WordPerfect Document Compare Summary Original document: F:\ USER\ WHARNETT\ permits 2005\ anpr\ ANPR clean 1 28 05. wpd Revised document: F:\ USER\ WHARNETT\ permits 2005\ anpr\ ANPR 02 04 05 version. wpd Deletions are shown with the following attributes and color: Strikeout, Blue RGB( 0,0,255). Deleted text is shown as full text. Insertions are shown with the following attributes and color: Double Underline, Redline, Red RGB( 255,0,0).

The document was marked with 20 Deletions, 28 Insertions, 0 Moves. 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 70 and 71 [ OAR 2003 0180; FRL______]

[ RIN 2060 AK29]

Request for Comment on Potentially Inadequate Monitoring in Clean Air Act Applicable Requirements and on Methods to Improve Such Monitoring AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking ( ANPR).

SUMMARY: Today's ANPR asks for public comment to help us identify monitoring in applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act ( Act) that is potentially inadequate with respect to the statutory monitoring requirements for operating permits issued under title V of the Act. Today's ANPR also asks for public comment on ways to improve such monitoring. The EPA believes that it will be more effective, more equitable, and more efficient to improve inadequate monitoring in applicable requirements, where necessary,

through rulemakings to revise the applicable requirements themselves or through other programmatic approaches, rather than by addressing inadequate monitoring on a case

bycase basis in the issuance and renewal of title V operating permits. To inform EPA's consideration of improvements to existing monitoring, today's ANPR seeks stakeholder input to identify inadequate monitoring in certain Federal standards and State implementation plan ( SIP) rules and to suggest specific ways to improve such monitoring.

Comments received in response to today's ANPR will enable EPA to better evaluate 3 whether and where inadequate monitoring exists and to determine how to craft any necessary improvements.

DATES: Comments. We must receive written comments on or before [ insert date 60 days following publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0180, by one of the following methods:

° Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www. regulations. gov. Follow the on line instructions for submitting comments.

° Agency Website: http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.

Follow the on line instructions for submitting comments.

° E mail: Send electronic mail ( e mail) to EPA Docket Center at a and r docket@ epamail. epa. gov.

° Fax: Send faxes to EPA Docket Center at ( 202) 566 1741.

° Air and Radiation Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code:

6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.

° Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC, 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0180. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without 4 change and may be made available online at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations. gov, or e mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations. gov websites are " anonymous access" systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations. gov, your e mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CDROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET on line or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 ( 67 FR 38102).

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i. e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 5 available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/ DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Herring, Information Transfer and Program Implementation Division, Office and Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C304 04, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: ( 919) 541 3195; fax number: ( 919) 541 5509; and email address: herring. jeff@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include facilities currently required to obtain title V permits under State, local, tribal, or Federal operating permits programs, and State, local, and tribal governments that issue such permits pursuant to EPA approved programs.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through EDOCKET,

regulations. gov or e mail. Instead, mail CBI to the following address:

Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C404 02), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention E Docket ID No. 6 OAR 2003 0180. Alternatively, such information may be hand delivered to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C404 02), U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Attention E Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0180. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to Mr. Morales, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted to EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit a CD ROM or disc that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR), part 2.

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

° Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information ( subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

° Follow directions  The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or section number. 7 ° Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

° Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/ or data that you used.

° If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

° Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

° Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

° Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

C. Where Can I Obtain Additional Information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's notice is also available on the World Wide Web through the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN).

Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of today's notice will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed,

call the TTN HELP line at ( 919) 541 5384.

D. How Is This Preamble Organized?

The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 8 1. Submitting CBI 2. Tips for Preparing your Comments C. Where Can I Obtain Additional Information? D. How Is This Preamble Organized? II. Background III. What Is the Purpose of Today's ANPR? IV. What Are We Specifically Seeking Comment On? V. What Additional Steps Are Expected After EPA Reviews the Comments Received?

II. Background Two provisions of EPA's State and Federal operating permits program regulations require that title V permits contain monitoring requirements. The " periodic monitoring"

rules, 40 CFR § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B), require that:

[ w] here the applicable requirement does not require periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring ( which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring), [ each title V permit must contain] periodic monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time period that are representative of the source's compliance with the permit, as reported pursuant to [ § § 70.6( a)( 3)( iii) or 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)]. Such monitoring requirements shall assure use of terms, test methods, units, averaging periods, and other statistical conventions consistent with the applicable requirement. Recordkeeping provisions may be sufficient to meet the requirements of [ § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B)].

The so called " umbrella monitoring" rules, § § 70.6( c)( 1) and 71.6( c)( 1), require that each title V permit contain, "[ c] onsistent with paragraph ( a)( 3) of this section, compliance certification, testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements sufficient to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit."

In a final rule entitled " Revisions to Clarify the Scope of Certain Monitoring Requirements for Federal and State Operating Permits Programs" ( 69 FR 3202, January 22, 2004), also known as the " umbrella monitoring" rule, EPA announced a four step strategy for improving existing monitoring that is designed to minimize reliance on case by 9 case monitoring reviews and so called " gap filling" in title V operating permits over time.

