciprocating compressor means a sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide as the gas power stream which is regulated piece of equipment that increases the measured by Method 16 of appendix A by the process condition flows to a pressure of a process gas by positive to part 60 of this chapter. valve actuator controller where it vents displacement, employing linear Total SO2 equivalents means the sum continuously (bleeds) to the atmosphere movement of the driveshaft. of volumetric or mass concentrations of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52811

the sulfur compounds obtained by tests the reservoir flow characteristics, associated with any oil well, gas well, adding the quantity existing as SO2 to steps which may vent produced gas to or injection well and its associated well the quantity of SO2 that would be the atmosphere via an open pit or tank. pad. obtained if all reduced sulfur Well completion also involves Wellhead means the piping, casing, compounds were converted to SO2 connecting the well bore to the tubing and connected valves protruding (ppmv or kg/dscm (lb/dscf)). reservoir, which may include treating above the earth’s surface for an oil and/ Underground storage tank means a the formation or installing tubing, or natural gas well. The wellhead ends storage tank stored below ground. packer(s), or lifting equipment. where the flow line connects to a Well means an oil or gas well, a hole Well completion operation means any wellhead valve. The wellhead does not drilled for the purpose of producing oil well completion or well workover include other equipment at the well site or gas, or a well into which fluids are occurring at a gas wellhead affected except for any conveyance through injected. facility. which gas is vented to the atmosphere. Well completion means the process Well site means the areas that are Wildcat well means a well outside that allows for the flow of petroleum or directly disturbed during the drilling known fields or the first well drilled in natural gas from newly drilled wells to and subsequent operation of, or affected an oil or gas field where no other oil and expel drilling and reservoir fluids and by, production facilities directly gas production exists.

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART OOOO OF PART 60—REQUIRED MINIMUM INITIAL SO2 EMISSION REDUCTION EFFICIENCY (Zi)

Sulfur feed rate (X), LT/D H2S content of acid gas (Y), % 2.0 ≤ X ≤ 5.0 5.0 < X ≤ 15.0 15.0 < X ≤ 300.0 X > 300.0

Y ≥ 50 ...... 79.0 88.51X0.0101Y0.0125 or 99.9, whichever is smaller

20 ≤ Y < 50 ...... 79.0 88.5X0.0101Y0.0125 or 97.9, whichever is smaller 97.9

10 ≤ Y < 20 ...... 79.0 88.5X0.0101Y0.0125 ...... 93.5 93.5 or 97.9, whichever is smaller ...

Y < 10 ...... 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART OOOO OF PART 60—REQUIRED MINIMUM SO2 EMISSION REDUCTION EFFICIENCY (Zc)

Sulfur feed rate (X), LT/D H2S content of acid gas (Y), % 2.0 ≤ X ≤ 5.0 5.0 < X ≤ 15.0 15.0 < X ≤ 300.0 X > 300.0

Y ≥ 50 ...... 74.0 85.35X0.0144Y0.0128 or 99.9, whichever is smaller

20 ≤ Y < 50 ...... 74.0 85.35X0.0144Y0.0128 or 97.9, whichever is smaller 97.5

10 ≤ Y < 20 ...... 74.0 85.35X0.0144Y0.0128 ...... 90.8 90.8 or 90.8, whichever is smaller ...

Y < 10 ...... 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0

E = The sulfur emission rate expressed as X = The sulfur feed rate from the sweetening expressed as percent carried to one elemental sulfur, kilograms per hour (kg/ unit (i.e., the H2S in the acid gas), decimal place. Zi refers to the reduction hr) [pounds per hour (lb/hr)], rounded to expressed as sulfur, Mg/D(LT/D), efficiency required at the initial one decimal place. rounded to one decimal place. performance test. Zc refers to the R = The sulfur emission reduction efficiency Y = The sulfur content of the acid gas from reduction efficiency required on a achieved in percent, carried to one the sweetening unit, expressed as mole continuous basis after compliance with decimal place. percent H2S (dry basis) rounded to one S = The sulfur production rate, kilograms per decimal place. Zi has been demonstrated. hour (kg/hr) [pounds per hour (lb/hr)], Z = The minimum required sulfur dioxide rounded to one decimal place. (SO2) emission reduction efficiency,

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART OOOO OF PART 60—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART OOOO [As stated in § 60.5425, you must comply with the following applicable General Provisions]

General provisions Applies to citation Subject of citation subpart? Explanation

§ 60.1 ...... General applicability of the General Provisions ... Yes. § 60.2 ...... Definitions ...... Yes...... Additional terms defined in § 60.5430. § 60.3 ...... Units and abbreviations ...... Yes. § 60.4 ...... Address ...... Yes. § 60.5 ...... Determination of construction or modification ...... Yes. § 60.6 ...... Review of plans ...... Yes. § 60.7 ...... Notification and record keeping ...... Yes ...... Except that § 60.7 only applies as specified in § 60.5420(a).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:53 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52812 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART OOOO OF PART 60—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART OOOO—Continued [As stated in § 60.5425, you must comply with the following applicable General Provisions]

General provisions Applies to citation Subject of citation subpart? Explanation

§ 60.8 ...... Performance tests ...... No ...... Performance testing is required for storage ves- sels as specified in 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH. § 60.9 ...... Availability of information ...... Yes. § 60.10 ...... State authority ...... Yes. § 60.11 ...... Compliance with standards and maintenance re- No ...... Requirements are specified in subpart OOOO. quirements. § 60.12 ...... Circumvention ...... Yes. § 60.13 ...... Monitoring requirements ...... Yes ...... Continuous monitors are required for storage vessels. § 60.14 ...... Modification ...... Yes. § 60.15 ...... Reconstruction ...... Yes. § 60.16 ...... Priority list ...... Yes. § 60.17 ...... Incorporations by reference ...... Yes. § 60.18 ...... General control device requirements ...... Yes. § 60.19 ...... General notification and reporting requirement ... Yes.

PART 63—[AMENDED] 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), information is documented and 63.9307(c)(2), 63.9323(a)(3), recorded to the Administrator’s 8. The authority citation for part 63 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), satisfaction in accordance with continues to read as follows: 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), § 63.10(b)(3). A facility that is Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), determined to be an area source, but 9. Section 63.14 is amended by: 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), 63.11551(a)(2)(i)(C), subsequently increases its emissions or a. Adding paragraphs (b)(69), (b)(70), 63.11646(a)(1)(iii), table 5 to subpart its potential to emit above the major (b)(71) and (b)(72); and DDDDD of this part, and table 1 to source levels, and becomes a major b. Revising paragraph (i)(1) to read as subpart ZZZZZ of this part. source, must comply thereafter with all follows: * * * * * provisions of this subpart applicable to a major source starting on the applicable § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. Subpart HH—[Amended] compliance date specified in paragraph * * * * * (f) of this section. Nothing in this 10. Section 63.760 is amended by: (b) * * * paragraph is intended to preclude a a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) * * * * * source from limiting its potential to emit (69) ASTM D1945–03(2010) Standard introductory text; b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii); through other appropriate mechanisms Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas c. Revising paragraph (a)(2); that may be available through the by Gas Chromatography, IBR approved d. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii); permitting authority. for §§ 63.772 and 63.1282. e. Revising paragraph (f) introductory * * * * * (70) ASTM D5504–08 Standard Test text; (iii) The owner or operator shall Method for Determination of Sulfur f. Revising paragraph (f)(1); determine the maximum values for Compounds in Natural Gas and Gaseous g. Revising paragraph (f)(2); and other parameters used to calculate Fuels by Gas Chromatography and h. Adding paragraphs (f)(7), (f)(8), emissions as the maximum for the Chemiluminescence, IBR approved for (f)(9) and (f)(10) to read as follows: period over which the maximum natural §§ 63.772 and 63.1282. (71) ASTM D3588–98(2003) Standard § 63.760 Applicability and designation of gas or hydrocarbon liquid throughput is Practice for Calculating Heat Value, affected source. determined in accordance with Compressibility Factor, and Relative (a) * * * paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this Density of Gaseous Fuels, IBR approved (1) Facilities that are major or area section. Parameters, other than glycol for §§ 63.772 and 63.1282. sources of hazardous air pollutants circulation rate, shall be based on either (72) ASTM D4891–89(2006) Standard (HAP) as defined in § 63.761. Emissions highest measured values or annual Test Method for Heating Value of Gases for major source determination purposes average. For estimating maximum in Natural Gas Range by Stoichiometric can be estimated using the maximum potential emissions from glycol Combustion, IBR approved for §§ 63.772 natural gas or hydrocarbon liquid dehydration units, the glycol circulation and 63.1282. throughput, as appropriate, calculated rate used in the calculation shall be the unit’s maximum rate under its physical * * * * * in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of (i) * * * this section. As an alternative to and operational design consistent with (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, calculating the maximum natural gas or the definition of potential to emit in Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, hydrocarbon liquid throughput, the § 63.2. Instruments and Apparatus], issued owner or operator of a new or existing (2) Facilities that process, upgrade, or August 31, 1981 IBR approved for source may use the facility’s design store hydrocarbon liquids prior to the §§ 63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.771(e), 63.865(b), maximum natural gas or hydrocarbon point where hydrocarbon liquids enter 63.1281(d), 63.3166(a)(3), liquid throughput to estimate the either the Organic Liquids Distribution 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), maximum potential emissions. Other (Non-gasoline) or Petroleum Refineries 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), means to determine the facility’s major source categories. 63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), source status are allowed, provided the * * * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52813

(b) * * * or after August 23, 2011 must achieve Facility means any grouping of (1) * * * compliance immediately upon initial equipment where hydrocarbon liquids (ii) Each storage vessel; startup or the date of publication of the are processed, upgraded (i.e., remove * * * * * final rule in the Federal Register, impurities or other constituents to meet (f) The owner or operator of an whichever is later. contract specifications), or stored; or affected major source shall achieve (9) A production field facility, as where natural gas is processed, compliance with the provisions of this defined in § 63.761, constructed before upgraded, or stored. For the purpose of subpart by the dates specified in August 23, 2011 that was previously a major source determination, facility paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2), and (f)(7) determined to be an area source but (including a building, structure, or through (f)(10) of this section. The becomes a major source (as defined in installation) means oil and natural gas owner or operator of an affected area paragraph 3 of the major source production and processing equipment source shall achieve compliance with definition in § 63.761) on the date of that is located within the boundaries of the provisions of this subpart by the publication of the final rule in the an individual surface site as defined in dates specified in paragraphs (f)(3) Federal Register must achieve this section. Equipment that is part of a through (f)(6) of this section. compliance no later than 3 years after facility will typically be located within (1) Except as specified in paragraphs the date of publication of the final rule close proximity to other equipment (f)(7) through (10) of this section, the in the Federal Register, except as located at the same facility. Pieces of owner or operator of an affected major provided in § 63.6(i). production equipment or groupings of source, the construction or (10) Each large glycol dehydration equipment located on different oil and reconstruction of which commenced unit, as defined in § 63.761, that has gas leases, mineral fee tracts, lease before February 6, 1998, shall achieve complied with the provisions of this tracts, subsurface or surface unit areas, compliance with the applicable subpart prior to August 23, 2011 by surface fee tracts, surface lease tracts, or provisions of this subpart no later than reducing its benzene emissions to less separate surface sites, whether or not June 17, 2002, except as provided for in than 0.9 megagrams per year must connected by a road, waterway, power § 63.6(i). The owner or operator of an achieve compliance no later than 90 line or pipeline, shall not be considered area source, the construction or days after the date of publication of the part of the same facility. Examples of reconstruction of which commenced final rule in the Federal Register, except facilities in the oil and natural gas before February 6, 1998, that increases as provided in § 63.6(i). production source category include, but its emissions of (or its potential to emit) * * * * * are not limited to, well sites, satellite HAP such that the source becomes a 11. Section 63.761 is amended by: tank batteries, central tank batteries, a major source that is subject to this a. Adding, in alphabetical order, new compressor station that transports subpart shall comply with this subpart definitions for the terms ‘‘affirmative natural gas to a natural gas processing 3 years after becoming a major source. defense,’’ ‘‘BTEX,’’ ‘‘flare,’’ ‘‘large glycol plant, and natural gas processing plants. (2) Except as specified in paragraphs dehydration units’’ and ‘‘small glycol * * * * * (f)(7) through (10) of this section, the dehydration units’’; owner or operator of an affected major b. Revising the definitions for Flare means a thermal oxidation source, the construction or ‘‘associated equipment,’’ ‘‘facility,’’ system using an open flame (i.e., reconstruction of which commences on ‘‘glycol dehydration unit baseline without enclosure). or after February 6, 1998, shall achieve operations,’’ and ‘‘temperature * * * * * compliance with the applicable monitoring device’’; and Glycol dehydration unit baseline provisions of this subpart immediately c. Revising paragraph (3) of the operations means operations upon initial startup or June 17, 1999, definition for ‘‘major source’’ to read as representative of the large glycol whichever date is later. Area sources, follows: dehydration unit operations as of June other than production field facilities § 63.761 Definitions. 17, 1999 and the small glycol identified in (f)(9) of this section, the dehydrator unit operations as of August construction or reconstruction of which * * * * * 23, 2011. For the purposes of this commences on or after February 6, 1998, Affirmative defense means, in the subpart, for determining the percentage that become major sources shall comply context of an enforcement proceeding, a of overall HAP emission reduction with the provisions of this standard response or defense put forward by a attributable to process modifications, immediately upon becoming a major defendant, regarding which the baseline operations shall be parameter source. defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are independently values (including, but not limited to, * * * * * and objectively evaluated in a judicial glycol circulation rate or glycol-HAP (7) Each affected small glycol or administrative proceeding. absorbency) that represent actual long- dehydration unit and each storage * * * * * term conditions (i.e., at least 1 year). vessel that is not a storage vessel with Glycol dehydration units in operation the potential for flash emissions located Associated equipment, as used in this subpart and as referred to in section for less than 1 year shall document that at a major source, that commenced the parameter values represent expected construction before August 23, 2011 112(n)(4) of the Act, means equipment associated with an oil or natural gas long-term operating conditions had must achieve compliance no later than process modifications not been made. 3 years after the date of publication of exploration or production well, and the final rule in the Federal Register, includes all equipment from the * * * * * except as provided in § 63.6(i). wellbore to the point of custody Large glycol dehydration unit means a (8) Each affected small glycol transfer, except glycol dehydration units glycol dehydration unit with an actual dehydration unit and each storage and storage vessels. annual average natural gas flowrate vessel that is not a storage vessel with * * * * * equal to or greater than 85 thousand the potential for flash emissions, both as BTEX means benzene, toluene, ethyl standard cubic meters per day and defined in § 63.761, located at a major benzene and xylene. actual annual average benzene source, that commenced construction on * * * * * emissions equal to or greater than 0.90

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52814 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Mg/yr, determined according to requirements in the affirmative defense. excess emissions that were the result of § 63.772(b). The affirmative defense shall not be the malfunction. * * * * * available for claims for injunctive relief. (2) Notification. The owner or Major source *** (1) To establish the affirmative operator of the affected source (3) For facilities that are production defense in any action to enforce such a experiencing exceedance of its emission field facilities, only HAP emissions from limit, you must timely meet the limit(s) during a malfunction shall glycol dehydration units and storage notification requirements in paragraph notify the Administrator by telephone or vessels shall be aggregated for a major (d)(2) of this section, and must prove by facsimile transmission as soon as source determination. For facilities that a preponderance of evidence that: possible, but no later than two business are not production field facilities, HAP (i) The excess emissions: days after the initial occurrence of the emissions from all HAP emission units (A) Were caused by a sudden, malfunction, if it wishes to avail itself shall be aggregated for a major source infrequent, and unavoidable failure of of an affirmative defense to civil determination. air pollution control and monitoring penalties for that malfunction. The * * * * * equipment, process equipment, or a owner or operator seeking to assert an Small glycol dehydration unit means process to operate in a normal or usual affirmative defense shall also submit a a glycol dehydration unit, located at a manner; and written report to the Administrator major source, with an actual annual (B) Could not have been prevented within 45 days of the initial occurrence average natural gas flowrate less than 85 through careful planning, proper design of the exceedance of the standard in this thousand standard cubic meters per day or better operation and maintenance subpart to demonstrate, with all or actual annual average benzene practices; and necessary supporting documentation, emissions less than 0.90 Mg/yr, (C) Did not stem from any activity or that it has met the requirements set forth determined according to § 63.772(b). event that could have been foreseen and in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an * * * * * avoided, or planned for; and Temperature monitoring device (D) Were not part of a recurring extension of this deadline for up to 30 means an instrument used to monitor pattern indicative of inadequate design, additional days by submitting a written temperature and having a minimum operation, or maintenance; and request to the Administrator before the accuracy of ± 1 percent of the (ii) Repairs were made as expiration of the 45 day period. Until a temperature being monitored expressed expeditiously as possible when the request for an extension has been in °C, or ± 2.5 °C, whichever is greater. applicable emission limitations were approved by the Administrator, the The temperature monitoring device may being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime owner or operator is subject to the measure temperature in degrees labor were used, to the extent requirement to submit such report Fahrenheit or degrees Celsius, or both. practicable to make these repairs; and within 45 days of the initial occurrence (iii) The frequency, amount and of the exceedance. * * * * * duration of the excess emissions 13. Section 63.764 is amended by: 12. Section 63.762 is revised to read a. Revising paragraph (c)(2) as follows: (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable introductory text; § 63.762 Startups and shutdowns. during periods of such emissions; and b. Revising paragraph (e)(1) (a) The provisions set forth in this (iv) If the excess emissions resulted introductory text; subpart shall apply at all times. from a bypass of control equipment or c. Revising paragraph (i); and (b) The owner or operator shall not a process, then the bypass was d. Adding paragraph (j) to read as shut down items of equipment that are unavoidable to prevent loss of life, follows: required or utilized for compliance with personal injury, or severe property § 63.764 General standards. the provisions of this subpart during damage; and * * * * * times when emissions are being routed (v) All possible steps were taken to (c) * * * to such items of equipment, if the minimize the impact of the excess (2) For each storage vessel subject to shutdown would contravene emissions on ambient air quality, the this subpart, the owner or operator shall requirements of this subpart applicable environment, and human health; and comply with the requirements specified to such items of equipment. This (vi) All emissions monitoring and in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of paragraph does not apply if the owner control systems were kept in operation this section. or operator must shut down the if at all possible, consistent with safety equipment to avoid damage due to a and good air pollution control practices; * * * * * contemporaneous startup or shutdown, and (e) Exemptions. (1) The owner or of the affected source or a portion (vii) All of the actions in response to operator of an area source is exempt thereof. the excess emissions were documented from the requirements of paragraph (d) (c) During startups and shutdowns, by properly signed, contemporaneous of this section if the criteria listed in the owner or operator shall implement operating logs; and paragraph (e)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section measures to prevent or minimize excess (viii) At all times, the affected source are met, except that the records of the emissions to the maximum extent was operated in a manner consistent determination of these criteria must be practical. with good practices for minimizing maintained as required in § 63.774(d)(1). (d) In response to an action to enforce emissions; and * * * * * the standards set forth in this subpart, (ix) A written root cause analysis has (i) In all cases where the provisions of you may assert an affirmative defense to been prepared to determine, correct, and this subpart require an owner or a claim for civil penalties for eliminate the primary causes of the operator to repair leaks by a specified exceedances of such standards that are malfunction and the excess emissions time after the leak is detected, it is a caused by malfunction, as defined in 40 resulting from the malfunction event at violation of this standard to fail to take CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be issue. The analysis shall also specify, action to repair the leak(s) within the assessed, however, if you fail to meet using best monitoring methods and specified time. If action is taken to your burden of proving all the engineering judgment, the amount of repair the leak(s) within the specified

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52815

time, failure of that action to c. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and (ii) The owner or operator of a glycol successfully repair the leak(s) is not a d. Revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as dehydration unit located at an area violation of this standard. However, if follows: source, that must be controlled as the repairs are unsuccessful, and a leak § 63.765 Glycol dehydration unit process specified in § 63.764(d)(1)(i), shall is detected, the owner or operator shall vent standards. connect the process vent to a control take further action as required by the (a) This section applies to each glycol device or combination of control applicable provisions of this subpart. dehydration unit subject to this subpart devices through a closed-vent system (j) At all times the owner or operator that must be controlled for air emissions and the outlet benzene emissions from must operate and maintain any affected as specified in either paragraph (c)(1)(i) the control device(s) shall be reduced to source, including associated air or paragraph (d)(1)(i) of § 63.764. a level less than 0.90 megagrams per pollution control equipment and (b) * * * year. The closed-vent system shall be monitoring equipment, in a manner (1) For each glycol dehydration unit designed and operated in accordance consistent with safety and good air process vent, the owner or operator with the requirements of § 63.771(c). pollution control practices for shall control air emissions by either The control device(s) shall be designed minimizing emissions. Determination of paragraph (b)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this and operated in accordance with the whether such operation and section. requirements of § 63.771(d), except that maintenance procedures are being used (i) The owner or operator of a large the performance levels specified in will be based on information available glycol dehydration unit, as defined in § 63.771(d)(1)(i) and (ii) do not apply. to the Administrator which may § 63.761, shall connect the process vent include, but is not limited to, to a control device or a combination of (iii) You must limit BTEX emissions monitoring results, review of operation control devices through a closed-vent from each small glycol dehydration unit and maintenance procedures, review of system. The closed-vent system shall be process vent, as defined in § 63.761, to operation and maintenance records, and designed and operated in accordance the limit determined in Equation 1 of inspection of the source. with the requirements of § 63.771(c). this section. The limit must be met in 14. Section 63.765 is amended by: The control device(s) shall be designed accordance with one of the alternatives a. Revising paragraph (a); and operated in accordance with the specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); requirements of § 63.771(d). through (D) of this section.

