June 27, 2005 ( Via Email)

EPA Docket Center Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Environmental Protection Agency ( 4101T) Office of Management and Budget Water Docket Attention: Desk Officer for EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20460 Washington, DC, 20503 Attn: Docket ID No. OW 2004 0025 Re: AF& PA Comments on Agency Information Collection Request ( ICR) on EPA Minimum Monitoring Requirements for Direct and Indirect Discharging Mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category ( Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1878.02, OMB Control Number 2040 0243: 70 Fed. Reg. 30439 ( May 26, 2005)

To Whom it May Concern:

The American Forest & Paper Association ( AF& PA) is pleased to submit these comments on the Information Collection Request ( ICR) renewal for Minimum Monitoring Requirements referenced above. AF& PA is the national trade association of the forest, paper and wood products industry. AF& PA represents more than 200 companies and related associations that engage in or represent the manufacture of pulp, paper, paperboard and wood products. AF& PA members own and operate mills subject to the minimum monitoring requirements.

As discussed below, AF& PA suggests that the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) make its approval of these requirements contingent on EPA reminding State water division directors and EPA regions about the ability of permit writers to reduce monitoring frequencies, and encouraging them to do so. We base this request on the fact that all mills subject to the monitoring requirements have already converted to Elemental Chlorine Free ( ECF) bleaching which is the technology basis of the underlying rule and those mills have exemplary compliance histories using that technology. Continued monitoring at the required frequency would simply yield thousands more sample results showing continued compliance and would have no practical utility. AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION GROWING WITH AMERICA SINCE 1861 2 Background Minimum Monitoring Frequencies The minimum monitoring requirements were originally promulgated on April 15, 1998 as part of the final effluent guidelines ( known as the Cluster Rule) applicable to the mills referenced above. 40 CFR Sections 430.02( a) and ( b). Monitoring was required for dioxin, furan, AOX, chloroform, and 12 chlorinated organic substances, and specified minimum testing frequencies were provided for these parameters, ranging from daily to monthly. The rule also included a provision stating that the specified monitoring frequencies were required for five years ( i. e., the permit term), commencing on the date of the first permit to include Cluster Rule requirements for direct dischargers, from April 16, 2001 until April 17, 2006 for existing indirect dischargers, and 5 years for new indirect dischargers, commencing on the start of operations. EPA indicated that the five year period " will provide data useful for establishing appropriate monitoring requirements during future permit renewals." 63 Fed. Reg. 18572.

Typically, effluent guidelines do not include minimum monitoring requirements and mandatory testing frequencies, but instead leave those decisions up to the permit writer. However, when promulgating the Cluster Rule, EPA indicated in the Preamble several reasons for doing so here. 63 Fed. Reg. 18571 18572.

  The nature of the regulated pollutants;   "[ P] rocess related variability;"   The need for sufficient data to ensure permitting authorities " have an adequate basis to verify compliance" with the limits in the rule; and   The need for " sufficient information to evaluate mill compliance  over the long term."

Reduced Monitoring Frequency The Cluster Rule also included a provision allowing the permit writer to require less frequent monitoring after the compulsory five year monitoring period. EPA included factors the permit writer should consider when writing the next permit to developing reduced monitoring frequency ( e. g., the mill's compliance history). 63 Fed. Reg. 18572. The agency also referenced existing guidance on performance based reductions of NPDES permit monitoring frequencies ( EPA 883 B 96 001) to help guide the permit writer in determining new, reduced monitoring frequencies. Finally, similar provisions were included in EPA's " Permit Guidance Document" for the Cluster Rule, issued in May 2000 ( EPA 821 B 00 003).

Mill Performance EPA currently is undertaking a review of the Pulp and Paper Point Source category for potential effluent guidelines revision. As part of that review, the Agency provided us its data used to evaluate industry discharges, including data on dioxin discharges, and provided an opportunity to correct the data. As indicated in Enclosure I, based on corrected Permit Compliance System ( PCS) data, there were no discharges of dioxin in calendar year 2002, the year for which the analysis was conducted. 3 This is consistent with information from AF& PA member companies' own compliance records. Enclosure II is a compilation of letters from 4 AF& PA members, discussing the compliance records of their bleached kraft mills with Cluster Rule permits   a total of 20 mills out of the approximately 39 mills that we believe have Cluster Rule permits, based on an analysis of EPA's database. Not only were these mills in compliance with the dioxin limitations, but also with all the other parameters regulated under the minimum monitoring requirements, with one exception. 1 The records described in these letters encompass over 37,000 sampling events occurring over a period of 542 months ( we believe this is a conservative estimate). Moreover, company representatives are confident that their mills were in compliance in the years before those represented by the enclosed records, but obtaining the relevant documentation within the comment period was not possible.