Today's ANPR is part of that strategy.

In the first step, the umbrella monitoring rule ( 69 FR 3202, January 22, 2004), EPA decided not to adopt proposed revisions to the regulatory text of § § 70.6( c)( 1) and 71.6( c)( 1) ( 67 FR 58561, September 17, 2002) and instead ratified the regulatory text of those rules without making any changes. The EPA also announced that it has determined that the correct interpretation of these provisions is that they do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under § § 70.6( a)( 3) and 71.6( a)( 3). The EPA explained that § § 70.6( c)( 1) and 71.6( c)( 1) require that title V permits contain: ( 1) Monitoring required by " applicable requirements" under the Act, as that term is defined in 40 CFR § § 70.2 and 71.2; and ( 2) such monitoring as may be required under § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B). See Appalachian Power Co. v.

EPA, 208 F. 3d 1015 ( D. C. Cir. 2000). The term " applicable requirements" includes, but is not limited to: Monitoring required under the compliance assurance monitoring ( CAM)

rule, 40 CFR part 64, where it applies; monitoring required under Federal rules such as new source performance standards ( NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) in 40 CFR part 61, maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) standards in 40 CFR part 63, the acid rain program rules in 40 CFR parts 72 through 75; and monitoring required in SIP, tribal implementation plan and Federal implementation plan rules. Thus, for monitoring, EPA explained, § § 70.6( c)( 1)

and 71.6( c)( 1) constitute " umbrella provisions" that direct permitting authorities to include 10 monitoring required under existing statutory or regulatory authorities in title V permits.

Based on EPA's interpretation of the Act, the plain language and structure of § § 70.6( c)( 1)

and 71.6( c)( 1), and the policy reasons described in the preamble to the umbrella monitoring rule ( see 69 FR at 3204), EPA concluded that § § 70.6( c)( 1) and 71.6( c)( 1) do not require or authorize a new and independent type of monitoring in permits beyond what is required by section § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i).

In the umbrella monitoring rule, EPA also announced plans to address monitoring in three related rulemaking actions. First, EPA announced plans to encourage States to improve potentially inadequate monitoring in certain SIP rules. The EPA intends to address such monitoring in guidance to be developed in connection with an upcoming rulemaking concerning the implementation of the national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS) for fine particulate matter ( particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers, or PM 2.5), also referred to as the proposed PM 2.5 implementation rule. The primary purpose of the proposed PM 2.5 implementation rule will be to describe the requirements that States and Tribes have to meet in order to implement the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Because opacity and particulate monitoring are related to compliance with particulate matter standards, one part of this proposal will address EPA's plans to develop separate guidance on how States can reduce PM 2.5 emissions by improving source monitoring related to particulate matter emission limits. This may include increasing the frequency of existing opacity monitoring, adding monitoring for 11 parameters of a control device, installing continuous particulate emissions monitoring, or a combination of the above. See 69 FR at 3204.

In addition, EPA announced plans to publish a separate proposed rule to address what monitoring constitutes " periodic" monitoring under § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and what types of monitoring should be created under § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B)

and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B). Finally, EPA announced plans for today's ANPR. See 69 FR at 3204 3205. Together with the umbrella monitoring rule, these three related rulemaking actions comprise EPA's four step strategy for improving existing monitoring where necessary on a programmatic basis.

In the umbrella monitoring rule, EPA stated that the strategy will ensure that the Act's monitoring requirements will be met. See 69 FR at 3207. For instance, EPA explained that " section 504( c)' s command that each title V permit ` set forth . . . monitoring . . . to assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions' will be satisfied through the combination of EPA and, as necessary, State rulemakings to address monitoring, and the addition to permits of such monitoring as may be required under § § 70.6( a)( 3)( i)( B) and 71.6( a)( 3)( i)( B). See 42 USC § 7661c( c)." Id. The EPA also explained that "[ s] atisfying the specific monitoring requirements of section 504( c) will assure that the more general requirements of section 504( a) are satisfied as to monitoring." See 42 USC § 7661c( a)

(" Each [ title V] permit . . . shall include . . . conditions as are necessary to assure compliance with applicable requirements of this chapter, including the requirements of the applicable implementation plan"). Id. Further, the EPA noted that the Act grants the Agency broad discretion to implement the monitoring requirements of section 504 of the 12 Act as well as the " enhanced monitoring" requirement of section 114( a)( 3) of the Act. 69 FR at 3207; see 42 USC § 74 14( a)( 3) ("[ the Administrator shall in the case of any person which is the owner or operator of a major stationary source ... require enhanced monitoring....").