Where: requirements specified in § 63.771(e) (iii) For each small glycol dehydration ELBTEX = Unit-specific BTEX emission limit, and emissions in accordance with the unit, BTEX emissions are reduced to a megagrams per year; requirements specified in § 63.772(b)(2). level less than the limit calculated by × ¥4 1.10 10 = BTEX emission limit, grams * * * * * paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. BTEX/standard cubic meter = ppmv; 15. Section 63.766 is amended by: Throughput = Annual average daily natural (c) * * * a. Revising paragraph (a); gas throughput, standard cubic meters (2) The owner or operator shall b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory per day; demonstrate, to the Administrator’s text; Ci,BTEX = BTEX concentration of the natural satisfaction, that the total HAP c. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and gas at the inlet to the glycol dehydration emissions to the atmosphere from the d. Revising paragraph (d) to read as unit, ppmv. large glycol dehydration unit process follows: (A) Connect the process vent to a vent are reduced by 95.0 percent § 63.766 Storage vessel standards. control device or combination of control through process modifications, or a devices through a closed-vent system. combination of process modifications (a) This section applies to each The closed vent system shall be and one or more control devices, in storage vessel (as defined in § 63.761) designed and operated in accordance accordance with the requirements subject to this subpart. with the requirements of § 63.771(c). specified in § 63.771(e). (b) The owner or operator of a storage vessel (as defined in § 63.761) shall The control device(s) shall be designed (3) Control of HAP emissions from a and operated in accordance with the comply with one of the control GCG separator (flash tank) vent is not requirements specified in paragraphs requirements of § 63.771(f). required if the owner or operator (B) Meet the emissions limit through (b)(1) and (2) of this section. demonstrates, to the Administrator’s process modifications in accordance (1) The owner or operator shall equip satisfaction, that total emissions to the with the requirements specified in the affected storage vessel with a cover atmosphere from the glycol dehydration § 63.771(e). that is connected, through a closed-vent unit process vent are reduced by one of (C) Meet the emissions limit for each system that meets the conditions the levels specified in paragraph small glycol dehydration unit using a specified in § 63.771(c), to a control (c)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, combination of process modifications device or a combination of control through the installation and operation of and one or more control devices through devices that meets any of the conditions controls as specified in paragraph (b)(1) the requirements specified in specified in § 63.771(d). The cover shall of this section. paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this be designed and operated in accordance section. (i) For any large glycol dehydration with the requirements of § 63.771(b). (D) Demonstrate that the emissions unit, HAP emissions are reduced by * * * * * limit is met through actual uncontrolled 95.0 percent or more. (d) This section does not apply to operation of the small glycol (ii) For area source dehydration units, storage vessels for which the owner or dehydration unit. Document operational benzene emissions are reduced to a operator is subject to and controlled parameters in accordance with the level less than 0.90 megagrams per year. under the requirements specified in 40

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP23AU11.002 52816 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

CFR part 60, subpart Kb; or the units. Owners and operators of small glycol dehydration unit baseline requirements specified under 40 CFR glycol dehydration units, shall comply operations shall be modified to achieve part 63 subparts G or CC. with the control device requirements in the 95.0 percent overall HAP emission 16. Section 63.769 is amended by: paragraph (f) of this section. reduction, or BTEX limit determined in a. Revising paragraph (b); (1) * * * § 63.765(b)(1)(iii), as applicable, either b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory (i) An enclosed combustion device through process modifications or text; and (e.g., thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic through a combination of process b. Revising paragraph (c)(8) to read as vapor incinerator, boiler, or process modifications and one or more control follows: heater) that is designed and operated in devices. If a combination of process accordance with one of the following § 63.769 Equipment leak standards. modifications and one or more control performance requirements: devices are used, the owner or operator * * * * * * * * * * shall also establish the emission (b) This section does not apply to (C) For a control device that can reduction to be achieved by the control ancillary equipment and compressors demonstrate a uniform combustion zone device to achieve an overall HAP for which the owner or operator is temperature during the performance test emission reduction of 95.0 percent for subject to and controlled under the conducted under § 63.772(e), operates at the glycol dehydration unit process vent requirements specified in subpart H of a minimum temperature of 760 degrees or, if applicable, the BTEX limit this part; or the requirements specified C. determined in § 63.765(b)(1)(iii) for the in 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK. small glycol dehydration unit process (c) For each piece of ancillary * * * * * (ii) A vapor recovery device (e.g., vent. Only modifications in glycol equipment and each compressor subject carbon adsorption system or condenser) dehydration unit operations directly to this section located at an existing or or other non-destructive control device related to process changes, including new source, the owner or operator shall that is designed and operated to reduce but not limited to changes in glycol meet the requirements specified in 40 the mass content of either TOC or total circulation rate or glycol-HAP CFR part 61, subpart V, §§ 61.241 HAP in the gases vented to the device absorbency, shall be allowed. Changes through 61.247, except as specified in by 95.0 percent by weight or greater as in the inlet gas characteristics or natural paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this determined in accordance with the gas throughput rate shall not be section, except for valves subject to requirements of § 63.772(e). considered in determining the overall § 61.247–2(b) a leak is detected if an (iii) A flare, as defined in § 63.761, emission reduction due to process instrument reading of 500 ppm or that is designed and operated in modifications. greater is measured. accordance with the requirements of (3) The owner or operator that * * * * * § 63.11(b). achieves a 95.0 percent HAP emission (8) Flares, as defined in § 63.761, used * * * * * reduction or meets the BTEX limit to comply with this subpart shall (4) * * * determined in § 63.765(b)(1)(iii), as comply with the requirements of (i) Each control device used to comply applicable, using process modifications § 63.11(b). with this subpart shall be operating at alone shall comply with paragraph 17. Section 63.771 is amended by: all times when gases, vapors, and fumes (e)(3)(i) of this section. The owner or a. Revising paragraph (c)(1) are vented from the HAP emissions unit operator that achieves a 95.0 percent introductory text; or units through the closed-vent system HAP emission reduction or meets the b. Revising the heading of paragraph to the control device, as required under BTEX limit determined in (d); § 63.765, § 63.766, and § 63.769. An § 63.765(b)(1)(iii), as applicable, using a c. Adding paragraph (d) introductory owner or operator may vent more than combination of process modifications text; one unit to a control device used to and one or more control devices shall d. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(i) comply with this subpart. comply with paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and introductory text; (e)(3)(ii) of this section. e. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C); * * * * * f. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii); (5) * * * * * * * * g. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii); (i) Following the initial startup of the (ii) The owner or operator shall h. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(i); control device, all carbon in the control comply with the control device i. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(i); device shall be replaced with fresh requirements specified in paragraph (d) j. Revising paragraph (e)(2); carbon on a regular, predetermined time or (f) of this section, as applicable, k. Revising paragraph (e)(3) interval that is no longer than the except that the emission reduction or introductory text; carbon service life established for the limit achieved shall be the emission l. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii); and carbon adsorption system. Records reduction or limit specified for the m. Adding paragraph (f) to read as identifying the schedule for replacement control device(s) in paragraph (e)(2) of follows: and records of each carbon replacement this section. shall be maintained as required in (f) Control device requirements for § 63.771 Control equipment requirements. § 63.774(b)(7)(ix). The schedule for small glycol dehydration units. (1) The * * * * * replacement shall be submitted with the control device used to meet BTEX the (c) Closed-vent system requirements. Notification of Compliance Status emission limit calculated in (1) The closed-vent system shall route Report as specified in § 63.775(d)(5)(iv). § 63.765(b)(1)(iii) shall be one of the all gases, vapors, and fumes emitted Each carbon replacement must be control devices specified in paragraphs from the material in an emissions unit reported in the Periodic Reports as (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. to a control device that meets the specified in § 63.772(e)(2)(xii). (i) An enclosed combustion device requirements specified in paragraph (d) * * * * * (e.g., thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic of this section. (e) * * * vapor incinerator, boiler, or process * * * * * (2) The owner or operator shall heater) that is designed and operated to (d) Control device requirements for document, to the Administrator’s reduce the mass content of BTEX in the sources except small glycol dehydration satisfaction, the conditions for which gases vented to the device as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52817

determined in accordance with the s. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(iii); requirements of paragraph (e) of this requirements of § 63.772(e). If a boiler or t. Revising paragraph (g)(3); section apply. Compliance is process heater is used as the control u. Adding paragraph (h); and demonstrated using the methods device, then the vent stream shall be v. Adding paragraph (i) to read as specified in paragraph (f) of this section. introduced into the flame zone of the follows: (2) If no control device is used to comply with the emission limit in boiler or process heater; or § 63.772 Test methods, compliance (ii) A vapor recovery device (e.g., procedures, and compliance § 63.765(b)(1)(iii), the owner or operator carbon adsorption system or condenser) demonstrations. must determine the glycol dehydration or other non-destructive control device unit BTEX emissions as specified in * * * * * paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of this that is designed and operated to reduce (b) Determination of glycol section. Compliance is demonstrated if the mass content of BTEX in the gases dehydration unit flowrate, benzene the BTEX emissions determined as vented to the device as determined in emissions, or BTEX emissions. The accordance with the requirements of specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through procedures of this paragraph shall be (iii) are less than the emission limit § 63.772(e); or used by an owner or operator to (iii) A flare, as defined in § 63.761, calculated using the equation in determine glycol dehydration unit that is designed and operated in § 63.765(b)(1)(iii). natural gas flowrate, benzene emissions, accordance with the requirements of (i) Method 1 or 1A, 40 CFR part 60, or BTEX emissions. § 63.11(b). appendix A, as appropriate, shall be (1) * * * (2) The owner or operator shall used for selection of the sampling sites (ii) The owner or operator shall operate each control device in at the outlet of the glycol dehydration document, to the Administrator’s accordance with the requirements unit process vent. Any references to satisfaction, the actual annual average specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii) particulate mentioned in Methods 1 and natural gas flowrate to the glycol of this section. 1A do not apply to this section. (i) Each control device used to comply dehydration unit. (ii) The gas volumetric flowrate shall (2) The determination of actual with this subpart shall be operating at be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, average benzene or BTEX emissions all times. An owner or operator may or 2D, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as from a glycol dehydration unit shall be vent more than one unit to a control appropriate. made using the procedures of either device used to comply with this (iii) The BTEX emissions from the paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii) of this subpart. outlet of the glycol dehydration unit (ii) For each control device monitored section. Emissions shall be determined process vent shall be determined using in accordance with the requirements of either uncontrolled, or with federally the procedures specified in paragraph § 63.773(d), the owner or operator shall enforceable controls in place. (e)(3)(v) of this section. As an demonstrate compliance according to (i) The owner or operator shall alternative, the mass rate of BTEX at the the requirements of either § 63.772(f) or determine actual average benzene or outlet of the glycol dehydration unit BTEX emissions using the model GRI– process vent may be calculated using (h). TM (3) For each carbon adsorption system GLYCalc , Version 3.0 or higher, and the model GRI–GLYCalcTM, Version 3.0 used as a control device to meet the the procedures presented in the or higher, and the procedures presented TM requirements of paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of associated GRI–GLYCalc Technical in the associated GRI–GLYCalcTM this section, the owner or operator shall Reference Manual. Inputs to the model Technical Reference Manual. Inputs to manage the carbon as required under shall be representative of actual the model shall be representative of (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. operating conditions of the glycol actual operating conditions of the glycol 18. Section 63.772 is amended by: dehydration unit and may be dehydration unit and shall be a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory determined using the procedures determined using the procedures text; documented in the Gas Research documented in the Gas Research b. Revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii); Institute (GRI) report entitled Institute (GRI) report entitled c. Revising paragraph (b)(2); ‘‘Atmospheric Rich/Lean Method for ‘‘Atmospheric Rich/Lean Method for d. Adding paragraph (d); Determining Glycol Dehydrator Determining Glycol Dehydrator e. Revising paragraph (e) introductory Emissions’’ (GRI–95/0368.1); or Emissions’’ (GRI–95/0368.1). When the text; (ii) The owner or operator shall BTEX mass rate is calculated for glycol f. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i) determine an average mass rate of dehydration units using the model GRI– through (v); benzene or BTEX emissions in GLYCalcTM, all BTEX measured by g. Revising paragraph (e)(2); kilograms per hour through direct Method 18, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, h. Revising paragraph (e)(3) measurement using the methods in shall be summed. introductory text; § 63.772(a)(1)(i) or (ii), or an alternative (e) Control device performance test i. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(i)(B); method according to § 63.7(f). Annual procedures. This paragraph applies to j. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(iv)(C)(1); emissions in kilograms per year shall be the performance testing of control k. Adding paragraphs (e)(3)(v) and determined by multiplying the mass rate devices. The owners or operators shall (vi); by the number of hours the unit is l. Revising paragraph (e)(4) demonstrate that a control device operated per year. This result shall be introductory text; achieves the performance requirements m. Revising paragraph (e)(4)(i); converted to megagrams per year. of § 63.771(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii) or (f)(1) using n. Revising paragraph (e)(5); * * * * * a performance test as specified in o. Revising paragraph (f) introductory (d) Test procedures and compliance paragraph (e)(3) of this section. Owners text; demonstrations for small glycol or operators using a condenser have the p. Adding paragraphs (f)(2) through dehydration units. This paragraph option to use a design analysis as (f)(6); applies to the test procedures for small specified in paragraph (e)(4) of this q. Revising paragraph (g) introductory dehydration units. section. The owner or operator may text; (1) If the owner or operator is using elect to use the alternative procedures in r. Revising paragraph (g)(1) and a control device to comply with the paragraph (e)(5) of this section for paragraph (g)(2) introductory text; emission limit in § 63.765(b)(1)(iii), the performance testing of a condenser used

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52818 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

to control emissions from a glycol (i) * * * where standard temperature (gram-mole dehydration unit process vent. As an (B) To determine compliance with the per standard cubic meter) is 20 degrees alternative to conducting a performance enclosed combustion device total HAP C. test under this section for combustion concentration limit specified in n = Number of components in sample. control devices, a control device that § 63.765(b)(1)(iii), or the BTEX emission (2) When the BTEX mass rate is can be demonstrated to meet the limit specified in § 63.771(f)(1) the calculated, only BTEX compounds performance requirements of sampling site shall be located at the measured by Method 18, 40 CFR part § 63.771(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii) or (f)(1) through outlet of the combustion device. 60, appendix A, or ASTM D6420–99 a performance test conducted by the * * * * * (2004) as specified in § 63.772(a)(1)(ii), manufacturer, as specified in paragraph (iv) * * * shall be summed using the equations in (h) of this section can be used. (C) * * * paragraph (e)(3)(v)(B)(1) of this section. (vi) The owner or operator shall (1) * * * (1) The emission rate correction factor conduct performance tests according to (i) Except as specified in paragraph for excess air, integrated sampling and the schedule specified in paragraphs (e)(2) of this section, a flare, as defined analysis procedures of Method 3A or (e)(3)(vi)(A) and (B) of this section. in § 63.761, that is designed and 3B, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall operated in accordance with § 63.11(b); (A) An initial performance test shall be used to determine the oxygen be conducted within 180 days after the (ii) Except for control devices used for concentration. The samples shall be small glycol dehydration units, a boiler compliance date that is specified for taken during the same time that the each affected source in § 63.760(f)(7) or process heater with a design heat samples are taken for determining TOC input capacity of 44 megawatts or through (8), except that the initial concentration or total HAP performance test for existing greater; concentration. (iii) Except for control devices used combustion control devices at existing * * * * * major sources shall be conducted no for small glycol dehydration units, a (v) To determine compliance with the later than 3 years after the date of boiler or process heater into which the BTEX emission limit specified in publication of the final rule in the vent stream is introduced with the § 63.771(f)(1) the owner or operator Federal Register. If the owner or primary fuel or is used as the primary shall use one of the following methods: operator of an existing combustion fuel; Method 18, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; control device at an existing major (iv) Except for control devices used ASTM D6420–99 (2004), as specified in source chooses to replace such device for small glycol dehydration units, a § 63.772(a)(1)(ii); or any other method or with a control device whose model is boiler or process heater burning data that have been validated according tested under § 63.772(h), then the newly hazardous waste for which the owner or to the applicable procedures in Method installed device shall comply with all operator has either been issued a final 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. The provisions of this subpart no later than permit under 40 CFR part 270 and following procedures shall be used to 3 years after the date of publication of complies with the requirements of 40 calculate BTEX emissions: the final rule in the Federal Register. CFR part 266, subpart H; or has certified (A) The minimum sampling time for The performance test results shall be compliance with the interim status each run shall be 1 hour in which either submitted in the Notification of requirements of 40 CFR part 266, an integrated sample or a minimum of Compliance Status Report as required in subpart H; four grab samples shall be taken. If grab § 63.775(d)(1)(ii). (v) Except for control devices used for sampling is used, then the samples shall (B) Periodic performance tests shall be small glycol dehydration units, a be taken at approximately equal conducted for all control devices hazardous waste incinerator for which intervals in time, such as 15-minute required to conduct initial performance the owner or operator has been issued intervals during the run. tests except as specified in paragraphs a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 (B) The mass rate of BTEX (Eo) shall (e)(3)(vi)(B)(1) and (2) of this section. and complies with the requirements of be computed using the equations and The first periodic performance test shall 40 CFR part 264, subpart O; or has procedures specified in paragraphs be conducted no later than 60 months certified compliance with the interim (e)(3)(v)(B)(1) and (2) of this section. after the initial performance test status requirements of 40 CFR part 265, (1) The following equation shall be required in paragraph (e)(3)(vi)(A) of subpart O. used: this section. Subsequent periodic * * * * * performance tests shall be conducted at (2) An owner or operator shall design intervals no longer than 60 months and operate each flare, as defined in following the previous periodic § 63.761, in accordance with the performance test or whenever a source requirements specified in § 63.11(b) and Where: desires to establish a new operating the compliance determination shall be limit. The periodic performance test Eo= Mass rate of BTEX at the outlet of the conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR control device, dry basis, kilogram per results must be submitted in the next part 60, appendix A, to determine hour. Periodic Report as specified in visible emissions. Coj= Concentration of sample component j of § 63.775(e)(2)(xi). Combustion control (3) For a performance test conducted the gas stream at the outlet of the control devices meeting the criteria in either to demonstrate that a control device device, dry basis, parts per million by paragraph (e)(3)(vi)(B)(1) or (2) of this meets the requirements of volume. section are not required to conduct § 63.771(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii) or (f)(1), the Moj= Molecular weight of sample component periodic performance tests. owner or operator shall use the test j of the gas stream at the outlet of the (1) A control device whose model is control device, gram/gram-mole. methods and procedures specified in tested under, and meets the criteria of, Qo= Flowrate of gas stream at the outlet of paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (v) of this the control device, dry standard cubic § 63.772(h), or section. The initial and periodic meter per minute. (2) A combustion control device ¥6 performance tests shall be conducted K2= Constant, 2.494 × 10 (parts per tested under § 63.772(e) that meets the according to the schedule specified in million) (gram-mole per standard cubic outlet TOC or HAP performance level paragraph (e)(3)(vi) of this section. meter) (kilogram/gram) (minute/hour), specified in § 63.771(d)(1)(i)(B) and that

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP23AU11.003 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52819

establishes a correlation between firebox Report, as required in § 63.775(e), performance requirements—condensers. or combustion chamber temperature and following the change. This paragraph applies to the the TOC or HAP performance level. * * * * * demonstration of compliance with the (4) For a condenser design analysis (2) The owner or operator shall performance requirements specified in conducted to meet the requirements of calculate the daily average of the § 63.771(d)(1)(ii),(e)(3) or (f)(1) for § 63.771(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii), or (f)(1), the applicable monitored parameter in condensers. Compliance shall be owner or operator shall meet the accordance with § 63.773(d)(4) except demonstrated using the procedures in requirements specified in paragraphs that the inlet gas flow rate to the control paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this (e)(4)(i) and (e)(4)(ii) of this section. device shall not be averaged. section. (1) The owner or operator shall Documentation of the design analysis (3) Compliance with the operating establish a site-specific condenser shall be submitted as a part of the parameter limit is achieved when the performance curve according to Notification of Compliance Status daily average of the monitoring § 63.773(d)(5)(ii). For sources required Report as required in § 63.775(d)(1)(i). parameter value calculated under paragraph (f)(2) of this section is either to meet the BTEX limit in accordance (i) The condenser design analysis equal to or greater than the minimum or with § 63.771(e) or (f)(1) the owner or shall include an analysis of the vent equal to or less than the maximum operator shall identify the minimum stream composition, constituent monitoring value established under percent reduction necessary to meet the concentrations, flowrate, relative paragraph (f)(1) of this section. For inlet BTEX limit. humidity, and temperature, and shall gas flow rate, compliance with the (2) Compliance with the requirements establish the design outlet organic operating parameter limit is achieved in § 63.771(d)(1)(ii),(e)(3) or (f)(1) shall compound concentration level, design when the value is equal to or less than be demonstrated by the procedures in average temperature of the condenser the value established under § 63.772(h). paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iii) of this exhaust vent stream, and the design (4) Except for periods of monitoring section. average temperatures of the coolant system malfunctions, repairs associated * * * * * fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet. with monitoring system malfunctions, (iii) Except as provided in paragraphs As an alternative to the condenser and required monitoring system quality (g)(2)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, at design analysis, an owner or operator assurance or quality control activities the end of each operating day, the may elect to use the procedures (including, as applicable, system owner or operator shall calculate the specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this accuracy audits and required zero and 365-day average HAP, or BTEX, section. span adjustments), the CMS required in emission reduction, as appropriate, from * * * * * § 63.773(d) must be operated at all times the condenser efficiencies as (5) As an alternative to the procedures the affected source is operating. A determined in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section, an monitoring system malfunction is any section for the preceding 365 operating owner or operator may elect to use the sudden, infrequent, not reasonably days. If the owner or operator uses a procedures documented in the GRI preventable failure of the monitoring combination of process modifications report entitled, ‘‘Atmospheric Rich/Lean system to provide valid data. and a condenser in accordance with the Method for Determining Glycol Monitoring system failures that are requirements of § 63.771(e), the 365-day Dehydrator Emissions’’ (GRI–95/0368.1) caused in part by poor maintenance or average HAP, or BTEX, emission as inputs for the model GRI– careless operation are not malfunctions. reduction shall be calculated using the GLYCalcTM, Version 3.0 or higher, to Monitoring system repairs are required emission reduction achieved through generate a condenser performance to be completed in response to process modifications and the condenser efficiency as determined in curve. monitoring system malfunctions and to return the monitoring system to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section, both (f) Compliance demonstration for operation as expeditiously as for the previous 365 operating days. control device performance practicable. (A) After the compliance dates requirements. This paragraph applies to (5) Data recorded during monitoring specified in § 63.760(f), an owner or the demonstration of compliance with system malfunctions, repairs associated operator with less than 120 days of data the control device performance with monitoring system malfunctions, for determining average HAP, or BTEX, requirements specified in or required monitoring system quality emission reduction, as appropriate, § 63.771(d)(1)(i), (e)(3) and (f)(1). assurance or control activities may not shall calculate the average HAP, or Compliance shall be demonstrated using be used in calculations used to report BTEX emission reduction, as the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) emissions or operating levels. All the appropriate, for the first 120 days of through (3) of this section. As an data collected during all other required operation after the compliance dates. alternative, an owner or operator that data collection periods must be used in For sources required to meet the overall installs a condenser as the control assessing the operation of the control 95.0 percent reduction requirement, device to achieve the requirements device and associated control system. compliance is achieved if the 120-day specified in § 63.771(d)(1)(ii), (e)(3) or (6) Except for periods of monitoring average HAP emission reduction is (f)(1) may demonstrate compliance system malfunctions, repairs associated equal to or greater than 90.0 percent. For according to paragraph (g) of this with monitoring system malfunctions, sources required to meet the BTEX limit section. An owner or operator may and required quality monitoring system under § 63.765(b)(1)(iii), compliance is switch between compliance with quality assurance or quality control achieved if the average BTEX emission paragraph (f) of this section and activities (including, as applicable, reduction is at least 95.0 percent of the compliance with paragraph (g) of this system accuracy audits and required required 365-day value identified under section only after at least 1 year of zero and span adjustments), failure to paragraph (g)(1) of this section (i.e., at operation in compliance with the collect required data is a deviation of least 76.0 percent if the 365-day design selected approach. Notification of such the monitoring requirements. value is 80.0 percent). a change in the compliance method (g) Compliance demonstration with (B) After 120 days and no more than shall be reported in the next Periodic percent reduction or emission limit 364 days of operation after the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52820 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