These 20 mills are representative of the industry's other bleached kraft mills in terms of bleaching technology. As we indicated in our comments to EPA in Enclosure I, all of the industry's bleached kraft mills had installed Cluster Rule compliant technology ( i. e., ECF) by April 2001, the same technology used by these mills. The only exceptions were the four mills enrolled in EPA's VATIP program. Those mills were provided more time to achieve even better performance than that required by the Cluster Rule limitations. All four of them also now have ECF technology, as well. ( see e. g., Glatfelter letter, included in Enclosure II).

Utility of Information Collection Activity As indicated above, the industry mills for which we have data have an exemplary record of compliance with the limitations for these regulated parameters, with only one minor violation in over 37,000 sampling events. Other Cluster Rule mills have the same or better bleaching technology. There is no reason to believe that the compliance records for the other mills would be any different than the records represented in Attachment II. There also is no reason to believe that these records will change in the future. Therefore, there is no utility in continuing to monitor for these parameters at the required frequencies.

Steps to Minimize the Burden of This Information Collection Activity By EPA's own calculation, the required minimum monitoring costs over $ 15 million a year   costs incurred by the mills, EPA, and state permitting agencies. Currently, all of these entities face serious financial and budgetary challenges, and a significant portion of these funds could be better spent elsewhere addressing other environmental priorities. It is appropriate to consider ways to minimize the burden of this activity for all three entities.

We believe the minimum monitoring frequencies should be removed from the Cluster Rule requirements. We understand, however, that this can only be accomplished through a rulemaking, that EPA has not budgeted for such a rulemaking, and that it could be several years before such a rulemaking would be completed, given other competing priorities in the Office of Water.

The next best step to minimize this significant burden is for EPA specifically to encourage permitting agencies when renewing Cluster Rule permits to take advantage of the provisions in the 1 That lone exception was slightly above the minimum level for a regulated chlorinated phenolic and was not indicative of routine operating conditions. 4 existing rule and guidances allowing reduced monitoring frequencies after five years. The concerns cited by EPA for imposing the minimum frequencies ( e. g., variability, need to evaluate compliance over the long term) have been addressed.

We request that OMB approve this ICR, contingent upon EPA issuing guidance to EPA's regions and State water permitting directors. The guidance should highlight the existing rule and guidance allowing reduced monitoring frequency, encourage the use of these provisions to significantly reduce monitoring frequencies as permits for Cluster Rule mills are renewed, and indicate that EPA will not object to permits with reduced monitoring requirements. This should ensure that most mills receive significantly reduced monitoring frequencies in their renewed permits, thereby minimizing the unnecessary burden of continuing to monitor at the frequencies required by the rule. Of course, if there should be the rare case where a mill specific issue indicates that reduced monitoring is not appropriate, the existing rule and guidance allow permit writers to renew the permit with the frequencies required by the Cluster Rule.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this ICR. Please feel free to contact me at ( 202) 463 2581, if you have any questions about these comments.

Sincerely,

Jerry Schwartz Senior Director, Water Quality Programs Enclosure Cc: Don Anderson, EPA ( w/ o enclosure) Ahmar Siddiqui, EPA ( w/ o enclosure) Jack Faulk, EPA ( w/ o enclosure) Jim Lahity, OMB ( w/ enclosure)


[Federal Register: November 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 63567-63569]
[DOCID:fr09no07-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-2-000]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Eunice Replacement Project
and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

November 2, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Eunice Replacement Project
(Project) involving the abandonment of existing natural gas compression
facilities, and construction and operation of new natural gas
compression facilities by El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) in Lea
County, New Mexico.\1\ The EA will be used by the Commission in its
decisionmaking process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 2, 2007, EPNG filed its application with the
Commission under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 United
States Code Sec.  717(b)(a), and Parts 157 and 284 of the
Commission's regulations. The Commission filed its notice of
application on October 11, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice EPNG provided to affected landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    EPNG seeks authority to abandon in place:
     Its existing Eunice Mainline Compressor Station consisting
of 11 Clark BA-5 and one Clark HBA-5 reciprocating compressor units,
rated at approximately 12,100 ISO HP, with appurtenances and related
structures; and
     an existing pig launcher.
    EPNG also seeks authority to construct on land owned by EPNG:
     A 600 foot segment of 30 pipeline to connect
the discharge of the proposed Eunice C Compressor Station to the
California Line and serve as a bypass of the abandoned Eunice Mainline
Compressor Station;
     Two gas turbine-drive Taurus 60 compressor units on the
Eunice C Compressor Station site, totaling approximately 15,600 ISO HP;
     A compressor unit building to house the compressor units;
     A pig launcher/check meter station within the proposed
Eunice C Compressor Station site; and
     A valve station within the proposed Eunice C Compressor
Station site.
    In addition, EPNG seeks authority to up-rate, on land owned by
EPNG, a 1,700 foot segment of pipeline (Line 1135) to a maximum
allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of 837 psig. EPNG would connect
this segment of Line 1135, currently located on the suction side of the
existing Eunice Mainline Compressor Station, to the discharge of the
proposed Eunice C Compressor Station.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's website at
the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 16.8
acres of land. Following construction, about 3.0 acres would be
permanently impacted by the new Eunice C Compressor Station. All
project facilities would be maintained within existing EPNG property.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.