III. What Is the Purpose of Today's ANPR?

The purpose of today's ANPR is to request public comments to identify potentially inadequate monitoring contained in certain applicable requirements and on ways to improve such monitoring. In particular, EPA is requesting comments on existing monitoring requirements in NSPS under 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP under 40 CFR part 61 that were promulgated prior to the 1990 Amendments to the Act. See Section IV of this preamble for identification of categories of monitoring in which individual rules may have inadequate monitoring. We believe these categories, listed below, are a good starting point to frame public comments on potential monitoring inadequacies in Federal standards.

However, we are not limiting comment to the categories which we specifically list for comment. In addition, as explained below, in this ANPR, EPA is asking for comments identifying specific SIP rules which contain inadequate monitoring. Although we believe some SIP's are likely to contain some of the potential monitoring inadequacies listed below, we do not identify specific SIP rules where such inadequacies may exist. In this notice, EPA is not making any determinations that the categories of potentially inadequate monitoring listed below represent inadequate monitoring in any specific Federal rules and SIP rules, and thus, an important purpose of this notice is to seek public comments to help us to identify specific Federal rules and SIP rules where such monitoring categories actually 13 result in monitoring that is inadequate. Further, we note that the Agency has previously met any obligation it had to promulgate regulations for the " enhanced monitoring"

requirement in section 114( a)( 3) of the Act. Nevertheless, EPA will consider any comments in response to this ANPR regarding whether any of the monitoring requirements in the pre 1990 NSPS and NESHAP and in any specific SIP rules fail to meet " enhanced monitoring" requirements and the monitoring requirements in title V of the Act. If we conclude that any such inadequacies exist, we will take appropriate action to ensure that these statutory requirements are fully satisfied.

By contrast, we are not seeking comments on or otherwise reopening standards promulgated after the 1990 Amendments to the Act, for example, many NESHAP standards under part 63, and acid rain requirements, because we believe these more recent standards are unlikely to contain inadequate monitoring. This is so because such rules are already required to meet and were promulgated to meet Act requirements for monitoring that were enacted in 1990. Therefore to the extent the categories listed below exist in fFederal rules promulgated since 1990, EPA believes they are unlikely to contain inadequate monitoring. For example, in the final NESHAP for lime manufacturing plants published on January 5, 2004 ( 69 FR 394), we allowed use of a continuous opacity monitoring systems ( COMS) to serve as a surrogate for HAP metals instead of requiring continuous particulate mass monitoring. This is an example of a category of potentially inadequate monitoring in which limits on both PM mass and opacity are specified, but only monitoring of opacity is required, not PM mass. A commenter asserted that a COMS as a surrogate for HAP metals emitted from kilns, coolers, or processed stone operations was 14 inappropriate because COMS does not correlate to particulate matter ( PM) mass, and that a better alternative was to use PM continuous monitoring that measures PM mass in units directly related to the mass emissions limit ( see 69 FR 407). In its response, EPA agreed that COMS cannot directly measure PM emissions, but argued, for this standard, that a properly calibrated and maintained COMS is sufficient to demonstrate long term PM control device performance, since the purpose of the monitoring is to demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the PM control device is operating as well as it did during the PM emission test used to demonstrate compliance. For this standard, EPA also justified the use of a COMS because PM continuous emission monitoring systems ( CEMS) and PM detectors ( bag leak detectors) are significantly more expensive to purchase and maintain than a COMS, and thatbecause PM CEMS measure concentration, while the basis of the standard is mass per unit of feed input. As another example, the National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products, published on September 11, 1998 ( 40 CFR 59 subpart C) requires no monitoring of the consumer product. Instead, manufacturers demonstrate compliance by keeping records of ingredients used in each batch of product. These records are then used to ensure compliance with limitations on VOC content ( weight percent) each consumer product. Because the manufacturers' recordkeeping, monitoring of the consumer products is not necessary and it would also be infeasible and costly.

We are also not seeking comment on or otherwise reopening the CAM rule for similar reasons. Specifically, because we believe the CAM rule is currently structured such that, when it applies, it already requires adequate monitoring in permits. ( The next 15 paragraph discusses in more detail how this ANPR relates to the CAM rule.)

An important purpose of this notice is to solicit comments that could inform rulemaking actions that potentially would reduce the resource burdens associated with case by case review under the periodic monitoring and CAM rules. Because periodic monitoring rules apply when existing monitoring is not " periodic" and our strategy for improving existing monitoring through rulemaking may result in more existing monitoring that is " periodic," our strategy for improving monitoring will likely result in fewer instances where periodic monitoring rules apply. Also, for two reasons, our strategy for improving monitoring through rulemaking may result in less need for case by case review and enhancement under the CAM rule. First, as provided in § 64.2( b)( 1)( i), any rulemakings to revise emission limitations and standards established pursuant to section 111 or 112 of the Act will result in exemptions from CAM for those emission limitations and standards. The CAM rule provides for this because any such rulemakings must satisfy certain Act requirements for monitoring, and thus, EPA believes further enhancements to monitoring through CAM would be unnecessary. Second, § 64.4( b)( 1) allows States to provide SIP rules designed to satisfy certain CAM requirements ( the requirements to document the appropriateness of monitoring within the CAM plan) for particular types of emission units.