compliance dates specified in of the maximum design rate. Within the coated stainless steel evacuated canister § 63.760(f), the owner or operator shall first 5 minutes, ramp the firing rate to fitted with a flow controller sufficient to calculate the average HAP emission 100 percent of the maximum design fill the canister over a 1 hour period. reduction as the HAP emission rate. Hold at 100 percent for 5 minutes. Filling shall be conducted as specified reduction averaged over the number of In the 10–15 minute time range, ramp in the following: days between the current day and the back down to 70 percent of the (1) Open the canister sampling valve applicable compliance date. For sources maximum design rate. Repeat three at the beginning of the total required to meet the overall 95.0- more times for a total of 60 minutes of hydrocarbon (THC) test, and close the percent reduction requirement, sampling. canister at the end of the THC test. compliance with the performance (iii) 30–70–30 percent (ramp up, ramp (2) Fill one canister for each THC test requirements is achieved if the average down). Begin the test at 30 percent of run. HAP emission reduction is equal to or the maximum design rate. Within the (3) Label the canisters individually greater than 90.0 percent. For sources first 5 minutes, ramp the firing rate to and record on a chain of custody form. required to meet the BTEX limit under 70 percent of the maximum design rate. (B) Each fuel sample shall be analyzed § 63.765(b)(1)(iii), compliance is Hold at 70 percent for 5 minutes. In the using the following methods. The achieved if the average BTEX emission 10–15 minute time range, ramp back results shall be included in the test reduction is at least 95.0 percent of the down to 30 percent of the maximum report. required 365-day value identified under design rate. Repeat three more times for (1) Hydrocarbon compounds paragraph (g)(1) of this section (i.e., at a total of 60 minutes of sampling. containing between one and five atoms least 76.0 percent if the 365-day design (iv) 0–30–0 percent (ramp up, ramp of carbon plus benzene using ASTM value is 80.0 percent). down). Begin the test at 0 percent of the D1945–03. (3) If the owner or operator has data maximum design rate. Within the first 5 (2) Hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide for 365 days or more of operation, minutes, ramp the firing rate to 100 (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen compliance is achieved based on the percent of the maximum design rate. (N2), oxygen (O2) using ASTM D1945– applicable criteria in paragraphs (g)(3)(i) Hold at 30 percent for 5 minutes. In the 03. or (ii) of this section. 10–15 minute time range, ramp back (3) Carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide (i) For sources meeting the HAP down to 0 percent of the maximum plus mercaptans using ASTM D5504. emission reduction specified in design rate. Repeat three more times for (4) Higher heating value using ASTM § 63.771(d)(1)(ii) or (e)(3) the average a total of 60 minutes of sampling. D3588–98 or ASTM D4891–89. (5) Outlet testing shall be conducted HAP emission reduction calculated in (3) All models employing multiple in accordance with the criteria in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this section is enclosures shall be tested paragraphs (h)(5)(i) through (v) of this equal to or greater than 95.0 percent. simultaneously and with all burners section. (ii) For sources required to meet the operational. Results shall be reported for (i) Sampling and flowrate measured in BTEX limit under § 63.771(e)(3) or (f)(1), the each enclosure individually and for the average of the emissions from all accordance with the following: compliance is achieved if the average (A) The outlet sampling location shall BTEX emission reduction calculated in interconnected combustion enclosures/ chambers. Control device operating data be a minimum of 4 equivalent stack paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this section is diameters downstream from the highest equal to or greater than the minimum shall be collected continuously throughout the performance test using peak flame or any other flow percent reduction identified in disturbance, and a minimum of one paragraph (g)(1) of this section. an electronic Data Acquisition System and strip chart. Data shall be submitted equivalent stack diameter upstream of * * * * * with the test report in accordance with the exit or any other flow disturbance. (h) Performance testing for paragraph (8)(iii) of this section. A minimum of two sample ports shall combustion control devices— (4) Inlet testing shall be conducted as be used. manufacturers’ performance test. (1) specified in paragraphs (h)(4)(i) through (B) Flow rate shall be measured using This paragraph applies to the (iii) of this section. Method 1, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix 1, performance testing of a combustion (i) The fuel flow metering system for determining flow measurement control device conducted by the device shall be located in accordance with traverse point location; and Method 2, manufacturer. The manufacturer shall Method 2A, 40 CFR part 60, appendix 40 CFR part 60, Appendix 1, shall be demonstrate that a specific model of A–1, (or other approved procedure) to used to measure duct velocity. If low control device achieves the performance measure fuel flow rate at the control flow conditions are encountered (i.e., requirements in (h)(7) of this section by device inlet location. The fitting for velocity pressure differentials less than conducting a performance test as filling fuel sample containers shall be 0.05 inches of water) during the specified in paragraphs (h)(2) through located a minimum of 8 pipe diameters performance test, a more sensitive (6) of this section. upstream of any inlet fuel flow manometer shall be used to obtain an (2) Performance testing shall consist monitoring meter. accurate flow profile. of three one-hour (or longer) test runs (ii) Inlet flow rate shall be determined (ii) Molecular weight shall be for each of the four following firing rate using Method 2A, 40 CFR part 60, determined as specified in paragraphs settings making a total of 12 test runs appendix A–1. Record the start and stop (h)(4)(iii)(B), (h)(5)(ii)(A), and per test. Propene (propylene) gas shall reading for each 60-minute THC test. (h)(5)(ii)(B) of this section. be used for the testing fuel. All fuel Record the gas pressure and temperature (A) An integrated bag sample shall be analyses shall be performed by an at 5-minute intervals throughout each collected during the Method 4, 40 CFR independent third-party laboratory (not 60-minute THC test. part 60, Appendix A, moisture test. affiliated with the control device (iii) Inlet fuel sampling shall be Analyze the bag sample using a gas manufacturer or fuel supplier). conducted in accordance with the chromatograph-thermal conductivity (i) 90–100 percent of maximum criteria in paragraphs (h)(4)(iii)(A) and detector (GC–TCD) analysis meeting the design rate (fixed rate). (B) of this section. following criteria: (ii) 70–100–70 percent (ramp up, (A) At the inlet fuel sampling (1) Collect the integrated sample ramp down). Begin the test at 70 percent location, securely connect a Silonite- throughout the entire test, and collect

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52821

representative volumes from each (iii) A 0–10 parts per million by this section, as applicable for the tested traverse location. volume-wet (ppmvw) (as propane) model. (2) The sampling line shall be purged measurement range is preferred; as an (A) Fuel gas delivery pressure and with stack gas before opening the valve alternative a 0–30 ppmvw (as carbon) temperature. and beginning to fill the bag. measurement range may be used. (B) Fuel gas moisture range. (3) The bag contents shall be kneaded (iv) Calibration gases will be propane (C) Purge gas usage range. or otherwise vigorously mixed prior to in air and be certified through EPA (D) Condensate (liquid fuel) the GC analysis. Protocol 1—‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol separation range. (4) The GC–TCD calibration for Assay and Certification of Gaseous (E) Combustion zone temperature procedure in Method 3C, 40 CFR part Calibration Standards,’’ September range. This is required for all devices 60, Appendix A, shall be modified by 1997, as amended August 25, 1999, that measure this parameter. using EPAAlt–045 as follows: For the EPA–600/R–97/121 (or more recent if (F) Excess combustion air range. initial calibration, triplicate injections of updated since 1999). (G) Flame arrestor(s). any single concentration must agree (v) THC measurements shall be (H) Burner manifold pressure. within 5 percent of their mean to be reported in terms of ppmvw as propane. (I) Pilot flame sensor. valid. The calibration response factor for (vi) THC results shall be corrected to (J) Pilot flame design fuel and fuel a single concentration re-check must be 3 percent CO2, as measured by Method usage. within 10 percent of the original 3C, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. (K) Tip velocity range. calibration response factor for that (vii) Subtraction of methane/ethane (L) Momentum flux ratio. concentration. If this criterion is not from the THC data is not allowed in (M) Exit temperature range. met, the initial calibration using at least determining results. (N) Exit flow rate. three concentration levels shall be (7) Performance test criteria: (O) Wind velocity and direction. repeated. (i) The control device model tested (vi) The test report shall include all (B) Report the molecular weight of: must meet the criteria in paragraphs calibration quality assurance/quality O2, CO2, methane (CH4), and N2 and (h)(7)(i)(A) through (C) of this section: control data, calibration gas values, gas include in the test report submitted (A) Method 22, 40 CFR part 60, cylinder certification, and strip charts under § 63.775(d)(iii). Moisture shall be Appendix A, results under paragraph annotated with test times and determined using Method 4, 40 CFR (h)(5)(v) of this section with no calibration values. part 60, Appendix A. Traverse both indication of visible emissions, and (i) Compliance demonstration for ports with the Method 4, 40 CFR part (B) Average Method 25A, 40 CFR part combustion control devices— 60, Appendix A, sampling train during 60, Appendix A, results under manufacturers’ performance test. This each test run. Ambient air shall not be paragraph (h)(6) of this section equal to paragraph applies to the demonstration introduced into the Method 3C, 40 CFR or less than 10.0 ppmvw THC as of compliance for a combustion control part 60, Appendix A, integrated bag propane corrected to 3.0 percent CO2, device tested under the provisions in sample during the port change. and paragraph (h) of this section. Owners or (iii) Carbon monoxide shall be (C) Average CO emissions determined operators shall demonstrate that a determined using Method 10, 40 CFR under paragraph (h)(5)(iv) of this section control device achieves the performance part 60, Appendix A. The test shall be equal to or less than 10 parts ppmvd, requirements of § 63.771(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii) run at the same time and with the corrected to 3.0 percent CO2. or (f)(1), by installing a device tested sample points used for the EPA Method (ii) The manufacturer shall determine under paragraph (h) of this section and 25A, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, a maximum inlet gas flow rate which complying with the following criteria: testing. An instrument range of 0–10 per shall not be exceeded for each control (1) The inlet gas flow rate shall meet million by volume-dry (ppmvd) shall be device model to achieve the criteria in the range specified by the manufacturer. used. paragraph (h)(7)(i) of this section. Flow rate shall be measured as specified (iv) Visible emissions shall be (iii) A control device meeting the in § 63.773(d)(3)(i)(H)(1). determined using Method 22, 40 CFR criteria in paragraphs (h)(7)(i)(A) (2) A pilot flame shall be present at all part 60, Appendix A. The test shall be through (C) of this section will have times of operation. The pilot flame shall performed continuously during each demonstrated a destruction efficiency of be monitored in accordance with test run. A digital color photograph of 98.0 percent for HAP regulated under § 63.773(d)(3)(i)(H)(2). the exhaust point, taken from the this subpart. (3) Devices shall be operated with no position of the observer and annotated (8) The owner or operator of a visible emissions, except for periods not with date and time, will be taken once combustion control device model tested to exceed a total of 5 minutes during per test run and the four photos under this section shall submit the any 2 consecutive hours. A visible included in the test report. information listed in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) emissions test using Method 22, 40 CFR (6) Total hydrocarbons (THC) shall be through (iii) of this section in the test part 60, Appendix A, shall be performed determined as specified by the report required under § 63.775(d)(1)(iii). monthly. The observation period shall following criteria: (i) Full schematic of the control be 2 hours and shall be used according (i) Conduct THC sampling using device and dimensions of the device to Method 22. Method 25A, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix components. (4) Compliance with the operating A, except the option for locating the (ii) Design net heating value parameter limit is achieved when the probe in the center 10 percent of the (minimum and maximum) of the device. following criteria are met: stack shall not be allowed. The THC (iii) Test fuel gas flow range (in both (i) The inlet gas flow rate monitored probe must be traversed to 16.7 percent, mass and volume). Include the under paragraph (i)(1) of this section is 50 percent, and 83.3 percent of the stack minimum and maximum allowable inlet equal to or below the maximum diameter during the testing. gas flow rate. established by the manufacturer; and (ii) A valid test shall consist of three (iv) Air/stream injection/assist ranges, (ii) The pilot flame is present at all Method 25A, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix if used. times; and A, tests, each no less than 60 minutes (v) The test parameter ranges listed in (iii) During the visible emissions test in duration. paragraphs (h)(8)(v)(A) through (O) of performed under paragraph (i)(3) of this

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52822 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

section the duration of visible emissions operate a continuous parameter (i) Except for control devices for small does not exceed a total of 5 minutes monitoring system in accordance with glycol dehydration units, a boiler or during the observation period. Devices the requirements of paragraphs (d)(3) process heater in which all vent streams failing the visible emissions test shall through (9) of this section. Owners or are introduced with the primary fuel or follow the requirements in paragraphs operators that install and operate a flare is used as the primary fuel; or (i)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section. in accordance with § 63.771(d)(1)(iii) or (ii) Except for control devices for (A) Following the first failure, the fuel (f)(1)(iii) are exempt from the small glycol dehydration units, a boiler nozzle(s) and burner tubes shall be requirements of paragraphs (d)(4) and or process heater with a design heat replaced. (5) of this section. The continuous input capacity equal to or greater than (B) If, following replacement of the monitoring system shall be designed 44 megawatts. fuel nozzle(s) and burner tubes as and operated so that a determination (3) * * * specified in paragraph (i)(4)(iii)(A), the can be made on whether the control (i) * * * visible emissions test is not passed in device is achieving the applicable (A) For a thermal vapor incinerator the next scheduled test, either a performance requirements of that demonstrates during the performance test shall be performed § 63.771(d), (e)(3) or (f)(1). Each performance test conducted under under paragraph (e) of this section, or continuous parameter monitoring § 63.772(e) that the combustion zone the device shall be replaced with system shall meet the following temperature is an accurate indicator of another control device whose model specifications and requirements: performance, a temperature monitoring was tested, and meets, the requirements * * * * * device equipped with a continuous in paragraph (h) of this section. (ii) A site-specific monitoring plan recorder. The monitoring device shall 19. Section 63.773 is amended by: must be prepared that addresses the have a minimum accuracy of ± 1 percent a. Adding paragraph (b); monitoring system design, data of the temperature being monitored in b. Revising paragraph (d)(1) collection, and the quality assurance degrees C, or ± 2.5 degrees C, whichever introductory text; and quality control elements outlined in value is greater. The temperature sensor c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) and paragraph (d) of this section and in shall be installed at a location adding paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (iv); § 63.8(d). Each CPMS must be installed, representative of the combustion zone d. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and calibrated, operated, and maintained in temperature. (d)(2)(ii); accordance with the procedures in your (B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, e. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(A) and approved site-specific monitoring plan. a temperature monitoring device (B); Using the process described in equipped with a continuous recorder. f. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(D) and § 63.8(f)(4), you may request approval of The device shall be capable of (E); monitoring system quality assurance monitoring temperature at two locations g. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(F)(1) and have a minimum accuracy of ± 1 and (2); and quality control procedures alternative to those specified in percent of the temperature being h. Revising paragraph (d)(3)(i)(G); monitored in degrees C, or ± 2.5 degrees i. Adding paragraph (d)(3)(i)(H); paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section in your site-specific C, whichever value is greater. One j. Revising paragraph (d)(4); temperature sensor shall be installed in k. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(i); monitoring plan. the vent stream at the nearest feasible l. Revising paragraphs (d)(5)(ii)(A) (A) The performance criteria and point to the catalyst bed inlet and a through (C); design specifications for the monitoring second temperature sensor shall be m. Revising paragraphs (d)(6)(ii) and system equipment, including the sample installed in the vent stream at the (iii); interface, detector signal analyzer, and n. Adding paragraph (d)(6)(vi); data acquisition and calculations; nearest feasible point to the catalyst bed o. Revising paragraph (d)(8)(i)(A); and (B) Sampling interface (e.g., outlet. p. Revising paragraph (d)(8)(ii) to read thermocouple) location such that the * * * * * as follows: monitoring system will provide (D) For a boiler or process heater a representative measurements; temperature monitoring device § 63.773 Inspection and monitoring (C) Equipment performance checks, equipped with a continuous recorder. requirements. system accuracy audits, or other audit The temperature monitoring device * * * * * procedures; shall have a minimum accuracy of ± 1 (b) The owner or operator of a control (D) Ongoing operation and percent of the temperature being device whose model was tested under maintenance procedures in accordance monitored in degrees C, or ± 2.5 degrees § 63.772(h) shall develop an inspection with provisions in § 63.8(c)(1) and C, whichever value is greater. The and maintenance plan for each control (c)(3); and temperature sensor shall be installed at device. At a minimum, the plan shall (E) Ongoing reporting and a location representative of the contain the control device recordkeeping procedures in accordance combustion zone temperature. manufacturer’s recommendations for with provisions in § 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (E) For a condenser, a temperature ensuring proper operation of the device. (e)(2)(i). monitoring device equipped with a Semi-annual inspections shall be (iii) The owner or operator must continuous recorder. The temperature conducted for each control device with conduct the CPMS equipment monitoring device shall have a maintenance and replacement of control performance checks, system accuracy minimum accuracy of ± 1 percent of the device components made in accordance audits, or other audit procedures temperature being monitored in degrees with the plan. specified in the site-specific monitoring C, or ± 2.8 degrees C, whichever value * * * * * plan at least once every 12 months. is greater. The temperature sensor shall (d) Control device monitoring (iv) The owner or operator must be installed at a location in the exhaust requirements. (1) For each control conduct a performance evaluation of vent stream from the condenser. device, except as provided for in each CPMS in accordance with the site- (F) * * * paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the specific monitoring plan. (1) A continuous parameter owner or operator shall install and (2) * * * monitoring system to measure and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52823

record the average total regeneration (i) The owner or operator shall accordance with the requirements of stream mass flow or volumetric flow establish a minimum operating § 63.772(e)(4)(i) to demonstrate that the during each carbon bed regeneration parameter value or a maximum condenser achieves the applicable cycle. The flow sensor must have a operating parameter value, as performance requirements specified in measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of appropriate for the control device, to § 63.771(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii) or (f)(1), then the the flow rate or 10 cubic feet per define the conditions at which the condenser performance curve shall be minute, whichever is greater. The control device must be operated to based on the condenser design analysis mechanical connections for leakage continuously achieve the applicable and may be supplemented by the must be checked at least every month, performance requirements of control device manufacturer’s and a visual inspection must be § 63.771(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii) or (f)(1). Each recommendations. performed at least every 3 months of all minimum or maximum operating (C) As an alternative to paragraph components of the flow CPMS for parameter value shall be established as (d)(5)(ii)(B) of this section, the owner or physical and operational integrity and follows: operator may elect to use the procedures all electrical connections for oxidation (A) If the owner or operator conducts documented in the GRI report entitled, and galvanic corrosion if your flow performance tests in accordance with ‘‘Atmospheric Rich/Lean Method for CPMS is not equipped with a redundant the requirements of § 63.772(e)(3) to Determining Glycol Dehydrator flow sensor; and demonstrate that the control device Emissions’’ (GRI–95/0368.1) as inputs (2) A continuous parameter achieves the applicable performance for the model GRI–GLYCalcTM, Version monitoring system to measure and requirements specified in § 63.771(d)(1), 3.0 or higher, to generate a condenser record the average carbon bed (e)(3)(ii) or (f)(1), then the minimum performance curve. operating parameter value or the temperature for the duration of the * * * * * carbon bed steaming cycle and to maximum operating parameter value (6) * * * measure the actual carbon bed shall be established based on values temperature after regeneration and measured during the performance test (ii) For sources meeting within 15 minutes of completing the and supplemented, as necessary, by a § 63.771(d)(1)(ii), an excursion occurs cooling cycle. The temperature condenser design analysis or control when the 365-day average condenser monitoring device shall have a device manufacturer recommendations efficiency calculated according to the minimum accuracy of ± 1 percent of the or a combination of both. requirements specified in temperature being monitored in degrees (B) If the owner or operator uses a § 63.772(g)(2)(iii) is less than 95.0 C, or ± 2.5 degrees C, whichever value condenser design analysis in accordance percent. For sources meeting is greater. with the requirements of § 63.772(e)(4) § 63.771(f)(1), an excursion occurs when to demonstrate that the control device (G) For a nonregenerative-type carbon the 365-day average condenser achieves the applicable performance adsorption system, the owner or efficiency calculated according to the requirements specified in § 63.771(d)(1), operator shall monitor the design carbon requirements specified in (e)(3)(ii) or (f)(1), then the minimum replacement interval established using a § 63.772(g)(2)(iii) is less than 95.0 operating parameter value or the performance test performed in percent of the identified 365-day maximum operating parameter value accordance with § 63.772(e)(3) shall be required percent reduction. shall be established based on the based on the total carbon working (iii) For sources meeting condenser design analysis and may be capacity of the control device and § 63.771(d)(1)(ii), if an owner or supplemented by the condenser source operating schedule. operator has less than 365 days of data, manufacturer’s recommendations. (H) For a control device model whose an excursion occurs when the average (C) If the owner or operator operates condenser efficiency calculated model is tested under § 63.772(h): a control device where the performance (1) A continuous monitoring system according to the procedures specified in test requirement was met under § 63.772(g)(2)(iii)(A) or (B) is less than that measures gas flow rate at the inlet § 63.772(h) to demonstrate that the to the control device. The monitoring 90.0 percent. For sources meeting control device achieves the applicable § 63.771(d)(1)(ii), an excursion occurs instrument shall have an accuracy of performance requirements specified in plus or minus 2 percent or better. when the 365-day average condenser § 63.771(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii) or (f)(1), then the efficiency calculated according to the (2) A heat sensing monitoring device maximum inlet gas flow rate shall be equipped with a continuous recorder requirements specified in established based on the performance § 63.772(g)(2)(iii) is less than the that indicates the continuous ignition of test and supplemented, as necessary, by the pilot flame. identified 365-day required percent the manufacturer recommendations. reduction. * * * * * (ii) * * * (4) Using the data recorded by the (A) If the owner or operator conducts * * * * * monitoring system, except for inlet gas a performance test in accordance with (vi) For control device whose model flow rate, the owner or operator must the requirements of § 63.772(e)(3) to is tested under § 63.772(h) an excursion calculate the daily average value for demonstrate that the condenser achieves occurs when: each monitored operating parameter for the applicable performance (A) The inlet gas flow rate exceeds the each operating day. If the emissions unit requirements in § 63.771(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii) maximum established during the test operation is continuous, the operating or (f)(1), then the condenser conducted under § 63.772(h). day is a 24-hour period. If the emissions performance curve shall be based on (B) Failure of the monthly visible unit operation is not continuous, the values measured during the emissions test conducted under operating day is the total number of performance test and supplemented as § 63.772(i)(3) occurs. hours of control device operation per necessary by control device design * * * * * 24-hour period. Valid data points must analysis, or control device be available for 75 percent of the manufacturer’s recommendations, or a (8) * * * operating hours in an operating day to combination or both. (i) * * * compute the daily average. (B) If the owner or operator uses a (A) During a malfunction when the (5) * * * control device design analysis in affected facility is operated during such