    In the EA, we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and Soils
     Land Use
     Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands
     Cultural Resources
     Vegetation and Wildlife
     Threatened and Endangered Species
     Air Quality and Noise
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified the following issues that we think
deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed
facilities and the environmental information provided by EPNG. This
preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and
our analysis.
     The net impact on air quality and noise of the general
project area may be positively affected by the abandonment of the
existing compressor station and operation of the proposed new
compressor station.
     No impacts would occur to water resources, fisheries or
wetlands. Other than air emissions and noise, all impacts would occur
within existing EPNG property.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative
locations), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The
more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please
carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are
received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of OEP/
DG2E, Gas Branch 3.
     Reference Docket No. CP08-2-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before December 3, 2007.
    We will include all comments that we receive within a reasonable
time frame in our environmental analysis of this project. However, the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or
interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the

User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a
free account which can be created on-line.
    We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving
it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 3). If you do not
return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, or ``intervenor''. To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own land within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. By this
notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in
Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies
for the preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on

the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be
sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
 along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-22022 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69924-69925]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28305]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0059]

Request for Comments on a Renewal of a Previously Approved
Information Collection: Production Plan Reports

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following information collection was published on June
12, 2012 (77 FR 35110). No comments were received.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 21, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Katz, Fuel Economy
Division, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, NVS-132, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: 49 CFR Parts 531 and 533 Passenger Car Average Fuel Economy
Standards--Model Years 2016-2025; Light Truck Average Fuel Economy
Standards--Model Years 2016-2025; Production Plan Data.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0655.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a previously approved information
collection.
    Abstract: In this collection of information, NHTSA is requesting
updated future product plans from vehicle manufacturers, as well as
production data through the recent past, including data about engines
and transmissions for model year MY 2012 through MY 2025 passenger cars
and light trucks and the assumptions underlying those plans.
    NHTSA requests information for MYs 2012-2025 to aid NHTSA in
developing a realistic forecast of the MY 2016-2025 vehicle market.
Information regarding earlier model years may help the agency to better
account for cumulative effects such as volume and time-based

reductions in costs, and also may help to reveal product mix and
technology application trends during model years for which the agency
is currently receiving actual corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)
compliance data. Information regarding later model years helps the
agency gain a better understanding of how manufacturers' plans through
MY 2025 relate to their longer-term expectations regarding Energy
Independence and Security Act requirements, market trends and prospects
for more advanced technologies.
    NHTSA will also consider information from model years before and
after MYs 2016-2025 when reviewing manufacturers' planned schedules for
redesigning and freshening their products in order to examine how
manufacturers anticipate tying technology introduction to product
design schedules. In addition, the agency is requesting information
regarding manufacturers' estimates of the future vehicle population,
and fuel economy improvements and incremental costs attributed to this
notice.
    Affected Public: Automobile manufacturers.
    Number of Respondents: 30.
    Number of Responses: 30.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: Reports are requested from each of the
thirty automotive manufacturers. For each manufacturer who supplies
product plan reports, NHTSA has made available a product plan template,
which can be found at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/CAFE+-
+Fuel+Economy/Current+and+past+product+plan+requests.
    NHTSA currently has a clearance for 16,000 hours, based on reports
being received from 22 manufacturers. Including reports from eight
additional manufacturers, most of which produce approximately 500
vehicles per year, results in an additional reporting burden of 500
hours. Adding that burden to the existing burden of 16,000, results in
a total reporting burden of 16,500 hours. The information requested in
the templates may change from request to request as new fuel economy
technologies are implemented, which may increase the amount of
information requested, and as older technologies are phased out, which
may decrease the amount of information requested. Therefore, the time
needed to complete the templates may vary for each product plan
request. Although the reporting burden may not be precisely 16,500
hours for each specific product plan request, NHTSA believes that,
based on prior experience, that this burden is representative and
accurate for the purposes of this clearance.
    Frequency of Collection: Manufacturer product plans are requested
each time that NHTSA initiates a rulemaking for light-duty fuel economy
standards. These standards may be issued for a one to five year time
frame; thus, manufacturers would be expected to provide these reports
every one to five years. Recent NHTSA rulemakings have typically ranged
between three and five years. NHTSA generally requests product plans
prior to issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking and prior to the
issuance of a final rule. Since the gap between the two rules generally
is less than a year, manufacturers would be expected to provide two
reports for each rulemaking cycle.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments are
invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will have practical utility; the
accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed
information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the
use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.

Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35,
as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued on: November 15, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-28305 Filed 11-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P