To the extent that our strategy for improving monitoring through rulemaking results in SIP rules designed for this purpose, it follows that this strategy may potentially reduce some of the burdens associated with implementation of the CAM rule.

Aside from monitoring in applicable requirements that is not " periodic," there may be monitoring in applicable requirements that is " inadequate" because it is outdated, and 16 another purpose of this notice is to identify such outdated monitoring. Many NSPS and NESHAP standards were promulgated two decades ago or more, and many have not been revised since that time. Air pollution monitoring technologies have advanced significantly since many of these standards were promulgated. For example, there is widespread availability and utility of programmable microprocessors for collecting, processing, and storing data in digital formats ( e. g., digital data loggers and similar devices). Thus, we ask for comments to identify standards where upgrades to reflect such new technologies or other developments since the standards were promulgated are appropriate.

IV. What Are We Specifically Seeking Comment On?

To focus analysis and comment on potential monitoring inadequacies in existing Federal and State rules, we provide the following categories of potential monitoring inadequacies based on our preliminary review of certain NSPS and NESHAP rules:

° No monitoring of any kind is required.

° Monitoring is specified for certain units, but no monitoring is required for other units.

° Limits on both PM mass and opacity are specified, but only monitoring of opacity is required ( and not of PM mass).

° Monitoring is specified for certain control devices ( e. g., monitoring of pressure drop), but no monitoring is specified for other control devices.

° Monitoring method is specified, but no monitoring frequency is specified, or monitoring is required only when directed by permitting authority.

° Infrequent periodic testing required, but no monitoring of the control device is 17 specified between required tests.

° Monitoring of parameters may be insufficient to assure proper operation of control device.

° Monitoring of parameters required, but no parameter range is specified, nor is a procedure for setting the range specified.

° No monitoring or recordkeeping ( to serve as monitoring) is specified for work practices ( such as keeping covers closed at all time except during transfer of materials).

To help us gather useful information to decide if Federal or State rules may need to be revised, we ask the following questions:

Question: Identify specific pre 1990 Federal rules, including rules in the categories listed above, where you believe that the monitoring is inadequate. Explain why you believe the existing monitoring is inadequate and what types of monitoring you believe would be adequate for the specific example provided.

Question: Are there other categories of potential monitoring inadequacies in Federal rules? Please specify thewhat you believe to be monitoring inadequacies, including citation to specific rules of concern. Are there other ways to identify inadequate monitoring? For example, would identifying inadequate monitoring by source category,

industry, pollutant, emission limitation, and/ or pollution control device be more useful?

Question: What kinds of revisions or improvements would you suggest be made to improve inadequate monitoring in underlying Federal rules? Types of revisions or improvements that could be made through rulemaking include, but are not limited to: ( 1) 18 establishing periodic testing or monitoring for each emission limitation, ( 2) more frequent monitoring using existing monitoring methods, ( 3) the collection of data that is more representative of control device operation or of the industrial process, ( 4) switching from monitoring methods that provide an indication of compliance to those that measure the pollutant of interest more directly, and ( 5) a combination of the above. In your comments,

please provide any available information about cost, accuracy, feasability, or any other factors that you consider relevant to the revised or improved monitoring.

Question: What kinds of programmatic or other changes would you suggest be used to make changes to improve inadequate monitoring? Options include conducting rulemaking to revise emissions standards, issuing guidance or policy, or other approaches.

Please be specific on which option( s) you prefer and provide reasons for your preference( s).

Question: Do the categories of potential monitoring inadequacies identified above also appear in SIP rules such that you believe the monitoring isto be inadequate? If so,

identify such SIP rules. AreDo you believe there to be other categories of inadequate monitoring in SIP's, and if so, what are they? How would you suggest we go about identifying the specific standards or rules in specific implementation plans that contain potential monitoring inadequacies? Please specify what you believe to be the standards, the inadequate monitoring, and the type( s) of improvements necessary to correct any potential inadequacies you identify. In your comments, please provide any available information about cost, accuracy, feasability, or any other factors that you consider relevant to the revised or improved monitoring. What programmatic changes would be best to effect these 19 changes ( e. g., EPA or State rulemaking, SIP calls, voluntary programs, issuing guidance or policy, or other means)?

Question: Is opacity an effective means of determining compliance with PM limits in pre 1990 applicable requirements such as NSPS and NESHAP? Are other monitoring technologies more effective in assuring compliance with PM limits? Please specify situations where other monitoring approaches arewould be more appropriate and effective as indicators of compliance with PM limits. What new technologies may serve as costeffective and reliable means of determining compliance with those PM limits ( e. g., bag leak detectors which detect problems that may lead to a deviation or continuous emissions monitoring systems that directly monitor PM emissions)? Please specify when such new technologies may be warranted, including the standards, the current monitoring, and the more appropriate monitoring technology.