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52824 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

period in accordance with § 63.6(e)(1); (g) The owner or operator of an shall be submitted by 1 year after an or affected source subject to this subpart affected source becomes subject to the * * * * * shall maintain records of the occurrence provisions of this subpart or by June 17, (ii) For each control device, or and duration of each malfunction of 2000, whichever is later. Affected combinations of control devices operation (i.e., process equipment) or sources that are major sources on or installed on the same emissions unit, the air pollution control equipment and before June 17, 2000 and plan to be area one excused excursion is allowed per monitoring equipment. The owner or sources by June 17, 2002 shall include semiannual period for any reason. The operator shall maintain records of in this notification a brief, nonbinding initial semiannual period is the 6-month actions taken during periods of description of a schedule for the reporting period addressed by the first malfunction to minimize emissions in action(s) that are planned to achieve Periodic Report submitted by the owner accordance with § 63.764(a), including area source status. or operator in accordance with corrective actions to restore (ii) An affected source identified § 63.775(e) of this subpart. malfunctioning process and air under § 63.760(f)(7) or (9) shall submit * * * * * pollution control and monitoring an initial notification required for 20. Section 63.774 is amended by: equipment to its normal or usual existing affected sources under a. Revising paragraph (b)(3) manner of operation. § 63.9(b)(2) within 1 year after the introductory text; (h) Record the following when using affected source becomes subject to the b. Removing and reserving paragraph a control device whose model is tested provisions of this subpart or by one year (b)(3)(ii); under § 63.772(h) to comply with after publication of the final rule in the c. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii) § 63.771(d), (e)(3)(ii) and (f)(1): Federal Register, whichever is later. An introductory text; (1) All visible emission readings and affected source identified under d. Adding paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C); flowrate measurements made during the § 63.760(f)(7) or (9) that plans to be an e. Adding paragraph (b)(7)(ix); and compliance determination required by area source by three years after f. Adding paragraphs (g) through (i) to § 63.772(i); and publication of the final rule in the read as follows: (2) All hourly records and other Federal Register, shall include in this recorded periods when the pilot flame notification a brief, nonbinding § 63.774 Recordkeeping requirements. is absent. description of a schedule for the * * * * * (i) The date the semi-annual action(s) that are planned to achieve (b) * * * maintenance inspection required under area source status. (3) Records specified in § 63.10(c) for § 63.773(b) is performed. Include a list each monitoring system operated by the * * * * * of any modifications or repairs made to (6) If there was a malfunction during owner or operator in accordance with the control device during the inspection the reporting period, the Periodic Report the requirements of § 63.773(d). and other maintenance performed such specified in paragraph (e) of this section Notwithstanding the requirements of as cleaning of the fuel nozzles. shall include the number, duration, and § 63.10(c), monitoring data recorded 21. Section 63.775 is amended by: a brief description for each type of during periods identified in paragraphs a. Revising paragraph (b)(1); malfunction which occurred during the (b)(3)(i) through (b)(3)(iv) of this section b. Revising paragraph (b)(6); reporting period and which caused or shall not be included in any average or c. Removing and reserving paragraph may have caused any applicable percent leak rate computed under this (b)(7); emission limitation to be exceeded. The subpart. Records shall be kept of the d. Revising paragraph (c)(1); report must also include a description of times and durations of all such periods e. Revising paragraph (c)(6); actions taken by an owner or operator and any other periods during process or f. Revising paragraph (c)(7)(i); during a malfunction of an affected control device operation when monitors g. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(i); source to minimize emissions in are not operating or failed to collect h. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) accordance with § 63.764(j), including required data. introductory text; actions taken to correct a malfunction. * * * * * i. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(ii); (7) [Reserved] (ii) [Reserved] j. Adding paragraph (d)(5)(iv); * * * * * * * * * * k. Revising paragraph (d)(11); l. Adding paragraphs (d)(13) and (c) * * * (4) * * * (1) The initial notifications required (d)(14); (ii) Records of the daily average value under § 63.9(b)(2) not later than January m. Revising paragraphs (e)(2) of each continuously monitored 3, 2008. In addition to submitting your introductory text, (e)(2)(ii)(B) and (C); parameter for each operating day initial notification to the addressees determined according to the procedures n. Adding paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(E) and (F); specified under § 63.9(a), you must also specified in § 63.773(d)(4) of this submit a copy of the initial notification subpart, except as specified in o. Adding paragraphs (e)(2)(xi) through (xiii); and to the EPA’s Office of Air Quality paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) of Planning and Standards. Send your this section. p. Adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: notification via e-mail to Oil and Gas * * * * * [email protected] or via U.S. mail or other (C) For control device whose model is § 63.775 Reporting requirements. mail delivery service to U.S. EPA, tested under § 63.772(h), the records * * * * * Sector Policies and Programs Division/ required in paragraph (h) of this section. (b) * * * Fuels and Incineration Group (E143– * * * * * (1) The initial notifications required 01), Attn: Oil and Gas Project Leader, (7) * * * for existing affected sources under Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. (ix) Records identifying the carbon § 63.9(b)(2) shall be submitted as * * * * * replacement schedule under provided in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) (6) If there was a malfunction during § 63.771(d)(5) and records of each of this section. the reporting period, the Periodic Report carbon replacement. (i) Except as otherwise provided in specified in paragraph (e) of this section * * * * * paragraph (ii), the initial notifications shall include the number, duration, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52825

a brief description for each type of applicable requirements of (E) For each excursion caused when malfunction which occurred during the § 63.771(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii) or (f)(1). the maximum inlet gas flow rate reporting period and which caused or * * * * * identified under § 63.772(h) is may have caused any applicable (iv) For each carbon adsorber, the exceeded, the report must include the emission limitation to be exceeded. The predetermined carbon replacement values of the inlet gas identified and the report must also include a description of schedule as required in § 63.771(d)(5)(i). date and duration of the period that the actions taken by an owner or operator * * * * * excursion occurred. during a malfunction of an affected (11) The owner or operator shall (F) For each excursion caused when source to minimize emissions in submit the analysis prepared under visible emissions determined under accordance with § 63.764(j), including § 63.771(e)(2) to demonstrate the § 63.772(i) exceed the maximum actions taken to correct a malfunction. conditions by which the facility will be allowable duration, the report must (7) * * * operated to achieve the HAP emission include the date and duration of the (i) Documentation of the source’s period that the excursion occurred. location relative to the nearest UA plus reduction of 95.0 percent, or the BTEX offset and UC boundaries. This limit in § 63.765(b)(1)(iii), through * * * * * information shall include the latitude process modifications or a combination (xi) The results of any periodic test as and longitude of the affected source; of process modifications and one or required in § 63.772(e)(3) conducted whether the source is located in an more control devices. during the reporting period. urban cluster with 10,000 people or * * * * * (xii) For each carbon adsorber used to more; the distance in miles to the (13) If the owner or operator installs meet the control device requirements of nearest urbanized area boundary if the a combustion control device model § 63.771(d)(1), records of each carbon source is not located in an urban cluster tested under the procedures in replacement that occurred during the with 10,000 people or more; and the § 63.772(h), the data listed under reporting period. name of the nearest urban cluster with § 63.772(h)(8). (xiii) For combustion control device 10,000 people or more and nearest (14) For each combustion control inspections conducted in accordance urbanized area. device model tested under § 63.772(h), with § 63.773(b) the records specified in * * * * * the information listed in paragraphs § 63.774(i). (d)(14)(i) through (vi) of this section. (d) * * * * * * * * (1) * * * (i) Name, address and telephone (i) The condenser design analysis number of the control device (g) Electronic reporting. (1) As of documentation specified in manufacturer. January 1, 2012 and within 60 days after § 63.772(e)(4) of this subpart, if the (ii) Control device model number. the date of completing each owner or operator elects to prepare a (iii) Control device serial number. performance test, as defined in § 63.2 design analysis. (iv) Date of control device and as required in this subpart, you (ii) If the owner or operator is certification test. must submit performance test data, required to conduct a performance test, (v) Manufacturer’s HAP destruction except opacity data, electronically to the the performance test results including efficiency rating. EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by the information specified in paragraphs (vi) Control device operating using the Electronic Reporting Tool (d)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. parameters, maximum allowable inlet (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ Results of a performance test conducted gas flowrate. ert/ert tool.html/). Only data collected prior to the compliance date of this (e) * * * using test methods compatible with ERT subpart can be used provided that the (2) The owner or operator shall are subject to this requirement to be test was conducted using the methods include the information specified in submitted electronically into the EPA’s specified in § 63.772(e)(3) and that the paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (xiii) of this WebFIRE database. test conditions are representative of section, as applicable. (2) All reports required by this current operating conditions. If the * * * * * subpart not subject to the requirements owner or operator operates a (ii) * * * in paragraphs (g)(1) of this section must combustion control device model tested (B) For each excursion caused when be sent to the Administrator at the under § 63.772(h), an electronic copy of the 365-day average condenser control appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If the performance test results shall be efficiency is less than the value acceptable to both the Administrator submitted via e-mail to Oil and Gas specified in § 63.773(d)(6)(ii), the report and the owner or operator of a source, [email protected]. must include the 365-day average values these reports may be submitted on * * * * * of the condenser control efficiency, and electronic media. The Administrator (5) * * * the date and duration of the period that retains the right to require submittal of (ii) An explanation of the rationale for the excursion occurred. reports subject to paragraph (g)(1) of this why the owner or operator selected each (C) For each excursion caused when section in paper format. of the operating parameter values condenser control efficiency is less than 22. Appendix to subpart HH of part 63 established in § 63.773(d)(5). This the value specified in § 63.773(d)(6)(iii), is amended by revising Table 2 to read explanation shall include any data and the report must include the average as follows: calculations used to develop the value values of the condenser control and a description of why the chosen efficiency, and the date and duration of Appendix to Subpart HH of Part 63— value indicates that the control device is the period that the excursion occurred. Tables operating in accordance with the * * * * * * * * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52826 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HH

Applicable to General provisions reference subpart HH Explanation

§ 63.1(a)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(5) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.1(a)(6) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(7) through (a)(9) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.1(a)(10) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(11) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(12) ...... Yes. § 63.1(b)(1) ...... No ...... Subpart HH specifies applicability. § 63.1(b)(2) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.1(b)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.1(c)(1) ...... No ...... Subpart HH specifies applicability. § 63.1(c)(2) ...... Yes ...... Subpart HH exempts area sources from the requirement to obtain a Title V permit unless otherwise required by law as specified in § 63.760(h). § 63.1(c)(3) and (c)(4) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.1(c)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.1(d) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.1(e) ...... Yes. § 63.2 ...... Yes ...... Except definition of major source is unique for this source category and there are additional definitions in subpart HH. § 63.3(a) through (c) ...... Yes. § 63.4(a)(1) through (a)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.4(a)(3) through (a)(5) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.4(b) ...... Yes. § 63.4(c) ...... Yes. § 63.5(a)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.5(a)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.5(b)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.5(b)(2) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.5(b)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.5(b)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.5(b)(5) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.5(b)(6) ...... Yes. § 63.5(c) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.5(d)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.5(d)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.5(d)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.5(d)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.5(e) ...... Yes. § 63.5(f)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.5(f)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.6(a) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(6) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.6(b)(7) ...... Yes. § 63.6(c)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.6(c)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.6(c)(3) through (c)(4) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.6(c)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.6(d) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.6(e) ...... Yes. § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ...... No ...... See § 63.764(j) for general duty requirement. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ...... No. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ...... Yes. § 63.6(e)(2) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.6(e)(3) ...... No. § 63.6(f)(1) ...... No. § 63.6(f)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.6(f)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.6(g) ...... Yes. § 63.6(h) ...... No ...... Subpart HH does not contain opacity or visible emission standards. § 63.6(i)(1) through (i)(14) ...... Yes. § 63.6(i)(15) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.6(i)(16) ...... Yes. § 63.6(j) ...... Yes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:55 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52827

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HH— Continued

Applicable to General provisions reference subpart HH Explanation

§ 63.7(a)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.7(a)(2) ...... Yes ...... But the performance test results must be submitted within 180 days after the com- pliance date. § 63.7(a)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.7(b) ...... Yes. § 63.7(c) ...... Yes. § 63.7(d) ...... Yes. § 63.7(e)(1) ...... No. § 63.7(e)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.7(e)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.7(e)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.7(f) ...... Yes. § 63.7(g) ...... Yes. § 63.7(h) ...... Yes. § 63.8(a)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.8(a)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.8(a)(3) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.8(a)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.8(b)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.8(b)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.8(b)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.8(c)(1) ...... No. § 63.8(c)(1)(i) ...... No. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ...... Yes. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ...... Pending. § 63.8(c)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.8(c)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.8(c)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.8(c)(4)(i) ...... No ...... Subpart HH does not require continuous opacity monitors. § 63.8(c)(4)(ii) ...... Yes. § 63.8(c)(5) through (c)(8) ...... Yes. § 63.8(d) ...... Yes. § 63.8(d)(3) ...... Yes ...... Except for last sentence, which refers to an SSM plan. SSM plans are not required. § 63.8(e) ...... Yes ...... Subpart HH does not specifically require continuous emissions monitor perform- ance evaluation, however, the Administrator can request that one be conducted. § 63.8(f)(1) through (f)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.8(f)(6) ...... Yes. § 63.8(g) ...... No ...... Subpart HH specifies continuous monitoring system data reduction requirements. § 63.9(a) ...... Yes. § 63.9(b)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.9(b)(2) ...... Yes ...... Existing sources are given 1 year (rather than 120 days) to submit this notification. Major and area sources that meet § 63.764(e) do not have to submit initial notifi- cations. § 63.9(b)(3) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.9(b)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.9(b)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.9(c) ...... Yes. § 63.9(d) ...... Yes. § 63.9(e) ...... Yes. § 63.9(f) ...... No ...... Subpart HH does not have opacity or visible emission standards. § 63.9(g)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.9(g)(2) ...... No ...... Subpart HH does not have opacity or visible emission standards. § 63.9(g)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.9(h)(1) through (h)(3) ...... Yes ...... Area sources located outside UA plus offset and UC boundaries are not required to submit notifications of compliance status. § 63.9(h)(4) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.9(h)(5) through (h)(6) ...... Yes. § 63.9(i) ...... Yes. § 63.9(j) ...... Yes. § 63.10(a) ...... Yes. § 63.10(b)(1) ...... Yes ...... § 63.774(b)(1) requires sources to maintain the most recent 12 months of data on- site and allows offsite storage for the remaining 4 years of data. § 63.10(b)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ...... No ...... § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ...... No ...... See § 63.774(g) for recordkeeping of occurrence, duration, and actions taken dur- ing malfunctions. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ...... Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv) through (b)(2)(v) ...... No. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (b)(2)(xiv) ...... Yes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:55 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52828 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HH— Continued

Applicable to General provisions reference subpart HH Explanation

§ 63.10(b)(3) ...... Yes ...... § 63.774(b)(1) requires sources to maintain the most recent 12 months of data on- site and allows offsite storage for the remaining 4 years of data. § 63.10(c)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.10(c)(2) through (c)(4) ...... No ...... Sections reserved. § 63.10(c)(5) through (8)(c)(8) ...... Yes. § 63.10(c)(9) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.10(c)(10) through (11) ...... No ...... See § 63.774(g) for recordkeeping of malfunctions. § 63.10(c)(12) through (14) ...... Yes. § 63.10(c)(15) ...... No. § 63.10(d)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.10(d)(2) ...... Yes ...... Area sources located outside UA plus offset and UC boundaries do not have to submit performance test reports. § 63.10(d)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.10(d)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.10(d)(5) ...... No ...... See § 63.775(b)(6) or (c)(6) for reporting of malfunctions. § 63.10(e)(1) ...... Yes ...... Area sources located outside UA plus offset and UC boundaries are not required to submit reports. § 63.10(e)(2) ...... Yes ...... Area sources located outside UA plus offset and UC boundaries are not required to submit reports. § 63.10(e)(3)(i) ...... Yes ...... Subpart HH requires major sources to submit Periodic Reports semi-annually. Area sources are required to submit Periodic Reports annually. Area sources located outside UA plus offset and UC boundaries are not required to submit reports. § 63.10(e)(3)(i)(A) ...... Yes. § 63.10(e)(3)(i)(B) ...... Yes. § 63.10(e)(3)(i)(C) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.10(e)(3)(ii) through (viii) ...... Yes. § 63.10(f) ...... Yes. § 63.11(a) and (b) ...... Yes. § 63.11(c), (d), and (e) ...... Yes. § 63.12(a) through (c) ...... Yes. § 63.13(a) through (c) ...... Yes. § 63.14(a) and (b) ...... Yes. § 63.15(a) and (b) ...... Yes. § 63.16 ...... Yes.

Subpart HHH—[Amended] the owner or operator of a new or source from limiting its potential to emit existing source may use the facility through other appropriate mechanisms 23. Section 63.1270 is amended by: design maximum natural gas throughput that may be available through the a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory to estimate the maximum potential permitting authority. text; emissions. Other means to determine * * * * * b. Revising paragraph (a)(4); the facility’s major source status are (4) The owner or operator shall c. Revising paragraphs (d)(1) and allowed, provided the information is determine the maximum values for (d)(2); and documented and recorded to the other parameters used to calculate d. Adding paragraphs (d)(3), (4) and Administrator’s satisfaction in potential emissions as the maximum (5) to read as follows: accordance with § 63.10(b)(3). A over the same period for which § 63.1270 Applicability and designation of compressor station that transports maximum throughput is determined as affected source. natural gas prior to the point of custody specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of (a) This subpart applies to owners and transfer or to a natural gas processing this section. These parameters shall be operators of natural gas transmission plant (if present) is not considered a based on an annual average or the and storage facilities that transport or part of the natural gas transmission and highest single measured value. For store natural gas prior to entering the storage source category. A facility that is estimating maximum potential pipeline to a local distribution company determined to be an area source, but emissions from glycol dehydration or to a final end user (if there is no local subsequently increases its emissions or units, the glycol circulation rate used in distribution company), and that are its potential to emit above the major the calculation shall be the unit’s major sources of hazardous air source levels (without obtaining and maximum rate under its physical and pollutants (HAP) emissions as defined complying with other limitations that operational design consistent with the in § 63.1271. Emissions for major source keep its potential to emit HAP below definition of potential to emit in § 63.2. determination purposes can be major source levels), and becomes a * * * * * estimated using the maximum natural major source, must comply thereafter (d) * * * gas throughput calculated in either with all applicable provisions of this (1) Except as specified in paragraphs paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section subpart starting on the applicable (d)(3) through (5) of this section, the and paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this compliance date specified in paragraph owner or operator of an affected source, section. As an alternative to calculating (d) of this section. Nothing in this the construction or reconstruction of the maximum natural gas throughput, paragraph is intended to preclude a which commenced before February 6,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:55 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52829