In this ANPR we are only seeking comments to identify potential monitoring inadequacies in the Federal rules identified in section III of this ANPR ( i. e., NSPS under 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP under 40 CFR part 61 promulgated prior to 1990) and SIP rules, and to suggest ways to correct any such inadequacies we may later determine to exist with respect to section 114( a)( 3) of the Act and the monitoring requirements in title V of the Act. We have not opened for comment any provisions of the operating permits program rules in 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, the CAM rule in 40 CFR part 64, any post 1990 NESHAP or any other post 1990 Federal rules or any issues related to State, local, tribal,

or EPA implementation of permitting programs approved under or based on those rules.

What Additional Steps Are Expected After EPA Reviews Comments Received? 20 Once EPA receives comments on our preliminary analysis of potential monitoring inadequacies and suggestions on methods to correct such inadequacies, we will determine the appropriate next steps. The EPA believes, at this time, the next steps will likely include rulemakings to improve monitoring requirements in some Federal rules. We are open to comments and have made no decisions as to which Federal rules have inadequate monitoring, nor on how to proceed to correct any such monitoring. Any rulemakings we may decide to undertake in the future will be conducted using notice and comment procedures. In addition, prior to finalizing any changes to Federal rules, we will consider all specific facts associated with the upgrades we propose for each standard and conduct any required analyses of burdens, including economic impacts, necessary to satisfy statutory and other requirements.

_________________________________ Date _________________________________ Stephen L. Johnson, Acting Administrator


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 7143]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14291-000]

Green Wave Mendocino Wave Park; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On September 23, 2011, Green Wave Energy Solutions, LLC,
California, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the
feasibility of the Green Wave Mendocino Wave Park (Mendocino Wave
Project or project) to be located in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of
the City of Mendocino in Mendocino County, California. The sole purpose
of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder
priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) 150 to 680
Wave Energy Converters (WEC) (Pelamis or OPT) units having a total
installed capacity of 100 megawatts; (2) a proposed 2 to 3-mile-long,
36 kilovolt, 4-inch-diameter, three-phase AC submarine cable; and (3)
appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an average
annual generation of 250 gigawatthours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Wayne Burkamp, Green Wave Energy Solutions,
LLC, 223 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Suite 307, Thousand Oaks, CA
91360; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kenneth Hogan; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14291) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 6, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3164 Filed 2-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 135 (Monday, July 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32731-32734]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14891]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81121; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-067]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Tier 8 Rebate
To Add Liquidity

July 11, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 30, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to

solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NASDAQ Options Market LLC's
(``NOM'') pricing at Chapter XV, Section 2(1), to amend the Customer
\3\ and Professional \4\ Penny Pilot Options Tier 8 Rebate to Add
Liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional.'' See Chapter XV.
    \4\ The term ``Professional'' or (``P'') means any person or
entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s) pursuant
to Chapter I, Section 1(a)(48). All Professional orders shall be
approximately marked by Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on July 3, 2017.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Customer and Professional Penny
Pilot Options Rebate to Add Liquidity tiers. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to amend the current qualifications related to the Tier 8
Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options rebate. The proposed new
Tier 8 qualifications should continue to attract Customer and
Professional order flow to NOM. This order flow benefits other market
participants through order interaction.
    Today, the Exchange pays Customer and Professional Penny Pilot
Options Rebates to Add Liquidity as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Rebate to add
                     Tier                                      Monthly volume                      liquidity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................  Participant adds Customer, Professional, Firm,              $0.20
                                                Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer
                                                liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-
                                                Penny Pilot Options of up to 0.10% of total
                                                industry customer equity and ETF option
                                                average daily volume (``ADV'') contracts per
                                                day in a month.
2............................................  Participant adds Customer, Professional, Firm,               0.25
                                                Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer
                                                liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-
                                                Penny Pilot Options above 0.10% to 0.20% of
                                                total industry customer equity and ETF option
                                                ADV contracts per day in a month.
3............................................  Participant adds Customer, Professional, Firm,               0.42
                                                Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer
                                                liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-
                                                Penny Pilot Options above 0.20% to 0.30% of
                                                total industry customer equity and ETF option
                                                ADV contracts per day in a month.
4............................................  Participant adds Customer, Professional, Firm,               0.43
                                                Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer
                                                liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-
                                                Penny Pilot Options above 0.30% to 0.40% of
                                                total industry customer equity and ETF option
                                                ADV contracts per day in a month.
5............................................  Participant adds Customer, Professional, Firm,               0.45
                                                Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer
                                                liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-
                                                Penny Pilot Options above 0.40% to 0.75% of
                                                total industry customer equity and ETF option
                                                ADV contracts per day in a month.
6............................................  Participant has Total Volume of 100,000 or                   0.45
                                                more contracts per day in a month, of which
                                                25,000 or more contracts per day in a month
                                                must be Customer and/or Professional
                                                liquidity in Penny Pilot Options.
7............................................  Participant has Total Volume of 150,000 or                   0.47
                                                more contracts per day in a month, of which
                                                50,000 or more contracts per day in a month
                                                must be Customer and/or Professional
                                                liquidity in Penny Pilot Options.
8............................................  Participant adds Customer, Professional, Firm,               0.48
                                                Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer
                                                liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-
                                                Penny Pilot Options above 0.75% or more of
                                                total industry customer equity and ETF option
                                                ADV contracts per day in a month, or
                                                Participant adds: (1) Customer and/or
                                                Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options
                                                and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 0.25% or
                                                more of total industry customer equity and
                                                ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month,
                                                and (2) has added liquidity in all securities
                                                through one or more of its Nasdaq Market
                                                Center MPIDs that represent 1.00% or more of
                                                Consolidated Volume in a month or qualifies
                                                for MARS (defined below).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, the Exchange pays a $0.48 per contract rebate \5\ to
Participants that

qualify for a Tier 8 Customer or Professional Penny Pilot Options
Rebate to Add Liquidity by adding Customer, Professional, Firm,\6\ Non-
NOM Market Maker \7\ and/or Broker-Dealer \8\ liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.75% or more of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a
month, or adding: (1) Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 0.25% or more of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a
month, and (2) has added liquidity in all securities through one or
more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 1.00% or more of
Consolidated Volume in a month or qualifies for MARS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Note ``c,'' which is applicable to the Tier 8 rebate,
provides additional rebates to Participants that: (1) Add Customer,
Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer
liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non- Penny Pilot Options of
1.15% or more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV
contracts per day in a month will receive an additional $0.02 per
contract Penny Pilot Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to
Add Liquidity for each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options in that month; or (2) add Customer, Professional,
Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny
Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 1.30% or more of
total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day
in a month will receive an additional $0.05 per contract Penny Pilot
Options Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity for
each transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in that
month; or (3) (a) add Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market
Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or
Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.80% of total industry customer
equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month, (b) add
Customer, Professional, Firm, Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-
Dealer liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.15% of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a
month, and (c) execute greater than 0.04% of Consolidated Volume
(``CV'') via Market-on-Close/Limit-on-Close (``MOC/LOC'') volume
within the NASDAQ Stock Market Closing Cross within a month will
receive an additional $0.05 per contract Penny Pilot Options
Customer and/or Professional Rebate to Add Liquidity for each
transaction which adds liquidity in Penny Pilot Options in a month.
    Consolidated Volume shall mean the total consolidated volume
reported to all consolidated transaction reporting plans by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities during a month in equity
securities, excluding executed orders with a size of less than one
round lot. For purposes of calculating Consolidated Volume and the
extent of an equity member's trading activity, expressed as a
percentage of or ratio to Consolidated Volume, the date of the
annual reconstitution of the Russell Investments Indexes shall be
excluded from both total Consolidated Volume and the member's
trading activity.
    \6\ The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction that
is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range at
OCC.
    \7\ The term ``Non-NOM Market Maker'' or (``O'') is a registered
market maker on another options exchange that is not a NOM Market
Maker. A Non-NOM Market Maker must append the proper Non-NOM Market
Maker designation to orders routed to NOM.
    \8\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' or (``B'') applies to any
transaction which is not subject to any of the other transaction
fees applicable within a particular category.
    \9\ NOM Participants that have System Eligibility and have
executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts in a month are
paid MARS rebates based on average daily volume in a month. See
Chapter XV, Section 2(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to continue to pay a $0.48 per contract
rebate provided, a NOM Participant adds Customer, Professional, Firm,
Non-NOM Market Maker and/or Broker-Dealer liquidity in Penny Pilot
Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options above 0.75% or more of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a
month, or Participant adds: (1) Customer and/or Professional liquidity
in Penny Pilot Options and/or Non-Penny Pilot Options of 0.20% or more
of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day
in a month, and (2) has added liquidity in all securities through one
or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs that represent 1.00% or more
of Consolidated Volume in a month or qualifies for MARS.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the current qualification from
Customer and/or Professional liquidity in Penny Pilot Options and/or
Non-Penny Pilot Options of 0.25% or more of total industry customer
equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in a month to 0.20% or more
of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day
in a month should provide Participants the ability to qualify for this
tier by executing less contracts which represent industry volume in a
given month. The Exchange believes that this amendment should
incentivize Participants to transact more volume to qualify for a Tier
8 rebate since one of the qualifiers requires a lower percentage of
total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per day in
a month as compared to the current percentage.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to amend the current qualifications related
to the Tier 8 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to
Add Liquidity is reasonable because the rebate should continue to
attract Customer and Professional order flow to NOM. The additional
Customer and Professional order flow to NOM benefits other market
participants by providing additional liquidity with which to interact.
Customer liquidity offers unique benefits to the market which benefits
all market participants. Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange believes that encouraging Participants to add Professional
liquidity creates competition among options exchanges because the
Exchange believes that the rebates may cause market participants to
select NOM as a venue to send Professional order flow. Amending the
current qualification 0.25% or more of total industry customer equity
and ETF option ADV contracts to 0.20% or more of total industry
customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts affords Participants the
ability to qualify for this Tier 8 because it requires less volume as a
result of the proposed lower percentage of industry volume. With this
proposal, Participants that consistently send order flow to the
Exchange may continue to qualify for Tier 8 rebates and other
Participants may send additional order flow to qualify for a Tier 8
rebate with the lower requirement.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the current qualifications related
to the Tier 8 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to
Add Liquidity is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all
Participants are eligible to earn rebates. These rebates would be
uniformly paid to all qualifying Participants.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. The proposed pricing change is competitive and does not
impose a burden on inter-market competition. If the change proposed
herein is unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the
Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of
members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.
    The Exchange's proposal to amend the current qualifications related
to the Tier 8 Customer and Professional Penny Pilot Options Rebate to
Add Liquidity does not impose an undue burden on intra-market
competition because all Participants are eligible to earn rebates and
these rebates would be uniformly paid to all qualifying Participants.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-067 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-067. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-067 and should
be submitted on or before August 7, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14891 Filed 7-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79039-79040]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31916]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R08-OW-2015-0346; FRL-9940-34-Region 8]