1998, shall achieve compliance with the Affirmative defense means, in the § 63.1272 Startups and shutdowns. provisions of this subpart no later than context of an enforcement proceeding, a (a) The provisions set forth in this June 17, 2002 except as provided for in response or defense put forward by a subpart shall apply at all times. § 63.6(i). The owner or operator of an defendant, regarding which the (b) The owner or operator shall not area source, the construction or defendant has the burden of proof, and shut down items of equipment that are reconstruction of which commenced the merits of which are independently required or utilized for compliance with before February 6, 1998, that increases and objectively evaluated in a judicial the provisions of this subpart during its emissions of (or its potential to emit) or administrative proceeding. times when emissions are being routed HAP such that the source becomes a * * * * * to such items of equipment, if the major source that is subject to this BTEX means benzene, toluene, ethyl shutdown would contravene subpart shall comply with this subpart benzene and xylene. requirements of this subpart applicable 3 years after becoming a major source. * * * * * to such items of equipment. This (2) Except as specified in paragraphs Flare means a thermal oxidation paragraph does not apply if the owner (d)(3) through (5) of this section, the system using an open flame (i.e., or operator must shut down the owner or operator of an affected source, without enclosure). equipment to avoid damage due to a the construction or reconstruction of * * * * * contemporaneous startup or shutdown which commences on or after February Glycol dehydration unit baseline of the affected source or a portion 6, 1998, shall achieve compliance with operations means operations thereof. the provisions of this subpart representative of the large glycol (c) During startups and shutdowns, immediately upon initial startup or June dehydration unit operations as of June the owner or operator shall implement 17, 1999, whichever date is later. Area 17, 1999 and the small glycol measures to prevent or minimize excess sources, the construction or dehydration unit operations as of emissions to the maximum extent reconstruction of which commences on August 23, 2011. For the purposes of practical. or after February 6, 1998, that become this subpart, for determining the (d) In response to an action to enforce major sources shall comply with the percentage of overall HAP emission the standards set forth in this subpart, provisions of this standard immediately reduction attributable to process you may assert an affirmative defense to upon becoming a major source. modifications, glycol dehydration unit a claim for civil penalties for (3) Each affected small glycol baseline operations shall be parameter exceedances of such standards that are dehydration unit, as defined in values (including, but not limited to, caused by malfunction, as defined in § 63.1271, located at a major source, that glycol circulation rate or glycol-HAP § 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be commenced construction before August absorbency) that represent actual long- assessed, however, if you fail to meet 23, 2011 must achieve compliance no term conditions (i.e., at least 1 year). your burden of proving all the later than 3 years after the date of Glycol dehydration units in operation requirements in the affirmative defense. publication of the final rule in the for less than 1 year shall document that The affirmative defense shall not be Federal Register, except as provided in the parameter values represent expected available for claims for injunctive relief. § 63.6(i). long-term operating conditions had (1) To establish the affirmative (4) Each affected small glycol process modifications not been made. dehydration unit, as defined in defense in any action to enforce such a § 63.1271, located at a major source, that * * * * * limit, the owner or operator must timely Large glycol dehydration unit means a commenced construction on or after meet the notification requirements in glycol dehydration unit with an actual August 23, 2011 must achieve paragraph (d)(2) of this section, and annual average natural gas flowrate compliance immediately upon initial must prove by a preponderance of equal to or greater than 283.0 thousand startup or the date of publication of the evidence that: standard cubic meters per day and final rule in the Federal Register, (i) The excess emissions: actual annual average benzene whichever is later. (A) Were caused by a sudden, (5) Each large glycol dehydration unit, emissions equal to or greater than 0.90 infrequent, and unavoidable failure of as defined in § 63.1271, that has Mg/yr, determined according to air pollution control and monitoring complied with the provisions of this § 63.1282(a). equipment, process equipment, or a subpart prior to August 23, 2011 by * * * * * process to operate in a normal or usual reducing its benzene emissions to less Small glycol dehydration unit means manner; and than 0.9 megagrams per year must a glycol dehydration unit, located at a (B) Could not have been prevented achieve compliance no later than major source, with an actual annual through careful planning, proper design 90 days after the date of publication of average natural gas flowrate less than or better operation and maintenance the final rule in the Federal Register, 283.0 thousand standard cubic meters practices; and except as provided in § 63.6(i). per day or actual annual average (C) Did not stem from any activity or benzene emissions less than 0.90 Mg/yr, event that could have been foreseen and * * * * * 24. Section 63.1271 is amended by: determined according to § 63.1282(a). avoided, or planned for; and a. Adding, in alphabetical order, new Temperature monitoring device (D) Were not part of a recurring definitions for the terms ‘‘affirmative means an instrument used to monitor pattern indicative of inadequate design, temperature and having a minimum operation, or maintenance; and defense,’’ ‘‘BTEX,’’ ‘‘flare,’’ ‘‘large glycol ± dehydration units,’’ ‘‘small glycol accuracy of 1 percent of the (ii) Repairs were made as temperature being monitored expressed expeditiously as possible when the dehydration units’’; and ° ± ° b. Revising the definitions for ‘‘glycol in C, or 2.5 C, whichever is greater. applicable emission limitations were dehydration unit baseline operations’’ The temperature monitoring device may being exceeded. Off-shift and overtime and ‘‘temperature monitoring device’’ to measure temperature in degrees labor were used, to the extent read as follows: Fahrenheit or degrees Celsius, or both. practicable to make these repairs; and * * * * * (iii) The frequency, amount and § 63.1271 Definitions. 25. Section 63.1272 is revised to read duration of the excess emissions * * * * * as follows: (including any bypass) were minimized

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52830 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

to the maximum extent practicable met the requirements set forth in consistent with safety and good air during periods of such emissions; and paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The pollution control practices for (iv) If the excess emissions resulted owner or operator may seek an minimizing emissions. Determination of from a bypass of control equipment or extension of this deadline for up to 30 whether such operation and a process, then the bypass was additional days by submitting a written maintenance procedures are being used unavoidable to prevent loss of life, request to the Administrator before the will be based on information available personal injury, or severe property expiration of the 45 day period. Until a to the Administrator which may damage; and request for an extension has been include, but is not limited to, (v) All possible steps were taken to approved by the Administrator, the monitoring results, review of operation minimize the impact of the excess owner or operator is subject to the and maintenance procedures, review of emissions on ambient air quality, the requirement to submit such report operation and maintenance records, and environment, and human health; and within 45 days of the initial occurrence inspection of the source. (vi) All emissions monitoring and of the exceedance. 27. Section 63.1275 is amended by: control systems were kept in operation 26. Section 63.1274 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (a); if at all possible, consistent with safety a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); and good air pollution control practices; text; and b. Removing and reserving paragraph c. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and (vii) All of the actions in response to (d); d. Revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as the excess emissions were documented c. Revising paragraph (g); and follows: by properly signed, contemporaneous d. Adding paragraph (h) to read as § 63.1275 Glycol dehydration unit process operating logs; and follows: (viii) At all times, the affected source vent standards. was operated in a manner consistent § 63.1274 General standards. (a) This section applies to each glycol with good practices for minimizing * * * * * dehydration unit subject to this subpart emissions; and (c) The owner or operator of an that must be controlled for air emissions (ix) A written root cause analysis has affected source (i.e., glycol dehydration as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of been prepared to determine, correct, and unit) located at an existing or new major § 63.1274. eliminate the primary causes of the source of HAP emissions shall comply (b) * * * malfunction and the excess emissions with the requirements in this subpart as (1) For each glycol dehydration unit resulting from the malfunction event at follows: process vent, the owner or operator issue. The analysis shall also specify, * * * * * shall control air emissions by either using best monitoring methods and (d) [Reserved] paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(iii) of this engineering judgment, the amount of section. excess emissions that were the result of * * * * * (i) The owner or operator of a large the malfunction. (g) In all cases where the provisions (2) Notification. The owner or of this subpart require an owner or glycol dehydration unit, as defined in operator of the affected source operator to repair leaks by a specified § 63.1271, shall connect the process experiencing an exceedance of its time after the leak is detected, it is a vent to a control device or a emission limit(s) during a malfunction violation of this standard to fail to take combination of control devices through shall notify the Administrator by action to repair the leak(s) within the a closed-vent system. The closed-vent telephone or facsimile transmission as specified time. If action is taken to system shall be designed and operated soon as possible, but no later than two repair the leak(s) within the specified in accordance with the requirements of business days after the initial time, failure of that action to § 63.1281(c). The control device(s) shall occurrence of the malfunction, if it successfully repair the leak(s) is not a be designed and operated in accordance wishes to avail itself of an affirmative violation of this standard. However, if with the requirements of § 63.1281(d). defense to civil penalties for that the repairs are unsuccessful, and a leak (ii) [Reserved] malfunction. The owner or operator is detected, the owner or operator shall (iii) You must limit BTEX emissions seeking to assert an affirmative defense take further action as required by the from each small glycol dehydration shall also submit a written report to the applicable provisions of this subpart. unit, as defined in § 63.1271, to the limit Administrator within 45 days of the (h) At all times the owner or operator determined in Equation 1 of this initial occurrence of the exceedance of must operate and maintain any affected section. The limit must be met in the standard in this subpart to source, including associated air accordance with one of the alternatives demonstrate, with all necessary pollution control equipment and specified in paragraphs (b)(i)(iii)(A) supporting documentation, that it has monitoring equipment, in a manner through (D) of this section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:53 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP23AU11.007 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52831

Where: level less than the limit calculated in (i) Each control device used to comply ELBTEX = Unit-specific BTEX emission limit, paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. with this subpart shall be operating at megagrams per year; 28. Section 63.1281 is amended by: all times when gases, vapors, and fumes ¥ 6.42 × 10 5 = BTEX emission limit, grams a. Revising paragraph (c)(1); are vented from the emissions unit or BTEX/standard cubic meter -ppmv; b. Revising the heading of paragraph units through the closed vent system to Throughput = Annual average daily natural (d). gas throughput, standard cubic meters the control device as required under per day c. Adding paragraph (d) introductory § 63.1275. An owner or operator may Ci,BTEX = BTEX concentration of the natural text; vent more than one unit to a control gas at the inlet to the glycol dehydration d. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(i) device used to comply with this unit, ppmv. introductory text; subpart. (A) Connect the process vent to a e. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C); * * * * * control device or combination of control f. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (5) * * * devices through a closed-vent system. (iii); (i) Following the initial startup of the The closed vent system shall be g. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(i); control device, all carbon in the control designed and operated in accordance h. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(i); device shall be replaced with fresh with the requirements of § 63.1281(c). i. Revising paragraph (e)(2); carbon on a regular, predetermined time The control device(s) shall be designed j. Revising paragraph (e)(3) interval that is no longer than the and operated in accordance with the introductory text; carbon service life established for the requirements of § 63.1281(f). k. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(ii); and carbon adsorption system. Records (B) Meet the emissions limit through l. Adding paragraph (f) to read as identifying the schedule for replacement process modifications in accordance follows: and records of each carbon replacement with the requirements specified in § 63.1281 Control equipment shall be maintained as required in § 63.1281(e). requirements. § 63.1284(b)(7)(ix). The schedule for (C) Meet the emission limit for each replacement shall be submitted with the small glycol dehydration unit using a * * * * * (c) * * * Notification of Compliance Status combination of process modifications Report as specified in and one or more control devices through (1) The closed-vent system shall route all gases, vapors, and fumes emitted § 63.1285(d)(4)(iv). Each carbon the requirements specified in replacement must be reported in the paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) of this from the material in an emissions unit to a control device that meets the Periodic Reports as specified in section. § 63.1285(e)(2)(xi). (D) Demonstrate that the emissions requirements specified in paragraph (d) * * * * * limit is met through actual uncontrolled of this section. * * * * * (e) * * * operation of the small glycol (2) The owner or operator shall dehydration unit. Document operational (d) Control device requirements for document, to the Administrator’s parameters in accordance with the sources except small glycol dehydration satisfaction, the conditions for which requirements specified in § 63.1281(e) units. Owners and operators of small glycol dehydration unit baseline and emissions in accordance with the glycol dehydration units shall comply operations shall be modified to achieve requirements specified in with the control requirements in the 95.0 percent overall HAP emission § 63.1282(a)(3). paragraph (f) of this section. reduction, or BTEX limit determined in * * * * * (1) * * * (i) An enclosed combustion device § 63.1275(b)(1)(iii), as applicable, either (c) * * * through process modifications or (2) The owner or operator shall (e.g., thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic through a combination of process demonstrate, to the Administrator’s vapor incinerator, boiler, or process modifications and one or more control satisfaction, that the total HAP heater) that is designed and operated in devices. If a combination of process emissions to the atmosphere from the accordance with one of the following modifications and one or more control large glycol dehydration unit process performance requirements: devices are used, the owner or operator vent are reduced by 95.0 percent * * * * * shall also establish the emission through process modifications or a (C) For a control device that can combination of process modifications reduction to be achieved by the control demonstrate a uniform combustion zone device to achieve an overall HAP and one or more control devices, in temperature during the performance test accordance with the requirements emission reduction of 95.0 percent for conducted under § 63.1282(d), operates the glycol dehydration unit process vent specified in § 63.1281(e). at a minimum temperature of 760 °C. (3) Control of HAP emissions from a or, if applicable, the BTEX limit * * * * * GCG separator (flash tank) vent is not determined in § 63.1275(b)(1)(iii) for the (ii) A vapor recovery device (e.g., required if the owner or operator small glycol dehydration unit process carbon adsorption system or condenser) demonstrates, to the Administrator’s vent. Only modifications in glycol or other non-destructive control device satisfaction, that total emissions to the dehydration unit operations directly that is designed and operated to reduce atmosphere from the glycol dehydration related to process changes, including the mass content of either TOC or total unit process vent are reduced by one of but not limited to changes in glycol HAP in the gases vented to the device the levels specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i) circulation rate or glycol-HAP by 95.0 percent by weight or greater as or (iii) through the installation and absorbency, shall be allowed. Changes determined in accordance with the operation of controls as specified in in the inlet gas characteristics or natural requirements of § 63.1282(d). paragraph (b)(1) of this section. gas throughput rate shall not be (i) For any large glycol dehydration (iii) A flare, as defined in § 63.1271, considered in determining the overall unit, HAP emissions are reduced by that is designed and operated in emission reduction due to process 95.0 percent or more. accordance with the requirements of modifications. (ii) [Reserved] § 63.11(b). (3) The owner or operator that (iii) For each small glycol dehydration * * * * * achieves a 95.0 percent HAP emission unit, BTEX emissions are reduced to a (4) * * * reduction or meets the BTEX limit

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52832 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

determined in § 63.1275(b)(1)(iii), as the requirements of either § 63.1282(e) (i) The owner or operator shall applicable, using process modifications or (h). determine actual average benzene or alone shall comply with paragraph (3) For each carbon adsorption system BTEX emissions using the model GRI– (e)(3)(i) of this section. The owner or used as a control device to meet the GLYCalcTM, Version 3.0 or higher, and operator that achieves a 95.0 percent requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this the procedures presented in the HAP emission reduction or meets the section, the owner or operator shall associated GRI–GLYCalcTM Technical BTEX limit determined in manage the carbon as required under Reference Manual. Inputs to the model § 63.1275(b)(1)(iii), as applicable, using (d)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section. shall be representative of actual a combination of process modifications 29. Section 63.1282 is amended by: operating conditions of the glycol and one or more control devices shall a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory dehydration unit and may be comply with paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and text; determined using the procedures (e)(3)(ii) of this section. b. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii); documented in the Gas Research c. Revising paragraph (a)(2); * * * * * Institute (GRI) report entitled d. Adding paragraph (c); ‘‘Atmospheric Rich/Lean Method for (ii) The owner or operator shall e. Revising paragraph (d) introductory comply with the control device Determining Glycol Dehydrator text; Emissions’’ (GRI–95/0368.1); or requirements specified in paragraph (d) f. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) or (f) of this section, as applicable, (ii) The owner or operator shall through (v); determine an average mass rate of except that the emission reduction or g. Revising paragraph (d)(2); limit achieved shall be the emission benzene or BTEX emissions in h. Revising paragraph (d)(3) kilograms per hour through direct reduction or limit specified for the introductory text; measurement by performing three runs control device(s) in paragraph (e)(2) of i. Revising paragraph (d)(3)(i)(B); of Method 18 in 40 CFR part 60, this section. j. Revising paragraph (d)(3)(iv)(C)(1); appendix A (or an equivalent method), (f) Control device requirements for k. Adding paragraphs (d)(3)(v) and and averaging the results of the three small glycol dehydration units. (1) The (vi); runs. Annual emissions in kilograms per control device used to meet BTEX the l. Revising paragraph (d)(4) year shall be determined by multiplying emission limit calculated in introductory text; the mass rate by the number of hours § 63.1275(b)(1)(iii) shall be one of the m. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(i); the unit is operated per year. This result control devices specified in paragraphs n. Revising paragraph (d)(5); shall be converted to megagrams per o. Revising paragraph (e) introductory (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. year. (i) An enclosed combustion device text; (e.g., thermal vapor incinerator, catalytic p. Revising paragraphs (e)(2) and * * * * * (c) Test procedures and compliance vapor incinerator, boiler, or process (e)(3); demonstrations for small glycol heater) that is designed and operated to q. Adding paragraphs (e)(4) through dehydration units. This paragraph reduce the mass content of BTEX in the (e)(6); applies to the test procedures for small gases vented to the device as r. Revising paragraph (f) introductory dehydration units. determined in accordance with the text; s. Revising paragraph (f)(1); (1) If the owner or operator is using requirements of § 63.1282(d). If a boiler a control device to comply with the or process heater is used as the control t. Revising paragraph (f)(2) introductory text; emission limit in § 63.1275(b)(1)(iii), the device, then the vent stream shall be requirements of paragraph (d) of this introduced into the flame zone of the u. Revising paragraph (f)(2)(iii); v. Revising paragraph (f)(3); and section apply. Compliance is boiler or process heater; or demonstrated using the methods (ii) A vapor recovery device (e.g., w. Adding paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows: specified in paragraph (e) of this carbon adsorption system or condenser) section. or other non-destructive control device § 63.1282 Test methods, compliance (2) If no control device is used to that is designed and operated to reduce procedures, and compliance comply with the emission limit in the mass content of BTEX in the gases demonstrations. § 63.1275(b)(1)(iii), the owner or vented to the device as determined in (a) Determination of glycol operator must determine the glycol accordance with the requirements of dehydration unit flowrate, benzene dehydration unit BTEX emissions as § 63.1282(d); or emissions, or BTEX emissions. The specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) A flare, as defined in § 63.1271, procedures of this paragraph shall be (iii) of this section. Compliance is that is designed and operated in used by an owner or operator to demonstrated if the BTEX emissions accordance with the requirements of determine glycol dehydration unit determined as specified in paragraphs § 63.11(b). natural gas flowrate, benzene emissions, (c)(2)(i) through (iii) are less than the (2) The owner or operator shall or BTEX emissions. emission limit calculated using the operate each control device in (1) * * * equation in § 63.1275(b)(1)(iii). accordance with the requirements (ii) The owner or operator shall (i) Method 1 or 1A, 40 CFR part 60, specified in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (ii) document, to the Administrator’s appendix A, as appropriate, shall be of this section. satisfaction, the actual annual average used for selection of the sampling sites (i) Each control device used to comply natural gas flowrate to the glycol at the outlet of the glycol dehydration with this subpart shall be operating at dehydration unit. unit process vent. Any references to all times. An owner or operator may (2) The determination of actual particulate mentioned in Methods 1 and vent more than one unit to a control average benzene or BTEX emissions 1A do not apply to this section. device used to comply with this from a glycol dehydration unit shall be (ii) The gas volumetric flowrate shall subpart. made using the procedures of either be determined using Method 2, 2A, 2C, (ii) For each control device monitored paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this or 2D, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, as in accordance with the requirements of section. Emissions shall be determined appropriate. § 63.1283(d), the owner or operator shall either uncontrolled or with federally (iii) The BTEX emissions from the demonstrate compliance according to enforceable controls in place. outlet of the glycol dehydration unit

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52833

process vent shall be determined using (iv) Except for control devices used Method 18, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; the procedures specified in paragraph for small glycol dehydration units, a ASTM D6420–99 (2004), as specified in (d)(3)(v) of this section. As an boiler or process heater burning § 63.772(a)(1)(ii); or any other method or alternative, the mass rate of BTEX at the hazardous waste for which the owner or data that have been validated according outlet of the glycol dehydration unit operator has either been issued a final to the applicable procedures in Method process vent may be calculated using permit under 40 CFR part 270 and 301, 40 CFR part 63, appendix A. The the model GRI–GLYCalcTM, Version 3.0 complies with the requirements of 40 following procedures shall be used to or higher, and the procedures presented CFR part 266, subpart H, or has certified calculate BTEX emissions: in the associated GRI–GLYCalcTM compliance with the interim status (A) The minimum sampling time for Technical Reference Manual. Inputs to requirements of 40 CFR part 266, each run shall be 1 hour in which either the model shall be representative of subpart H; an integrated sample or a minimum of actual operating conditions of the glycol (v) Except for control devices used for four grab samples shall be taken. If grab dehydration unit and shall be small glycol dehydration units, a sampling is used, then the samples shall determined using the procedures hazardous waste incinerator for which be taken at approximately equal documented in the Gas Research the owner or operator has been issued intervals in time, such as 15-minute Institute (GRI) report entitled a final permit under 40 CFR part 270 intervals during the run. ‘‘Atmospheric Rich/Lean Method for and complies with the requirements of (B) The mass rate of BTEX (Eo) shall Determining Glycol Dehydrator 40 CFR part 264, subpart O, or has be computed using the equations and Emissions’’ (GRI–95/0368.1). When the certified compliance with the interim procedures specified in paragraphs BTEX mass rate is calculated for glycol status requirements of 40 CFR part 265, (d)(3)(v)(B)(1) and (2) of this section. dehydration units using the model GRI– subpart O. (1) The following equation shall be GLYCalcTM, all BTEX measured by * * * * * used: Method 18, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, (2) An owner or operator shall design shall be summed. and operate each flare, as defined in (d) Control device performance test § 63.1271, in accordance with the procedures. This paragraph applies to requirements specified in § 63.11(b) and the performance testing of control the compliance determination shall be Where: devices. The owners or operators shall conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR Eo = Mass rate of BTEX at the outlet of the demonstrate that a control device part 60, appendix A, to determine control device, dry basis, kilogram per achieves the performance requirements visible emissions. hour. of § 63.1281(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii), or (f)(1) (3) For a performance test conducted Coj = Concentration of sample component j of using a performance test as specified in to demonstrate that a control device the gas stream at the outlet of the control device, dry basis, parts per million by paragraph (d)(3) of this section. Owners meets the requirements of volume. or operators using a condenser have the § 63.1281(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii), or (f)(1) the Moj = Molecular weight of sample component option to use a design analysis as owner or operator shall use the test j of the gas stream at the outlet of the specified in paragraph (d)(4) of this methods and procedures specified in control device, gram/gram-mole. section. The owner or operator may paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (v) of this Qo = Flowrate of gas stream at the outlet of elect to use the alternative procedures in section. The initial and periodic the control device, dry standard cubic paragraph (d)(5) of this section for performance tests shall be conducted meter per minute. × ¥6 performance testing of a condenser used according to the schedule specified in K2 = Constant, 2.494 10 (parts per million) (gram-mole per standard cubic to control emissions from a glycol paragraph (d)(3)(vi) of this section. meter) (kilogram/gram) (minute/hour), dehydration unit process vent. As an (i) * * * where standard temperature (gram-mole alternative to conducting a performance (B) To determine compliance with the per standard cubic meter) is 20 degrees test under this section for combustion enclosed combustion device total HAP C. control devices, a control device that concentration limit specified in n = Number of components in sample. can be demonstrated to meet the § 63.1281(d)(1)(i)(B), or the BTEX (2) When the BTEX mass rate is performance requirements of emission limit specified in calculated, only BTEX compounds § 63.1281(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii), or (f)(1) § 63.1275(b)(1)(iii), the sampling site measured by Method 18, 40 CFR part through a performance test conducted shall be located at the outlet of the 60, appendix A, or ASTM D6420–99 by the manufacturer, as specified in combustion device. (2004) as specified in § 63.772(a)(1)(ii), paragraph (g) of this section, can be * * * * * shall be summed using the equations in used. (iv) * * * paragraph (d)(3)(v)(B)(1) of this section. (1) * * * (C) * * * (vi) The owner or operator shall (i) Except as specified in paragraph (1) The emission rate correction factor conduct performance tests according to (d)(2) of this section, a flare, as defined for excess air, integrated sampling and the schedule specified in paragraphs in § 63.1271, that is designed and analysis procedures of Method 3A or (d)(3)(vi)(A) and (B) of this section. operated in accordance with § 63.11(b); 3B, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, shall (A) An initial performance test shall (ii) Except for control devices used for be used to determine the oxygen be conducted within 180 days after the small glycol dehydration units, a boiler concentration (%O2d). The samples shall compliance date that is specified for or process heater with a design heat be taken during the same time that the each affected source in § 63.1270(d)(3) input capacity of 44 megawatts or samples are taken for determining TOC and (4) except that the initial greater; concentration or total HAP performance test for existing (iii) Except for control devices used concentration. combustion control devices at existing for small glycol dehydration units, a * * * * * major sources shall be conducted no boiler or process heater into which the (v) To determine compliance with the later than 3 years after the date of vent stream is introduced with the BTEX emission limit specified in publication of the final rule in the primary fuel or is used as the primary § 63.1281(f)(1) the owner or operator Federal Register. If the owner or fuel; shall use one of the following methods: operator of an existing combustion

VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:53 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP23AU11.004 52834 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

control device at an existing major As an alternative to the condenser assurance or quality control activities source chooses to replace such device design analysis, an owner or operator (including, as applicable, system with a control device whose model is may elect to use the procedures accuracy audits and required zero and tested under § 63.1282(g), then the specified in paragraph (d)(5) of this span adjustments), the CMS required in newly installed device shall comply section. § 63.1283(d) must be operated at all with all provisions of this subpart no * * * * * times the affected source is operating. A later than 3 years after the date of (5) As an alternative to the procedures monitoring system malfunction is any publication of the final rule in the in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section, an sudden, infrequent, not reasonably Federal Register. The performance test owner or operator may elect to use the preventable failure of the monitoring results shall be submitted in the procedures documented in the GRI system to provide valid data. Notification of Compliance Status report entitled, ‘‘Atmospheric Rich/Lean Monitoring system failures that are Report as required in § 63.1285(d)(1)(ii). Method for Determining Glycol caused in part by poor maintenance or (B) Periodic performance tests shall be Dehydrator Emissions,’’ (GRI–95/ careless operation are not malfunctions. conducted for all control devices 0368.1) as inputs for the model GRI– Monitoring system repairs are required required to conduct initial performance GLYCalcTM, Version 3.0 or higher, to to be completed in response to tests except as specified in paragraphs generate a condenser performance monitoring system malfunctions and to (e)(3)(vi)(B)(1) and (2) of this section. curve. return the monitoring system to The first periodic performance test shall (e) Compliance demonstration for operation as expeditiously as be conducted no later than 60 months control devices performance practicable. after the initial performance test requirements. This paragraph applies to (5) Data recorded during monitoring required in paragraph (d)(3)(vi)(A) of the demonstration of compliance with system malfunctions, repairs associated this section. Subsequent periodic the control device performance with monitoring system malfunctions, performance tests shall be conducted at requirements specified in or required monitoring system quality intervals no longer than 60 months § 63.1281(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii), and (f)(1). assurance or control activities may not following the previous periodic Compliance shall be demonstrated using be used in calculations used to report performance test or whenever a source the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) emissions or operating levels. All the desires to establish a new operating through (3) of this section. As an data collected during all other required limit. The periodic performance test alternative, an owner or operator that data collection periods must be used in results must be submitted in the next installs a condenser as the control assessing the operation of the control Periodic Report as specified in device to achieve the requirements device and associated control system. § 63.1285(e)(2)(x). Combustion control specified in § 63.1281(d)(1)(ii), (e)(3)(ii), (6) Except for periods of monitoring devices meeting the criteria in either or (f)(1) may demonstrate compliance system malfunctions, repairs associated paragraph (e)(3)(vi)(B)(1) or (2) of this according to paragraph (f) of this with monitoring system malfunctions, section are not required to conduct section. An owner or operator may and required quality monitoring system periodic performance tests. switch between compliance with quality assurance or quality control (1) A control device whose model is paragraph (e) of this section and activities (including, as applicable, tested under, and meets the criteria of, compliance with paragraph (f) of this system accuracy audits and required § 63.1282(g), or section only after at least 1 year of zero and span adjustments), failure to (2) A combustion control device operation in compliance with the collect required data is a deviation of tested under § 63.1282(d) that meets the selected approach. Notification of such the monitoring requirements. outlet TOC or HAP performance level a change in the compliance method (f) Compliance demonstration with specified in § 63.1281(d)(1)(i)(B) and shall be reported in the next Periodic percent reduction or emission limit that establishes a correlation between Report, as required in § 63.1285(e), performance requirements—condensers. firebox or combustion chamber following the change. This paragraph applies to the temperature and the TOC or HAP * * * * * demonstration of compliance with the performance level. (2) The owner or operator shall performance requirements specified in * * * * * calculate the daily average of the § 63.1281(d)(1)(ii), (e)(3) or (f)(1) for (4) For a condenser design analysis applicable monitored parameter in condensers. Compliance shall be conducted to meet the requirements of accordance with § 63.1283(d)(4) except demonstrated using the procedures in § 63.1281(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii), or (f)(1), the that the inlet gas flowrate to the control paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this owner or operator shall meet the device shall not be averaged. section. requirements specified in paragraphs (3) Compliance is achieved when the (1) The owner or operator shall (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii) of this section. daily average of the monitoring establish a site-specific condenser Documentation of the design analysis parameter value calculated under performance curve according to the shall be submitted as a part of the paragraph (e)(2) of this section is either procedures specified in Notification of Compliance Status equal to or greater than the minimum or § 63.1283(d)(5)(ii). For sources required Report as required in § 63.1285(d)(1)(i). equal to or less than the maximum to meet the BTEX limit in accordance (i) The condenser design analysis monitoring value established under with § 63.1281(e) or (f)(1) the owner or shall include an analysis of the vent paragraph (e)(1) of this section. For inlet operator shall identify the minimum stream composition, constituent gas flowrate, compliance with the percent reduction necessary to meet the concentrations, flowrate, relative operating parameter limit is achieved BTEX limit. humidity, and temperature, and shall when the value is equal to or less than (2) Compliance with the percent establish the design outlet organic the value established under reduction requirement in compound concentration level, design § 63.1282(g). § 63.1281(d)(1)(ii), (e)(3), or (f)(1) shall average temperature of the condenser (4) Except for periods of monitoring be demonstrated by the procedures in exhaust vent stream, and the design system malfunctions, repairs associated paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (iii) of this average temperatures of the coolant with monitoring system malfunctions, section. fluid at the condenser inlet and outlet. and required monitoring system quality * * * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52835

(iii) Except as provided in paragraphs (g) Performance testing for with the test report in accordance with (f)(2)(iii)(A), (B), and (D) of this section, combustion control devices— paragraph (g)(8)(iii) of this section. at the end of each operating day the manufacturers’ performance test. (1) (4) Inlet testing shall be conducted as owner or operator shall calculate the 30- This paragraph applies to the specified in paragraphs (g)(4)(i) through day average HAP, or BTEX, emission performance testing of a combustion (iii) of this section. reduction, as appropriate, from the control device conducted by the device (i) The fuel flow metering system condenser efficiencies as determined in manufacturer. The manufacturer shall shall be located in accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(ii) of this section for the demonstrate that a specific model of Method 2A, 40 CFR part 60, appendix preceding 30 operating days. If the control device achieves the performance A–1, (or other approved procedure) to owner or operator uses a combination of requirements in (g)(7) of this section by measure fuel flow rate at the control process modifications and a condenser conducting a performance test as device inlet location. The fitting for in accordance with the requirements of specified in paragraphs (g)(2) through filling fuel sample containers shall be § 63.1281(e), the 30-day average HAP (6) of this section. located a minimum of 8 pipe diameters emission, or BTEX, emission reduction, (2) Performance testing shall consist upstream of any inlet fuel flow shall be calculated using the emission of three one-hour (or longer) test runs monitoring meter. reduction achieved through process for each of the four following firing rate (ii) Inlet flow rate shall be determined modifications and the condenser settings making a total of 12 test runs using Method 2A, 40 CFR part 60, efficiency as determined in paragraph per test. Propene (propylene) gas shall appendix A–1. Record the start and stop (f)(2)(ii) of this section, both for the be used for the testing fuel. All fuel reading for each 60-minute THC test. preceding 30 operating days. analyses shall be performed by an Record the gas pressure and temperature (A) After the compliance date independent third-party laboratory (not at 5-minute intervals throughout each specified in § 63.1270(d), an owner or affiliated with the control device 60-minute THC test. operator of a facility that stores natural manufacturer or fuel supplier). (iii) Inlet fuel sampling shall be gas that has less than 30 days of data for (i) 90–100 percent of maximum conducted in accordance with the determining the average HAP, or BTEX, design rate (fixed rate). criteria in paragraphs (g)(4)(iii)(A) and emission reduction, as appropriate, (ii) 70–100–70 percent (ramp up, (B) of this section. shall calculate the cumulative average at ramp down). Begin the test at 70 percent (A) At the inlet fuel sampling the end of the withdrawal season, each of the maximum design rate. Within the location, securely connect a Silonite- season, until 30 days of condenser first 5 minutes, ramp the firing rate to coated stainless steel evacuated canister operating data are accumulated. For a 100 percent of the maximum design fitted with a flow controller sufficient to facility that does not store natural gas, rate. Hold at 100 percent for 5 minutes. fill the canister over a 1 hour period. the owner or operator that has less than In the 10–15 minute time range, ramp Filling shall be conducted as specified 30 days of data for determining average back down to 70 percent of the in the following: HAP, or BTEX, emission reduction, as maximum design rate. Repeat three (1) Open the canister sampling valve appropriate, shall calculate the more times for a total of 60 minutes of at the beginning of the total cumulative average at the end of the sampling. hydrocarbon (THC) test, and close the calendar year, each year, until 30 days (iii) 30–70–30 percent (ramp up, ramp canister at the end of the THC test. (2) Fill one canister for each THC test of condenser operating data are down). Begin the test at 30 percent of run. accumulated. the maximum design rate. Within the (3) Label the canisters individually (B) After the compliance date first 5 minutes, ramp the firing rate to and record on a chain of custody form. specified in § 63.1270(d), for an owner 70 percent of the maximum design rate. or operator that has less than 30 days of (B) Each fuel sample shall be analyzed Hold at 70 percent for 5 minutes. In the using the following methods. The data for determining the average HAP, 10–15 minute time range, ramp back or BTEX, emission reduction, as results shall be included in the test down to 30 percent of the maximum report. appropriate, compliance is achieved if design rate. Repeat three more times for the average HAP, or BTEX, emission (1) Hydrocarbon compounds a total of 60 minutes of sampling. containing between one and five atoms reduction, as appropriate, calculated in (iv) 0–30–0 percent (ramp up, ramp paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(A) of this section is of carbon plus benzene using ASTM down). Begin the test at 0 percent of the D1945–03. equal to or greater than 95.0 percent. maximum design rate. Within the first 5 (2) Hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide * * * * * minutes, ramp the firing rate to 100 (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (3) Compliance is achieved based on percent of the maximum design rate. (N2), oxygen (O2) using ASTM D1945– the applicable criteria in paragraphs Hold at 30 percent for 5 minutes. In the 03. (f)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section. 10–15 minute time range, ramp back (3) Carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide (i) For sources meeting the HAP down to 0 percent of the maximum plus mercaptans using ASTM D5504. emission reduction specified in design rate. Repeat three more times for (4) Higher heating value using ASTM § 63.1281(d)(1)(ii) or (e)(3) if the average a total of 60 minutes of sampling. D3588–98 or ASTM D4891–89. HAP emission reduction calculated in (3) All models employing multiple (5) Outlet testing shall be conducted paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section is enclosures shall be tested in accordance with the criteria in equal to or greater than 95.0 percent. simultaneously and with all burners paragraphs (g)(5)(i) through (v) of this (ii) For sources required to meet the operational. Results shall be reported for section. BTEX limit under § 63.1281(e)(3) or the each enclosure individually and for (i) Sampling and flowrate measured in (f)(1), compliance is achieved if the the average of the emissions from all accordance with the following: average BTEX emission reduction interconnected combustion enclosures/ (A) The outlet sampling location shall calculated in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this chambers. Control device operating data be a minimum of 4 equivalent stack section is equal to or greater than the shall be collected continuously diameters downstream from the highest minimum percent reduction identified throughout the performance test using peak flame or any other flow in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. an electronic Data Acquisition System disturbance, and a minimum of one * * * * * and strip chart. Data shall be submitted equivalent stack diameter upstream of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52836 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

the exit or any other flow disturbance. testing. An instrument range of 0–10 per shall not be exceeded for each control A minimum of two sample ports shall million by volume-dry (ppmvd) shall be device model to achieve the criteria in be used. used. paragraph (g)(7)(i) of this section. (B) Flow rate shall be measured using (v) Visible emissions shall be (iii) A control device meeting the Method 1, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix 1, determined using Method 22, 40 CFR criteria in paragraph (g)(7)(i)(A) through for determining flow measurement part 60, Appendix A. The test shall be (C) of this section will have traverse point location; and Method 2, performed continuously during each demonstrated a destruction efficiency of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix 1, shall be test run. A digital color photograph of 98.0 percent for HAP regulated under used to measure duct velocity. If low the exhaust point, taken from the this subpart. flow conditions are encountered (i.e., position of the observer and annotated (8) The owner or operator of a velocity pressure differentials less than with date and time, will be taken once combustion control device model tested 0.05 inches of water) during the per test run and the four photos under this section shall submit the performance test, a more sensitive included in the test report. information listed in paragraphs (g)(8)(i) manometer shall be used to obtain an (6) Total hydrocarbons (THC) shall be through (iii) in the test report required accurate flow profile. determined as specified by the under § 63.775(d)(1)(iii). (ii) Molecular weight shall be following criteria: (i) Full schematic of the control determined as specified in paragraphs (i) Conduct THC sampling using device and dimensions of the device (g)(4)(iii)(B), and (g)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of Method 25A, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix components. this section. A, except the option for locating the (ii) Design net heating value (A) An integrated bag sample shall be probe in the center 10 percent of the (minimum and maximum) of the device. collected during the Method 4, 40 CFR stack shall not be allowed. The THC (iii) Test fuel gas flow range (in both part 60, Appendix A, moisture test. probe must be traversed to 16.7 percent, mass and volume). Include the Analyze the bag sample using a gas 50 percent, and 83.3 percent of the stack minimum and maximum allowable inlet chromatograph-thermal conductivity diameter during the testing. gas flow rate. detector (GC–TCD) analysis meeting the (ii) A valid test shall consist of three (iv) Air/stream injection/assist ranges, following criteria: Method 25A, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix if used. (1) Collect the integrated sample A, tests, each no less than 60 minutes (v) The test parameter ranges listed in throughout the entire test, and collect in duration. paragraphs (g)(8)(v)(A) through (O) of representative volumes from each (iii) A 0–10 parts per million by this section, as applicable for the tested traverse location. volume-wet (ppmvw) (as propane) model. (2) The sampling line shall be purged measurement range is preferred; as an (A) Fuel gas delivery pressure and with stack gas before opening the valve alternative a 0–30 ppmvw (as carbon) temperature. and beginning to fill the bag. measurement range may be used. (B) Fuel gas moisture range. (3) The bag contents shall be kneaded (iv) Calibration gases will be propane (C) Purge gas usage range. or otherwise vigorously mixed prior to in air and be certified through EPA (D) Condensate (liquid fuel) the GC analysis. Protocol 1—‘‘EPA Traceability Protocol separation range. (4) The GC–TCD calibration for Assay and Certification of Gaseous (E) Combustion zone temperature procedure in Method 3C, 40 CFR part Calibration Standards,’’ September range. This is required for all devices 60, Appendix A, shall be modified by 1997, as amended August 25, 1999, that measure this parameter. using EPAAlt-045 as follows: For the EPA–600/R–97/121 (or more recent if (F) Excess combustion air range. initial calibration, triplicate injections of updated since 1999). (G) Flame arrestor(s). any single concentration must agree (v) THC measurements shall be (H) Burner manifold pressure. within 5 percent of their mean to be reported in terms of ppmvw as propane. (I) Pilot flame sensor. valid. The calibration response factor for (vi) THC results shall be corrected to (J) Pilot flame design fuel and fuel a single concentration re-check must be 3 percent CO2, as measured by Method usage. within 10 percent of the original 3C, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. (K) Tip velocity range. calibration response factor for that (vii) Subtraction of methane/ethane (L) Momentum flux ratio. concentration. If this criterion is not from the THC data is not allowed in (M) Exit temperature range. met, the initial calibration using at least determining results. (N) Exit flow rate. three concentration levels shall be (7) Performance test criteria: (O) Wind velocity and direction. repeated. (i) The control device model tested (vi) The test report shall include all (B) Report the molecular weight of: must meet the criteria in paragraphs calibration quality assurance/quality O2, CO2, methane (CH4), and N2 and (g)(7)(i)(A) through (C) of this section: control data, calibration gas values, gas include in the test report submitted (A) Method 22, 40 CFR part 60, cylinder certification, and strip charts under § 63.775(d)(iii). Moisture shall be Appendix A, results under paragraph annotated with test times and determined using Method 4, 40 CFR (g)(5)(v) of this section with no calibration values. part 60, Appendix A. Traverse both indication of visible emissions, and (h) Compliance demonstration for ports with the Method 4, 40 CFR part (B) Average Method 25A, 40 CFR part combustion control devices— 60, Appendix A, sampling train during 60, Appendix A, results under manufacturers’ performance test. This each test run. Ambient air shall not be paragraph (g)(6) of this section equal to paragraph applies to the demonstration introduced into the Method 3C, 40 CFR or less than 10.0 ppmvw THC as of compliance for a combustion control part 60, Appendix A, integrated bag propane corrected to 3.0 percent CO2, device tested under the provisions in sample during the port change. and paragraph (g) of this section. Owners or (iv) Carbon monoxide shall be (C) Average CO emissions determined operators shall demonstrate that a determined using Method 10, 40 CFR under paragraph (g)(5)(iv) of this section control device achieves the performance part 60, Appendix A. The test shall be equal to or less than 10 parts ppmvd, requirements of § 63.1281(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii) run at the same time and with the corrected to 3.0 percent CO2. or (f)(1), by installing a device tested sample points used for the EPA Method (ii) The manufacturer shall determine under paragraph (g) of this section and 25A, 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, a maximum inlet gas flow rate which complying with the following criteria:

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52837

(1) The inlet gas flow rate shall meet n. Revising paragraph (d)(6)(ii); interface, detector signal analyzer, and the range specified by the manufacturer. o. Adding paragraph (d)(6)(v); data acquisition and calculations; Flow rate shall be measured as specified p. Revising paragraph (d)(8)(i)(A); and (B) Sampling interface (e.g., in § 63.1283(d)(3)(i)(H)(1). q. Revising paragraph (d)(8)(ii) to read thermocouple) location such that the (2) A pilot flame shall be present at all as follows: monitoring system will provide times of operation. The pilot flame shall representative measurements; be monitored in accordance with § 63.1283 Inspection and monitoring (C) Equipment performance checks, § 63.1283(d)(3)(i)(H)(2). requirements. system accuracy audits, or other audit (3) Devices shall be operated with no * * * * * procedures; visible emissions, except for periods not (b) The owner or operator of a control (D) Ongoing operation and to exceed a total of 5 minutes during device whose model was tested under maintenance procedures in accordance any 2 consecutive hours. A visible 63.1282(g) shall develop an inspection with provisions in § 63.8(c)(1) and emissions test using Method 22, 40 CFR and maintenance plan for each control (c)(3); and part 60, Appendix A, shall be performed device. At a minimum, the plan shall (E) Ongoing reporting and monthly. The observation period shall contain the control device recordkeeping procedures in accordance be 2 hours and shall be used according manufacturer’s recommendations for with provisions in § 63.10(c), (e)(1), and to Method 22. ensuring proper operation of the device. (e)(2)(i). (4) Compliance with the operating Semi-annual inspections shall be (iii) The owner or operator must parameter limit is achieved when the conducted for each control device with conduct the CPMS equipment following criteria are met: maintenance and replacement of control performance checks, system accuracy (i) The inlet gas flow rate monitored device components made in accordance audits, or other audit procedures under paragraph (h)(1) of this section is with the plan. specified in the site-specific monitoring equal to or below the maximum * * * * * plan at least once every 12 months. established by the manufacturer; and (d) Control device monitoring (iv) The owner or operator must (ii) The pilot flame is present at all requirements. (1) For each control conduct a performance evaluation of times; and device except as provided for in each CPMS in accordance with the site- (iii) During the visible emissions test paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the specific monitoring plan. performed under paragraph (h)(3) of this owner or operator shall install and (2) * * * section the duration of visible emissions (i) Except for control devices for small operate a continuous parameter does not exceed a total of 5 minutes glycol dehydration units, a boiler or monitoring system in accordance with during the observation period. Devices process heater in which all vent streams the requirements of paragraphs (d)(3) failing the visible emissions test shall are introduced with the primary fuel or through (9) of this section. Owners or follow the requirements in paragraphs are used as the primary fuel; operators that install and operate a flare (h)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section. (ii) Except for control devices for (A) Following the first failure, the fuel in accordance with § 63.1281(d)(1)(iii) small glycol dehydration units, a boiler nozzle(s) and burner tubes shall be or (f)(1)(iii) are exempt from the or process heater with a design heat replaced. requirements of paragraphs (d)(4) and input capacity equal to or greater than (B) If, following replacement of the (5) of this section. The continuous 44 megawatts. fuel nozzle(s) and burner tubes as monitoring system shall be designed (3) * * * specified in paragraph (h)(4)(iii)(A), the and operated so that a determination (i) * * * visible emissions test is not passed in can be made on whether the control (A) For a thermal vapor incinerator the next scheduled test, either a device is achieving the applicable that demonstrates during the performance test shall be performed performance requirements of performance test conducted under under paragraph (d) of this section, or § 63.1281(d), (e)(3), or (f)(1). Each § 63.1282(d) that combustion zone the device shall be replaced with continuous parameter monitoring temperature is an accurate indicator of another control device whose model system shall meet the following performance, a temperature monitoring was tested, and meets, the requirements specifications and requirements: device equipped with a continuous in paragraph (g) of this section. * * * * * recorder. The monitoring device shall 30. Section 63.1283 is amended by: (ii) A site-specific monitoring plan have a minimum accuracy of ± 1 percent a. Adding paragraph (b); must be prepared that addresses the of the temperature being monitored in b. Revising paragraph (d)(1) monitoring system design, data degrees C, or ± 2.5 degrees C, whichever introductory text; collection, and the quality assurance value is greater. The temperature sensor c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) and and quality control elements outlined in shall be installed at a location adding paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (iv); paragraph (d) of this section and in representative of the combustion zone d. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i) and § 63.8(d). Each CPMS must be installed, temperature. (d)(2)(ii); calibrated, operated, and maintained in (B) For a catalytic vapor incinerator, e. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(A) and accordance with the procedures in your a temperature monitoring device (B); approved site-specific monitoring plan. equipped with a continuous recorder. f. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(D) and Using the process described in The device shall be capable of (E); § 63.8(f)(4), you may request approval of monitoring temperatures at two g. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(F)(1) monitoring system quality assurance locations and have a minimum accuracy and (2); and quality control procedures of ± 1 percent of the temperatures being h. Revising paragraph (d)(3)(i)(G); ± i. Adding paragraph (d)(3)(i)(H); alternative to those specified in monitored in degrees C, or 2.5 degrees j. Revising paragraph (d)(4); paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) of C, whichever value is greater. One k. Revising paragraph (d)(5)(i); this section in your site-specific temperature sensor shall be installed in l. Revising paragraphs (d)(5)(ii)(A) monitoring plan. the vent stream at the nearest feasible through (C); (A) The performance criteria and point to the catalyst bed inlet and a m. Revising paragraph (d)(6) design specifications for the monitoring second temperature sensor shall be introductory text; system equipment, including the sample installed in the vent stream at the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52838 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

nearest feasible point to the catalyst bed (1) A continuous monitoring system (C) If the owner or operator operates outlet. that measures gas flow rate at the inlet a control device where the performance * * * * * to the control device. The monitoring test requirement was met under (D) For a boiler or process heater, a instrument shall have an accuracy of § 63.1282(g) to demonstrate that the temperature monitoring device plus or minus 2 percent or better. control device achieves the applicable equipped with a continuous recorder. (2) A heat sensing monitoring device performance requirements specified in The temperature monitoring device equipped with a continuous recorder § 63.1281(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii) or (f)(1), then shall have a minimum accuracy of ± 1 that indicates the continuous ignition of the maximum inlet gas flow rate shall be percent of the temperature being the pilot flame. established based on the performance monitored in degrees C, or ± 2.5 degrees * * * * * test and supplemented, as necessary, by C, whichever value is greater. The (4) Using the data recorded by the the manufacturer recommendations. temperature sensor shall be installed at monitoring system, except for inlet gas (ii) * * * a location representative of the flowrate, the owner or operator must (A) If the owner or operator conducts combustion zone temperature. calculate the daily average value for a performance test in accordance with (E) For a condenser, a temperature each monitored operating parameter for the requirements of § 63.1282(d)(3) to monitoring device equipped with a each operating day. If the emissions unit demonstrate that the condenser achieves continuous recorder. The temperature operation is continuous, the operating the applicable performance monitoring device shall have a requirements in § 63.1281(d)(1), ± day is a 24-hour period. If the emissions minimum accuracy of 1 percent of the unit operation is not continuous, the (e)(3)(ii), or (f)(1), then the condenser temperature being monitored in degrees performance curve shall be based on ± operating day is the total number of C, or 2.8 degrees C, whichever value hours of control device operation per values measured during the is greater. The temperature sensor shall 24-hour period. Valid data points must performance test and supplemented as be installed at a location in the exhaust be available for 75 percent of the necessary by control device design vent stream from the condenser. operating hours in an operating day to analysis, or control device (F) * * * compute the daily average. manufacturer’s recommendations, or a (1) A continuous parameter (5) * * * combination or both. monitoring system to measure and (i) The owner or operator shall (B) If the owner or operator uses a record the average total regeneration control device design analysis in stream mass flow or volumetric flow establish a minimum operating parameter value or a maximum accordance with the requirements of during each carbon bed regeneration § 63.1282(d)(4)(i) to demonstrate that cycle. The flow sensor must have a operating parameter value, as appropriate for the control device, to the condenser achieves the applicable measurement sensitivity of 5 percent of performance requirements specified in the flow rate or 10 cubic feet per define the conditions at which the control device must be operated to § 63.1281(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii), or (f)(1), then minute, whichever is greater. The the condenser performance curve shall mechanical connections for leakage continuously achieve the applicable performance requirements of be based on the condenser design must be checked at least every month, analysis and may be supplemented by and a visual inspection must be § 63.1281(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii), or (f)(1). Each minimum or maximum operating the control device manufacturer’s performed at least every 3 months of all recommendations. components of the flow CPMS for parameter value shall be established as (C) As an alternative to paragraph physical and operational integrity and follows: (d)(5)(ii)(B) of this section, the owner or all electrical connections for oxidation (A) If the owner or operator conducts operator may elect to use the procedures and galvanic corrosion if your flow performance tests in accordance with documented in the GRI report entitled, CPMS is not equipped with a redundant the requirements of § 63.1282(d)(3) to ‘‘Atmospheric Rich/Lean Method for flow sensor; and demonstrate that the control device (2) A continuous parameter achieves the applicable performance Determining Glycol Dehydrator requirements specified in Emissions’’ (GRI–95/0368.1) as inputs monitoring system to measure and TM record the average carbon bed § 63.1281(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii), or (f)(1), then for the model GRI–GLYCalc , Version temperature for the duration of the the minimum operating parameter value 3.0 or higher, to generate a condenser carbon bed steaming cycle and to or the maximum operating parameter performance curve. measure the actual carbon bed value shall be established based on (6) An excursion for a given control temperature after regeneration and values measured during the device is determined to have occurred within 15 minutes of completing the performance test and supplemented, as when the monitoring data or lack of cooling cycle. The temperature necessary, by a condenser design monitoring data result in any one of the monitoring device shall have a analysis or control device criteria specified in paragraphs (d)(6)(i) minimum accuracy of ± 1 percent of the manufacturer’s recommendations or a through (d)(6)(v) of this section being temperature being monitored in degrees combination of both. met. When multiple operating C, or ± 2.5 degrees C, whichever value (B) If the owner or operator uses a parameters are monitored for the same is greater. condenser design analysis in accordance control device and during the same (G) For a nonregenerative-type carbon with the requirements of § 63.1282(d)(4) operating day, and more than one of adsorption system, the owner or to demonstrate that the control device these operating parameters meets an operator shall monitor the design carbon achieves the applicable performance excursion criterion specified in replacement interval established using a requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(6)(i) through (d)(6)(iv) of performance test performed in § 63.1281(d)(1), (e)(3)(ii), or (f)(1), then this section, then a single excursion is accordance with § 63.1282(d)(3) and the minimum operating parameter value determined to have occurred for the shall be based on the total carbon or the maximum operating parameter control device for that operating day. working capacity of the control device value shall be established based on the * * * * * and source operating schedule. condenser design analysis and may be (ii) For sources meeting (H) For a control device whose model supplemented by the condenser § 63.1281(d)(1)(ii), an excursion occurs is tested under § 63.1282(g): manufacturer’s recommendations. when average condenser efficiency

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52839

calculated according to the (ii) [Reserved] e. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(i); requirements specified in * * * * * f. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii) § 63.1282(f)(2)(iii) is less than 95.0 (4) * * * introductory text; percent, as specified in § 63.1282(f)(3). (ii) Records of the daily average value g. Revising paragraph (d)(2) For sources meeting § 63.1281(f)(1), an of each continuously monitored introductory text; excursion occurs when the 30-day parameter for each operating day h. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(ii); average condenser efficiency calculated determined according to the procedures i. Adding paragraph (d)(4)(iv); according to the requirements of specified in § 63.1283(d)(4) of this j. Revising paragraph (d)(10); § 63.1282(f)(2)(iii) is less than the subpart, except as specified in k. Adding paragraphs (d)(11) and identified 30-day required percent paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(A) through (C) of (d)(12); reduction. this section. l. Revising paragraph (e)(2) introductory text; * * * * * (A) For flares, the records required in (v) For control device whose model is paragraph (e) of this section. m. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(B); n. Adding paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(D) and tested under § 63.1282(g) an excursion (B) For condensers installed to (E); occurs when: comply with § 63.1275, records of the (A) The inlet gas flow rate exceeds the annual 30-day rolling average condenser o. Adding paragraphs (e)(2)(x), (xi) maximum established during the test efficiency determined under § 63.1282(f) and (xii); and p. Adding paragraph (g) to read as conducted under § 63.1282(g). shall be kept in addition to the daily (B) Failure of the monthly visible averages. follows: emissions test conducted under (C) For a control device whose model § 63.1285 Reporting requirements. is tested under § 63.1282(g), the records § 63.1282(h)(3) occurs. * * * * * (8) * * * required in paragraph (g) of this section. (b) * * * (i) * * * * * * * * (1) The initial notifications required (A) During a malfunction when the (7) * * * for existing affected sources under affected facility is operated during such (ix) Records identifying the carbon § 63.9(b)(2) shall be submitted as period in accordance with § 63.6(e)(1); replacement schedule under provided in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) or § 63.1281(d)(5) and records of each of this section. * * * * * carbon replacement. (i) Except as otherwise provided in (ii) For each control device, or * * * * * paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, the combinations of control devices, (f) The owner or operator of an initial notification shall be submitted by installed on the same emissions unit, affected source subject to this subpart 1 year after an affected source becomes one excused excursion is allowed per shall maintain records of the occurrence subject to the provisions of this subpart semiannual period for any reason. The and duration of each malfunction of or by June 17, 2000, whichever is later. initial semiannual period is the 6-month operation (i.e., process equipment) or Affected sources that are major sources reporting period addressed by the first the air pollution control equipment and on or before June 17, 2000 and plan to Periodic Report submitted by the owner monitoring equipment. The owner or be area sources by June 17, 2002 shall or operator in accordance with operator shall maintain records of include in this notification a brief, § 63.1285(e) of this subpart. actions taken during periods of nonbinding description of a schedule * * * * * malfunction to minimize emissions in for the action(s) that are planned to 31. Section 63.1284 is amended by: accordance with § 63.1274(a), including achieve area source status. a. Revising paragraph (b)(3) corrective actions to restore (ii) An affected source identified introductory text; malfunctioning process and air under § 63.1270(d)(3) shall submit an b. Removing and reserving paragraph pollution control and monitoring initial notification required for existing (b)(3)(ii); equipment to its normal or usual affected sources under § 63.9(b)(2) c. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(ii); manner of operation. d. Adding paragraph (b)(7)(ix); and within 1 year after the affected source (g) Record the following when using becomes subject to the provisions of this e. Adding paragraph (f), (g) and (h) to a control device whose model is tested read as follows: subpart or by one year after publication under § 63.1282(g) to comply with of the final rule in the Federal Register, § 63.1284 Recordkeeping requirements. § 63.1281(d), (e)(3)(ii) and (f)(1): whichever is later. An affected source * * * * * (1) All visible emission readings and identified under § 63.1270(d)(3) that (b) * * * flowrate measurements made during the plans to be an area source by three years (3) Records specified in § 63.10(c) for compliance determination required by after publication of the final rule in the each monitoring system operated by the § 63.1282(h); and Federal Register, shall include in this owner or operator in accordance with (2) All hourly records and other notification a brief, nonbinding the requirements of § 63.1283(d). recorded periods when the pilot flame description of a schedule for the Notwithstanding the previous sentence, is absent. action(s) that are planned to achieve (h) The date the semi-annual monitoring data recorded during area source status. maintenance inspection required under periods identified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) * * * * * through (iv) of this section shall not be § 63.1283(b) is performed. Include a list of any modifications or repairs made to (6) If there was a malfunction during included in any average or percent leak the reporting period, the Periodic Report rate computed under this subpart. the control device during the inspection and other maintenance performed such specified in paragraph (e) of this section Records shall be kept of the times and shall include the number, duration, and durations of all such periods and any as cleaning of the fuel nozzles. 32. Section 63.1285 is amended by: a brief description for each type of other periods during process or control a. Revising paragraph (b)(1); malfunction which occurred during the device operation when monitors are not b. Revising paragraph (b)(6); reporting period and which caused or operating or failed to collect required c. Removing paragraph (b)(7); may have caused any applicable data. d. Revising paragraph (d)(1) emission limitation to be exceeded. The * * * * * introductory text; report must also include a description of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52840 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

actions taken by an owner or operator schedule as required in (xi) For each carbon adsorber used to during a malfunction of an affected § 63.1281(d)(5)(i). meet the control device requirements of source to minimize emissions in * * * * * § 63.1281(d)(1), records of each carbon accordance with § 63.1274(h), including (10) The owner or operator shall replacement that occurred during the actions taken to correct a malfunction. submit the analysis prepared under reporting period. * * * * * § 63.1281(e)(2) to demonstrate that the (xii) For combustion control device (d) * * * conditions by which the facility will be inspections conducted in accordance operated to achieve the HAP emission (1) If a closed-vent system and a with § 63.1283(b) the records specified reduction of 95.0 percent, or the BTEX control device other than a flare are in § 63.1284(h). limit in § 63.1275(b)(1)(iii) through used to comply with § 63.1274, the * * * * * process modifications or a combination owner or operator shall submit the of process modifications and one or (g) Electronic reporting. (1) As of information in paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of more control devices. January 1, 2012, and within 60 days this section and the information in (11) If the owner or operator installs after the date of completing each either paragraph (d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this a combustion control device model performance test, as defined in § 63.2 section. tested under the procedures in and as required in this subpart, you (i) The condenser design analysis § 63.1282(g), the data listed under must submit performance test data, documentation specified in § 63.1282(g)(8). except opacity data, electronically to the § 63.1282(d)(4) of this subpart if the (12) For each combustion control EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) by owner or operator elects to prepare a device model tested under § 63.1282(g), using the Electronic Reporting Tool design analysis; or the information listed in paragraphs (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ _ (ii) If the owner or operator is (d)(12)(i) through (vi) of this section. ert/ert tool.html/). Only data collected required to conduct a performance test, (i) Name, address and telephone using test methods compatible with ERT the performance test results including number of the control device are subject to this requirement to be the information specified in paragraphs manufacturer. submitted electronically into the EPA’s (d)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. (ii) Control device model number. WebFIRE database. Results of a performance test conducted (iii) Control device serial number. (2) All reports required by this (iv) Date of control device prior to the compliance date of this subpart not subject to the requirements certification test. in paragraphs (g)(1) of this section must subpart can be used provided that the (v) Manufacturer’s HAP destruction be sent to the Administrator at the test was conducted using the methods efficiency rating. specified in § 63.1282(d)(3), and that the (vi) Control device operating appropriate address listed in § 63.13. If test conditions are representative of parameters, maximum allowable inlet acceptable to both the Administrator current operating conditions. If the gas flowrate. and the owner or operator of a source, owner or operator operates a these reports may be submitted on * * * * * electronic media. The Administrator combustion control device model tested (e) * * * under § 63.1282(g), an electronic copy of (2) The owner or operator shall retains the right to require submittal of the performance test results shall be include the information specified in reports subject to paragraph (g)(1) of this submitted via e-mail to paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (xii) of this section in paper format. _ _ _ Oil and Gas [email protected]. section, as applicable. 33. Section 63.1287 is amended by * * * * * * * * * * revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: (2) If a closed-vent system and a flare (ii) * * * § 63.1287 Alternative means of emission are used to comply with § 63.1274, the (B) For each excursion caused when limitation. owner or operator shall submit the 30-day average condenser control performance test results including the efficiency is less than the value, as (a) If, in the judgment of the information in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and specified in § 63.1283(d)(6)(ii), the Administrator, an alternative means of (ii) of this section. The owner or report must include the 30-day average emission limitation will achieve a operator shall also submit the values of the condenser control reduction in HAP emissions at least information in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of efficiency, and the date and duration of equivalent to the reduction in HAP this section. the period that the excursion occurred. emissions from that source achieved * * * * * under the applicable requirements in * * * * * §§ 63.1274 through 63.1281, the (4) * * * (D) For each excursion caused when the maximum inlet gas flow rate Administrator will publish a notice in (ii) An explanation of the rationale for identified under § 63.1282(g) is the Federal Register permitting the use why the owner or operator selected each exceeded, the report must include the of the alternative means for purposes of of the operating parameter values values of the inlet gas identified and the compliance with that requirement. The established in § 63.1283(d)(5) of this date and duration of the period that the notice may condition the permission on subpart. This explanation shall include excursion occurred. requirements related to the operation any data and calculations used to (E) For each excursion caused when and maintenance of the alternative develop the value, and a description of visible emissions determined under means. why the chosen value indicates that the § 63.1282(h) exceed the maximum * * * * * control device is operating in allowable duration, the report must 34. Appendix to Subpart HHH of Part accordance with the applicable include the date and duration of the 63—Table is amended by revising Table requirements of § 63.1281(d)(1), period that the excursion occurred. 2 to read as follows: (e)(3)(ii), or (f)(1). * * * * * * * * * * (x) The results of any periodic test as Appendix to Subpart HHH of Part 63— (iv) For each carbon adsorber, the required in § 63.1282(d)(3) conducted Tables predetermined carbon replacement during the reporting period. * * * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52841

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HHH

Applicable to General provisions reference subpart HHH Explanation

§ 63.1(a)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(5) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.1(a)(6) through (a)(8) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(9) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.1(a)(10) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(11) ...... Yes. § 63.1(a)(12) through (a)(14) ...... Yes. § 63.1(b)(1) ...... No ...... Subpart HHH specifies applicability. § 63.1(b)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.1(b)(3) ...... No. § 63.1(c)(1) ...... No ...... Subpart HHH specifies applicability. § 63.1(c)(2) ...... No. § 63.1(c)(3) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.1(c)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.1(c)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.1(d) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.1(e) ...... Yes. § 63.2 ...... Yes ...... Except definition of major source is unique for this source category and there are additional definitions in subpart HHH. § 63.3(a) through (c) ...... Yes. § 63.4(a)(1) through (a)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.4(a)(4) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.4(a)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.4(b) ...... Yes. § 63.4(c) ...... Yes. § 63.5(a)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.5(a)(2) ...... No ...... Preconstruction review required only for major sources that commence construction after promulgation of the standard. § 63.5(b)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.5(b)(2) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.5(b)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.5(b)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.5(b)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.5(b)(6) ...... Yes. § 63.5(c) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.5(d)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.5(d)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.5(d)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.5(d)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.5(e) ...... Yes. § 63.5(f)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.5(f)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.6(a) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.6(b)(6) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.6(b)(7) ...... Yes. § 63.6(c)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.6(c)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.6(c)(3) and (c)(4) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.6(c)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.6(d) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.6(e) ...... Yes. § 63.6(e) ...... Yes ...... Except as otherwise specified. § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ...... No ...... See § 63.1274(h) for general duty requirement. § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ...... No. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ...... Yes. § 63.6(e)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.6(e)(3) ...... No. § 63.6(f)(1) ...... No. § 63.6(f)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.6(f)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.6(g) ...... Yes. § 63.6(h) ...... No ...... Subpart HHH does not contain opacity or visible emission standards. § 63.6(i)(1) through (i)(14) ...... Yes.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52842 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HHH—Continued

Applicable to General provisions reference subpart HHH Explanation

§ 63.6(i)(15) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.6(i)(16) ...... Yes. § 63.6(j) ...... Yes. § 63.7(a)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.7(a)(2) ...... Yes ...... But the performance test results must be submitted within 180 days after the com- pliance date. § 63.7(a)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.7(b) ...... Yes. § 63.7(c) ...... Yes. § 63.7(d) ...... Yes. § 63.7(e)(1) ...... No. § 63.7(e)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.7(e)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.7(e)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.7(f) ...... Yes. § 63.7(g) ...... Yes. § 63.7(h) ...... Yes. § 63.8(a)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.8(a)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.8(a)(3) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.8(a)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.8(b)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.8(b)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.8(b)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.8(c)(1) ...... Yes. 63.8(c)(1)(i) ...... No. § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ...... Yes. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ...... Pending. § 63.8(c)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.8(c)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.8(c)(4) ...... No. § 63.8(c)(5) through (c)(8) ...... Yes. § 63.8(d) ...... Yes. § 63.8(d)(3) ...... Yes ...... Except for last sentence, which refers to an SSM plan. SSM plans are not required. § 63.8(e) ...... Yes ...... Subpart HHH does not specifically require continuous emissions monitor perform- ance evaluations, however, the Administrator can request that one be conducted. § 63.8(f)(1) through (f)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.8(f)(6) ...... No ...... Subpart HHH does not require continuous emissions monitoring. § 63.8(g) ...... No ...... Subpart HHH specifies continuous monitoring system data reduction requirements. § 63.9(a) ...... Yes. § 63.9(b)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.9(b)(2) ...... Yes ...... Existing sources are given 1 year (rather than 120 days) to submit this notification. § 63.9(b)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.9(b)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.9(b)(5) ...... Yes. § 63.9(c) ...... Yes. § 63.9(d) ...... Yes. § 63.9(e) ...... Yes. § 63.9(f) ...... No. § 63.9(g) ...... Yes. § 63.9(h)(1) through (h)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.9(h)(4) ...... No ...... Section reserved. § 63.9(h)(5) and (h)(6) ...... Yes. § 63.9(i) ...... Yes. § 63.9(j) ...... Yes. § 63.10(a) ...... Yes. § 63.10(b)(1) ...... Yes ...... Section 63.1284(b)(1) requires sources to maintain the most recent 12 months of data on-site and allows offsite storage for the remaining 4 years of data. § 63.10(b)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ...... No. § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ...... No ...... See § 63.1284(f) for recordkeeping of occurrence, duration, and actions taken dur- ing malfunction. § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ...... Yes. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv) through (b)(2)(v) ...... No. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (b)(2)(xiv) ...... Yes. § 63.10(b)(3) ...... No. § 63.10(c)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.10(c)(2) through (c)(4) ...... No ...... Sections reserved. § 63.10(c)(5) through (c)(8) ...... Yes. § 63.10(c)(9) ...... No ...... Section reserved.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52843

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART HHH OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR PART 63 GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART HHH—Continued

Applicable to General provisions reference subpart HHH Explanation

§ 63.10(c)(10) and (c)(11) ...... No ...... See § 63.1284(f)for recordkeeping of malfunctions § 63.10(c)(12) through (c)(14) ...... Yes. § 63.10(c)(15) ...... No. § 63.10(d)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.10(d)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.10(d)(3) ...... Yes. § 63.10(d)(4) ...... Yes. § 63.10(d)(5) ...... No ...... See § 63.1285(b)(6) for reporting of malfunctions. § 63.10(e)(1) ...... Yes. § 63.10(e)(2) ...... Yes. § 63.10(e)(3)(i) ...... Yes ...... Subpart HHH requires major sources to submit Periodic Reports semi-annually. § 63.10(e)(3)(i)(A) ...... Yes. § 63.10(e)(3)(i)(B) ...... Yes. § 63.10(e)(3)(i)(C) ...... No ...... Subpart HHH does not require quarterly reporting for excess emissions. § 63.10(e)(3)(ii) through (e)(3)(viii) ...... Yes. § 63.10(f) ...... Yes. § 63.11(a) and (b) ...... Yes. § 63.11(c), (d), and (e) ...... Yes. § 63.12(a) through (c) ...... Yes. § 63.13(a) through (c) ...... Yes. § 63.14(a) and (b) ...... Yes. § 63.15(a) and (b) ...... Yes.