Issuance of NPDES General Permits for Wastewater Lagoon Systems
Located in Indian Country in Region 8

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of issuance of NPDES general permits under the authority
of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is hereby
giving notice of its issuance of six National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) lagoon general permits for wastewater lagoon
systems located in Indian country in Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, &
WY). These general permits are similar to the existing permits and will
authorize the discharge of wastewater from lagoons located in Region 8
Indian country in accordance with the terms and conditions described
therein.

DATES: The general permits become effective on January 1, 2016 and will
expire five years from that date. For purposes of seeking review of
this permit pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(o) and 33 U.S.C. 1369(b)(1), the
120 day time period for appeal to the federal court will begin on
January 1, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information concerning the
final permits may be obtained from VelRey Lozano, EPA Region 8,
Wastewater Unit (8P-W-WW), 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The administrative record is available by appointment for review
and copying, fee for copies may be required, at the EPA Region 8
offices during the hours

of 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, Federal holidays
excluded. The final general permits, the fact sheet, and additional
information may be downloaded from the EPA Region 8 Web page at http://www2.epa.gov/region8/npdes-permits-document-download. Please allow one
week after date of this publication for items to be uploaded to the Web
page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed issuance of the general permits was
published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2015, 80 FR 37255. The
public comment period closed on July 30, 2015. A summary of comments
received and Region 8's response to the comments are given in a
separate document, ``Response to Comments Received During the 2015
Public Notice of Draft NPDES General Permits for Wastewater Lagoon
Systems Located in Indian country''.
    These permits authorize the discharge of wastewater in accordance
with the terms and conditions described therein. The fact sheet for the
permits is provide for downloading concurrently with the permits and
provides detailed information on: The decisions used to set
limitations; the specific geographic areas covered by the permits;
information on monitoring schedules; inspection requirements, and other
regulatory decisions or requirements.
    Issuance of the general permits covers discharges from wastewater
lagoon systems located in Indian country in Region 8. The general
permits are grouped geographically by state, with the permit coverage
being for specified Indian reservations located within a state boundary
[specific permit coverage areas below]; any land held in trust by the
United States for an Indian tribe; and any other areas which are Indian
country within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151.
    Colorado: The COG587### permit covers the Southern Ute and the Ute
Mountain Reservations, including those portions of the Reservation
located in New Mexico and Utah.
    Montana: MTG589### This permit covers the Blackfeet Indian
Reservation of Montana; the Crow Indian Reservation; the Flathead
Reservation; the Fort Belknap Reservation of Montana; the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation; the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation; and the
Rocky Boy's Reservation.
    North Dakota: NDG589### This permit covers the Fort Berthold
Reservation; the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation; the Standing Rock
Sioux Reservation; and the Turtle Mountain Reservation.
    This permit includes that portion of the Standing Rock Sioux
Reservation and associated Indian country located within the State of
South Dakota. It does not include any land held in trust by the United
States for the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate or any other Indian country
associated with that Tribe, which is covered under general permit
SDG589###.
    South Dakota: SDG589### This permit covers the Cheyenne River
Reservation; Crow Creek Reservation; the Flandreau Santee Sioux Indian
Reservation; the Lower Brule Reservation; the Pine Ridge Reservation
(including the entire Reservation, which is located in both South
Dakota and Nebraska); the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation; and the
Yankton Sioux Reservation.
    This permit includes any land in the State of North Dakota that is
held in trust by the United States for the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate or
any other Indian country associated with that Tribe. It does not
include the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation or any associated Indian
country, which is covered under general permit NDG589###.
    Utah: UTG589### This permit covers the Northwestern Band of
Shoshoni Nation of Utah Reservation (Washakie); the Paiute Indian Tribe
of Utah Reservation; the Skull Valley Indian Reservation; and Indian
country lands within the Uintah & Ouray Reservation. It does not
include any portions of the Navajo Nation or the Goshute Reservation.
    Wyoming: WYG589### This permit covers the Wind River Reservation.
    Coverage under the general permits is limited to lagoon systems
treating primarily domestic wastewater and includes two categories of
coverage; discharging lagoons, and lagoons expected to have no
discharge. The effluent limitations for discharging lagoons are based
on the Federal Secondary Treatment Regulation (40 CFR part 133) and
best professional judgement. The fact sheet also addresses situations
in which more stringent and/or additional effluent limitations are
determined necessary to comply with applicable water quality standards.
Lagoon systems under the no discharge category are required to have no
discharge except in accordance with the bypass provisions of the
permit. Self-monitoring requirements and routine inspection
requirements are included in the permits.
    Where the Tribes have Clean Water Act Sec.  401(a)(1) certification
authority; Blackfeet Indian Reservation, Flathead Indian Reservation,
the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation,
and the Ute Mountain Indian Reservation; EPA has requested
certification that the permits comply with the applicable provisions of
the CWA and tribal water quality standards.

Other Legal Requirements

    Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866): EPA has determined that
the issuance of this general permit is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October
4, 1993)) and is therefore not subject to formal OMB review prior to
proposal.
    Paperwork Reduction Act: EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed
on regulated facilities in these proposed general permits under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 501, et seq. The information
collection requirements of these permits have already been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget in submissions made for the NPDES
permit program under the provisions of the Clean Water Act.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA): 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA): The
RFA requires that the EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for
rules subject to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) that have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
permits proposed today, however, are not a ``rule'' subject to the
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and is therefore not subject to the
RFA.
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, generally requires Federal
agencies to assess the effects of their ``regulatory actions'' defined
to be the same as ``rules'' subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)) on tribal, state, local governments and the private sector. The
permit proposed today, however, is not a rule and is therefore not
subject to the requirements of the UMRA.

    Authority:  Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.

    Dated: December 3, 2015.
Darcy O'Connor,
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2015-31916 Filed 12-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49993-49994]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19758]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-9846-3]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Torch Lake Superfund
Site

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 is issuing a
Notice of Intent to Delete the Quincy Smelter and Calumet Lake parcels
of OU3 of the Torch Lake Superfund Site (Site), located in Houghton
County, Michigan, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests
public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant
to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA with the concurrence of the State of
Michigan, through the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ), has determined that all appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and five year reviews, at
these identified parcels have been completed. However, this deletion
does not preclude future actions under Superfund.
    This partial deletion pertains to the surface tailings and slag
deposits of the Quincy Smelter and Calumet Lake parcels of OU3. The
following parcels or areas will remain on the NPL and are not being
considered for deletion as part of this action: Dollar Bay, Point
Mills, Boston Pond, and North Entry.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow online instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email: Nefertiti DiCosmo, Remedial Project Manager, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Dave Novak, Community Involvement
Coordinator, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Gladys Beard at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Nefertiti DiCosmo, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER> or Dave Novak, Community Involvement
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SI-7J), 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free at 1
(800) 621-8431.
     Hand delivery: Dave Novak, Community Involvement
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SI-7J), 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The normal business
hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST, excluding
federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1986-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST, excluding federal holidays.
 Lake Linden/Hubbell Public Library, 601 Calumet Street, Lake
Linden, MI 49945, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Summer Hours: Tuesday and
Thursday, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. EST; Wednesday, 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
EST, Winter Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST
(when school is in session); Tuesday and Thursday, 3:30 p.m. to 8:30
p.m. EST
 Portage Lake District Library, 58 Huron Street, Houghton, MI
49931, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Monday through Thursday, 10:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. EST; Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST; and
Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. EST

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nefertiti DiCosmo, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Partial Deletion for the Quincy Smelter and Calumet Lake parcels of OU3
of the Torch Lake Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision
and anticipates no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for
this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice for Partial
Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no
adverse comment(s) on this partial deletion action, we will not take
further action on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. If we
receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice
for Partial Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as
appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice
of Partial Deletion based on this Notice

of Intent for Partial Deletion. We will not institute a second comment
period on this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion which is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: July 25, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-19758 Filed 8-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request USEPA/ Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0419 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NESHAP for Steel Pickling ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCC) ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) ICR Number 1821.05 9. Keywords Steel pickling; hydrochloric acid; regeneration plants 10. Abstract This rule applies to all facilities that pickle steel using hydrochloric acid or regenerate hydrochloric acid, and are major sources or are part of a facility that is a major source. Consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A), owners and operators of HCl steel pickling plants must comply with recordkeeping, monitoring and reporting requirements including control device parameter monitoring, conducting performance tests and submitting periodic reports. Sources are required to submit semiannual reports and, a written maintenance plan for each emission control device.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 72 b. Total annual responses 153 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10 % c. Total hours requested 25,448 d. Current OMB inventory 25,104 e. Difference 344 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 344 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 1 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 8 c. Total annualized cost requested 9 d. Current OMB inventory 9 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Initial 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Maria Malave Phone: 202 564 7027 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3):

( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of:

"( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number." OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95