[FR Doc. 2011–19899 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:12 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\23AUP2.SGM 23AUP2 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Vol. 76 Tuesday, No. 163 August 23, 2011

Part III

The President

Executive Order 13583—Establishing a Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\23AUE0.SGM 23AUE0 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES6 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\23AUE0.SGM 23AUE0 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES6 52847

Federal Register Presidential Documents Vol. 76, No. 163

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Title 3— Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011

The President Establishing a Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote the Federal workplace as a model of equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. Our Nation derives strength from the diversity of its population and from its commitment to equal opportunity for all. We are at our best when we draw on the talents of all parts of our society, and our greatest accomplishments are achieved when diverse perspectives are brought to bear to overcome our greatest challenges. A commitment to equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion is critical for the Federal Government as an employer. By law, the Federal Government’s recruitment policies should ‘‘endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society.’’ (5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1)). As the Nation’s largest employer, the Federal Government has a special obligation to lead by example. Attaining a diverse, qualified workforce is one of the cornerstones of the merit-based civil service. Prior Executive Orders, including but not limited to those listed below, have taken a number of steps to address the leadership role and obligations of the Federal Government as an employer. For example, Executive Order 13171 of October 12, 2000 (Hispanic Employment in the Federal Govern- ment), directed executive departments and agencies to implement programs for recruitment and career development of Hispanic employees and estab- lished a mechanism for identifying best practices in doing so. Executive Order 13518 of November 9, 2009 (Employment of Veterans in the Federal Government), required the establishment of a Veterans Employment Initiative. Executive Order 13548 of July 26, 2010 (Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals with Disabilities), and its related predecessors, Executive Order 13163 of July 26, 2000 (Increasing the Opportunity for Individuals With Disabilities to be Employed in the Federal Government), and Executive Order 13078 of March 13, 1998 (Increasing Employment of Adults With Disabilities), sought to tap the skills of the millions of Americans living with disabilities. To realize more fully the goal of using the talents of all segments of society, the Federal Government must continue to challenge itself to enhance its ability to recruit, hire, promote, and retain a more diverse workforce. Further, the Federal Government must create a culture that encourages collaboration, flexibility, and fairness to enable individuals to participate to their full potential. Wherever possible, the Federal Government must also seek to consolidate compliance efforts established through related or overlapping statutory man- dates, directions from Executive Orders, and regulatory requirements. By this order, I am directing executive departments and agencies (agencies) to develop and implement a more comprehensive, integrated, and strategic focus on diversity and inclusion as a key component of their human resources strategies. This approach should include a continuing effort to identify and adopt best practices, implemented in an integrated manner, to promote diversity and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity, consistent with merit system principles and applicable law.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:47 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\23AUE0.SGM 23AUE0 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES6 52848 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Presidential Documents

Sec. 2. Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Initiative and Strategic Plan. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in coordination with the President’s Management Council (PMC) and the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), shall: (a) establish a coordinated Government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the Federal workforce; (b) within 90 days of the date of this order: (i) develop and issue a Government-wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan (Government-wide Plan), to be updated as appropriate and at a min- imum every 4 years, focusing on workforce diversity, workplace inclusion, and agency accountability and leadership. The Government-wide Plan shall highlight comprehensive strategies for agencies to identify and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity that may exist in the Federal Government’s recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, professional devel- opment, and training policies and practices; (ii) review applicable directives to agencies related to the development or submission of agency human capital and other workforce plans and reports in connection with recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, pro- fessional development, and training policies and practices, and develop a strategy for consolidating such agency plans and reports where appro- priate and permitted by law; and (iii) provide guidance to agencies concerning formulation of agency-specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plans prepared pursuant to section 3(b) of this order; (c) identify appropriate practices to improve the effectiveness of each agency’s efforts to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop, and train a diverse and inclusive workforce, consistent with merit system principles and applica- ble law; and (d) establish a system for reporting regularly on agencies’ progress in implementing their agency-specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plans and in meeting the objectives of this order. Sec. 3. Responsibilities of Executive Departments and Agencies. All agencies shall implement the Government-wide Plan prepared pursuant to section 2 of this order, and such other related guidance as issued from time to time by the Director of OPM and Deputy Director for Management of OMB. In addition, the head of each executive department and agency referred to under subsections (1) and (2) of section 901(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall: (a) designate the agency’s Chief Human Capital Officer to be responsible for enhancing employment and promotion opportunities within the agency, in collaboration with the agency’s Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and Director of Diversity and Inclusion, if any, and consistent with law and merit system principles, including development and implementation of the agency-specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan; (b) within 120 days of the issuance of the Government-wide Plan or its update under section 2(b)(i) of this order, develop and submit for review to the Director of OPM and the Deputy Director for Management of OMB an agency-specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan for recruiting, hir- ing, training, developing, advancing, promoting, and retaining a diverse work- force consistent with applicable law, the Government-wide Plan, merit system principles, the agency’s overall strategic plan, its human capital plan prepared pursuant to Part 250 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and other applicable workforce planning strategies and initiatives; (c) implement the agency-specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan after incorporating it into the agency’s human capital plan; and (d) provide information as specified in the reporting requirements devel- oped under section 2(d).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\23AUE0.SGM 23AUE0 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES6 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Presidential Documents 52849

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted to a department or agency or the head thereof, includ- ing the authority granted to EEOC by other Executive Orders (including Executive Order 12067) or any agency’s authority to establish an inde- pendent Diversity and Inclusion Office; or (ii) functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 18, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2011–21704 Filed 8–22–11; 11:15 am] Billing code 3195–W1–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:21 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\23AUE0.SGM 23AUE0 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES6 OB#1.EPS i

Reader Aids Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 163 Tuesday, August 23, 2011

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND INFORMATION CFR PARTS AFFECTED DURING AUGUST

Federal Register/Code of Federal Regulations At the end of each month the Office of the Federal Register General Information, indexes and other finding 202–741–6000 publishes separately a List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), which aids lists parts and sections affected by documents published since Laws 741–6000 the revision date of each title. Presidential Documents 3 CFR 201...... 50881 Executive orders and proclamations 741–6000 Proposed Rules: Proclamations: The United States Government Manual 741–6000 71...... 50082 8696...... 46183 77...... 50082 Other Services 8697...... 49277 78...... 50082 Electronic and on-line services (voice) 741–6020 8698...... 49647 90...... 50082 Privacy Act Compilation 741–6064 Executive Orders: Public Laws Update Service (numbers, dates, etc.) 741–6043 13582...... 52209 10 CFR TTY for the deaf-and-hard-of-hearing 741–6086 13583...... 52847 429...... 46202 Administrative Orders: 430...... 46202 ELECTRONIC RESEARCH Notices: 433...... 49279 Notice of July 28, World Wide Web 435...... 49279 Full text of the daily Federal Register, CFR and other publications 2011 ...... 45653 Proposed Rules: is located at: www.fdsys.gov. Notice of August 12, 26...... 46651 2011 ...... 50661 Federal Register information and research tools, including Public 40...... 47085 429...... 48745, 49238 Inspection List, indexes, and links to GPO Access are located at: 5 CFR www.ofr.gov. 430 ...... 47518, 49238, 50145 293...... 52533 431 ...... 47518, 48745, 50148, E-mail 532...... 52537 51281 FEDREGTOC-L (Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV) is 550...... 52537 an open e-mail service that provides subscribers with a digital 843...... 52539 12 CFR form of the Federal Register Table of Contents. The digital form Proposed Rules: 100...... 48950 of the Federal Register Table of Contents includes HTML and 213...... 47495 108...... 48950 PDF links to the full text of each document. 250...... 47516 109...... 48950 To join or leave, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select 302...... 47495 112...... 48950 Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list 315...... 47495 116...... 48950 (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 330...... 47495 128...... 48950 PENS (Public Law Electronic Notification Service) is an e-mail 334...... 47495 133...... 48950 service that notifies subscribers of recently enacted laws. 362...... 47495 136...... 48950 To subscribe, go to http://listserv.gsa.gov/archives/publaws-l.html 530...... 45710 141...... 48950 and select Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow 531...... 45710, 47495 143...... 48950 the instructions. 536...... 45710, 47495 144...... 48950 FEDREGTOC-L and PENS are mailing lists only. We cannot 550...... 47495 145...... 48950 respond to specific inquiries. 575...... 47495 146...... 48950 Reference questions. Send questions and comments about the 733...... 52287 150...... 48950 Federal Register system to: fedreg.infonara.gov 890...... 47495 151...... 48950 The Federal Register staff cannot interpret specific documents or 152...... 48950 regulations. 6 CFR 155...... 48950 Reminders. Effective January 1, 2009, the Reminders, including Proposed Rules: 157...... 48950 Rules Going Into Effect and Comments Due Next Week, no longer 31...... 46908 159...... 48950 appear in the Reader Aids section of the Federal Register. This 160...... 48950 7 CFR information can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov. 161...... 48950 CFR Checklist. Effective January 1, 2009, the CFR Checklist no 205...... 46595 162...... 48950 longer appears in the Federal Register. This information can be 301...... 52541, 52543 163...... 48950 found online at http://bookstore.gpo.gov/. 319...... 52544 164...... 48950 946...... 48713 165...... 48950 FEDERAL REGISTER PAGES AND DATE, AUGUST 1217...... 46185 167...... 48950 1730...... 47055 168...... 48950 45653–46184...... 1 52209–52532...... 22 Proposed Rules: 169...... 48950 46185–46594...... 2 52533–52850...... 23 272...... 51907 170...... 48950 46595–47054...... 3 273...... 51274, 51907 171...... 48950 47055–47422...... 4 276...... 51274 172...... 48950 47423–47984...... 5 277...... 52581 174...... 48950 47985–48712...... 8 319...... 46209 190...... 48950 48713–49278...... 9 402...... 50929 191...... 48950 49279–49648...... 10 906...... 49381 192...... 48950 49649–50110...... 11 920...... 48742 193...... 48950 50111–50402...... 12 923...... 46651 194...... 48950 50403–50660...... 15 984...... 50703 195...... 48950 50661–50880...... 16 196...... 48950 50881–51244...... 17 9 CFR 197...... 48950 51245–51868...... 18 93...... 52547 Ch. III ...... 47652 51869–52208...... 19 161...... 52548 1204...... 51869

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:37 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\23AUCU.LOC 23AUCU emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES5 ii Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Reader Aids

Proposed Rules: 229...... 47948 30 CFR 62...... 49669 240...... 46652 230...... 47948, 49698 Proposed Rules: 63...... 49669 615...... 51289 239...... 47948 917...... 50436 65...... 49669 240...... 46668 72...... 48208, 50129 14 CFR 943...... 50708 249...... 47948 1206...... 52294 75...... 50129 33...... 47423 78...... 48208 39 ...... 45655, 45657, 46597, 18 CFR 31 CFR 82...... 47451, 49669 47056, 47424, 47427, 47430, 97...... 48208 35...... 49842 10...... 49650 50111, 50113, 50115, 50403, 147...... 49669 260...... 52253 1010...... 45689 50405, 50881, 52213, 52217, 292...... 50663 180 ...... 49318, 50893, 50898, 52220, 52222, 52225 Proposed Rules: 32 CFR 50904 65...... 47058 282...... 49669 357...... 46668 159...... 49650 71 ...... 47060, 47061, 47435, 300 ...... 49324, 50133, 50414, 319...... 49658, 49659 49285, 52229, 52230 51266 19 CFR 323...... 49661 91...... 52231 374...... 49669 159...... 50883 95...... 46202 33 CFR 704...... 50816 97 ...... 47985, 47988, 52237, Proposed Rules: 707...... 49669 52239 10...... 51914 100...... 52236, 52563 710...... 50816 119...... 52231 163...... 51914 117 ...... 45690, 47440, 48717, 711...... 50816 121...... 52241 49300, 49662, 49663, 49664, 721...... 47996 20 CFR 125...... 52231 50123, 50124, 51885, 52565, 745...... 47918 133...... 52231 655...... 45667 52566, 52567 763...... 49669 165 ...... 45693, 46626, 47441, 137...... 52231 Proposed Rules: 21 CFR 47993, 47996, 48718, 49301, 141...... 52231 50...... 46084, 48073 49664, 49666, 50124, 50667, 142...... 52231 520...... 48714, 49649 52 ...... 45741, 47090, 47092, 50669, 50680, 51255, 51887, 145...... 52231 522...... 48714 47094, 48754, 49391, 49708, 52266, 52268, 52269, 52569 147...... 52231 524...... 48714 49711, 51314, 51922, 51925, Proposed Rules: 866...... 48715 Proposed Rules: 51927, 52604, 52623 39 ...... 45713, 47520, 47522, 870...... 50663 110...... 52599 60...... 52738 48045, 48047, 48049, 48749, 884...... 50663 117 ...... 50161, 50950, 52602 63...... 52738 50152, 50706, 52288, 52593 886...... 51876 165 ...... 45738, 48070, 48751, 72...... 50164 71 ...... 49383, 49385, 49386, Proposed Rules: 50710 75...... 50164 49387, 49388, 49390, 50156, 73...... 49707 167...... 47529 85...... 48758 52290, 52291, 52292, 52596 101...... 46671, 49707 34 CFR 86...... 48758 573...... 48751 15 CFR 98...... 47392 870...... 47085, 48058 668...... 52271 174...... 49396 744...... 50407 882...... 48062 37 CFR 180...... 49396 Proposed Rules: 260...... 48073 Ch. VII...... 47527 22 CFR 370...... 45695 261...... 48073 801...... 50158 126...... 47990 382...... 45695 300 ...... 49397, 50164, 50441, 51316 16 CFR Proposed Rules: 38 CFR 228...... 51916 370...... 48093 3...... 52249 1...... 51890 600...... 48758 4...... 52249 23 CFR 2...... 51890 721...... 46678 Ch. II...... 46598, 49286 3...... 52572 1450...... 47436 Proposed Rules: 17...... 52272 41 CFR 655...... 46213 Proposed Rules: 20...... 52572 Proposed Rules: 239...... 52596 25 CFR 21...... 45697, 49669 60...... 49398 305...... 45715 51...... 52274 Ch. 301 ...... 46216 424...... 51308 Proposed Rules: 63...... 52575 700...... 52596 Ch. III...... 47089, 50436 42 CFR 39 CFR 701...... 52596 26 CFR 412...... 47836, 51476 702...... 52596 20...... 50414 413...... 48486, 51476 703...... 52596 1 ...... 45673, 49300, 49570, 111...... 48722, 51257 418...... 47302 1130...... 48053 50887, 51878, 51879, 52556 912...... 52580 476...... 51476 17...... 51879 Proposed Rules: Proposed Rules: 17 CFR 20...... 49570 111...... 50438 5...... 50442 35...... 49291 25...... 49570 3020...... 51311 430...... 46684 40...... 45666 51...... 51245 431...... 51148 200...... 46603 54...... 46621 40 CFR 433...... 46684, 51148 210...... 50117 301...... 52259, 52561 1...... 49669 435...... 51148 229...... 46603, 50117 602...... 51245, 52556 2...... 49669 447...... 46684 230...... 46603, 50117 Proposed Rules: 9...... 47996 457...... 46684, 51148 232...... 46603, 47438 1...... 50931, 51922 21...... 49669 239...... 46603, 50117 31...... 50949 35...... 49669 43 CFR 240 ...... 46603, 46960, 50117, 40...... 46677 49...... 49669 Proposed Rules: 52549 49...... 46677 51...... 48208 2...... 52295 249 ...... 46603, 46960, 50117, 51...... 51310 52 ...... 45705, 47062, 47068, 44 CFR 52549 54 ...... 46677, 52442, 52475 47074, 47076, 47443, 48002, 270...... 50117 602...... 52442 48006, 48208, 49303, 49313, 64...... 49329 274...... 50117 49669, 50128, 50891, 51264, 65 ...... 49674, 50420, 50423, 29 CFR Proposed Rules: 51901, 51903, 52275, 52278, 50913, 50915 1 ...... 45724, 45730, 47526 2590...... 46621 52283, 52388 67 ...... 49676, 50918, 50920 23 ...... 45724, 45730, 47526 4022...... 50413 59...... 49669 Proposed Rules: 39...... 45730, 47526 Proposed Rules: 60...... 49669 67 ...... 46701, 46705, 46715, 71...... 46212 2590...... 52442, 52475 61...... 49669 46716, 50443, 50446, 50952,

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:37 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4712 E:\FR\FM\23AUCU.LOC 23AUCU emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES5 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Reader Aids iii

50960 47 CFR 6103...... 50926 178...... 50332 1...... 49333, 49364 6104...... 50926 179...... 51272 6105...... 50926 45 CFR 2...... 49364 180...... 51272 9903...... 49365 531...... 48758 147...... 46621 25...... 49364, 50425 64...... 47469, 47476 Proposed Rules: 533...... 48758 Proposed Rules: 73...... 49364, 49697 42...... 48776, 50714 580...... 48101 147...... 52442, 52475 90...... 51271 204...... 52297 155...... 51202 252...... 52297 50 CFR 157...... 51202 Proposed Rules: 170...... 48769 9...... 47114 49 CFR 17 ...... 46632, 47490, 48722, 36...... 49401 228...... 50360 49542, 50052, 50680 54...... 49401, 50969 383...... 50433 18...... 47010 46 CFR 61...... 49401 390...... 50433 80...... 46150 64...... 49401, 52625 Proposed Rules: 563...... 47478 622...... 50143, 51905 69...... 49401 1 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 571...... 48009 635...... 49368 73...... 52632 2...... 47531, 49976 595...... 47078 648 ...... 47491, 47492, 51272, 10 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 1002...... 46628 52286 48 CFR 11 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 1515...... 51848 679 ...... 45709, 46207, 46208, 12 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 201...... 52139 1520...... 51848 47083, 47493 13 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 209...... 52138 1522...... 51848 Proposed Rules: 14 ...... 45908, 46217, 48101 216...... 52133 1540...... 51848 17 ...... 46218, 46234, 46238, 15 ...... 45908, 46217, 49976 225...... 52132, 52133 1544...... 51848 46251, 46362, 47123, 47133, 28...... 51317 245...... 52139 1546...... 51848 48777, 49202, 49408, 49412, 136...... 49976 252 ...... 52133, 52138, 52139 1548...... 51848 50542, 50971, 51929, 52297 137...... 49976 1401...... 50141 1549...... 51848 20...... 48694 138...... 49976 1402...... 50141 Proposed Rules: 223...... 50447, 50448 139...... 49976 1415...... 50141 171...... 50332, 51324 224 ...... 49412, 50447, 50448 140...... 49976 1417...... 50141 172...... 50332, 51324 622...... 46718, 50979 141...... 49976 1419...... 50141 173...... 50332, 51324 648...... 45742, 47533 142...... 49976 1436...... 50141 174...... 50332, 51324 660...... 50449 143...... 49976 1452...... 50141 175...... 50332 665...... 46719 144...... 49976 1816...... 46206 176...... 50332 679 ...... 49417, 52148, 52301 401...... 47095, 50713 6101...... 50926 177...... 50332 680...... 49423

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:37 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\23AUCU.LOC 23AUCU emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES5 iv Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Reader Aids

Register but may be ordered H.R. 2715/P.L. 112–28 enacted public laws. To in ‘‘slip law’’ (individual To provide the Consumer subscribe, go to http:// LIST OF PUBLIC LAWS pamphlet) form from the Product Safety Commission listserv.gsa.gov/archives/ Superintendent of Documents, with greater authority and publaws-l.html This is a continuing list of U.S. Government Printing discretion in enforcing the public bills from the current Office, Washington, DC 20402 consumer product safety laws, session of Congress which (phone, 202–512–1808). The and for other purposes. (Aug. Note: This service is strictly have become Federal laws. It text will also be made 12, 2011; 125 Stat. 273) for E-mail notification of new may be used in conjunction available on the Internet from Last List August 5, 2011 laws. The text of laws is not with ‘‘P L U S’’ (Public Laws GPO’s Federal Digital System available through this service. Update Service) on 202–741– (FDsys) at http://www.gpo.gov/ PENS cannot respond to 6043. This list is also fdsys. Some laws may not yet Public Laws Electronic specific inquiries sent to this available online at http:// be available. Notification Service address. www.archives.gov/federal- (PENS) register/laws. H.R. 2553/P.L. 112–27 Airport and Airway Extension The text of laws is not Act of 2011, Part IV (Aug. 5, PENS is a free electronic mail published in the Federal 2011; 125 Stat. 270) notification service of newly

VerDate Mar 15 2010 19:37 Aug 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4712 Sfmt 4711 E:\FR\FM\23AUCU.LOC 23AUCU emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES5