[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59739-59745]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23806]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 357

[Docket No. RM11-21-000; Order No. 767]

Revision to Form No. 6

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
amends the instructions on page 700 of FERC Form No. 6 (Form 6) to
ensure that oil pipelines report interstate-only barrel and barrel-mile
data on lines (11) and (12) of page 700 and not a combination of
interstate and intrastate throughput. The Commission also directs
pipelines that reported combined interstate and intrastate data in any
field on lines (1) through (12) of page 700 of their 2010 Form 6 or
page 700 of their 2011 Form 6 to file within 90 days of the final
rule's publication in the Federal Register revised page 700 data
containing only interstate data for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective December 31,
2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Knudsen (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Michael Lacy (Technical
Information), Office of Energy Market Regulation, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brian
Holmes (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

140 FERC ] 61,218

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller,
John R. Norris, Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony T. Clark.

Revision to Form No. 6

[Docket No. RM11-21-000]

Order No. 767

Final Rule
Issued September 20, 2012.
    1. In this Final Rule, the Commission amends the instructions on
page 700, Annual Cost of Service Based Analysis Schedule, of FERC Form
No. 6, Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies, (Form 6) to ensure that
oil pipelines report interstate-only barrel and barrel-mile data on
lines (11) and (12) of page 700 and not a combination of interstate and
intrastate throughput.\1\ The Commission also directs pipelines that
reported combined interstate and intrastate data in any field on lines
(1) through (12) of page 700 of their 2010 Form 6 \2\ or their 2011
Form 6 \3\ to file within 90 days of the final rule's publication in
the Federal Register

revised page 700 data containing only interstate data for the years
2009, 2010, and 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Concurrent with the issuance of this Final Rule, the
Commission is proposing additional changes to Page 700 of Form 6 in
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Docket No. RM12-18-000.
    \2\ Pipelines filed their 2010 FERC Form 6 on April 18, 2011.
    \3\ Pipelines filed their 2011 FERC Form 6 on April 18, 2012.
    \4\ 2009 data will be reported in Column C of the revised 2010
Form 6, page 700. 2010 data will be reported in Column B of the
revised 2010 Form 6, page 700 and Column C of the revised 2011 Form
6, page 700. 2011 data will be reported in Column B of the revised
2011 Form 6, page 700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Page 700 of Form 6 serves as a preliminary screening tool for
shippers to evaluate interstate pipeline rates subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction.\5\ Thus, in Order Nos. 620 and 620-A, the
Commission clarified that page 700 must include only jurisdictional
costs and jurisdictional revenues (i.e. interstate costs and interstate
revenues) and not a combination of jurisdictional and non-
jurisdictional data.\6\ Page 700 contains data for the current year and
previous year, which allows shippers and the Commission to evaluate the
pipeline's cost changes during the prior year.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All jurisdictional pipelines are required to file page 700,
including pipelines exempt from filing the full Form 6. 18 CFR
Sec. Sec.  357.2(a)(2) and (a)(3) (2011).
    \6\ Revisions to and Electronic Filing of the FERC Form No. 6
and Related Uniform Systems of Accounts, Order No. 620, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,115, at 31,959, on reh'g, 94 FERC ] 61,130, at 61,498
(2001).
    \7\ Page 700 of the 2010 Form 6 contains data for 2010 and 2009.
Following the issuance of the NOPR, pipelines filed the 2011 Form 6
on April 18, 2012, which contains page 700 data for 2011 and 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On July 29, 2011, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) \8\ proposing to modify the instructions for line
(11) \9\ and line (12) \10\ of page 700 to specify that pipelines must
report only interstate barrels and interstate barrel-miles, not a
combination of interstate and intrastate throughput. The NOPR observed
that the current instructions on page 700 for lines (11) and (12) may
inadvertently have caused some pipelines to report barrel and barrel-
mile throughput that combines interstate and intrastate data.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Revision to Form No. 6, 76 FR 46668 (Aug. 3, 2011), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 32,677 (2011) (NOPR).
    \9\ Instruction number 4 on page 700 of the Form 6.
    \10\ Instruction number 5 on page 700 of the Form 6.
    \11\ Specifically, the instruction for line (12) on page 700
directs pipelines to report the same barrel-mile figures as those
reported on line 33a of page 600 of the Form 6. Similarly, the
instruction for line (11) on page 700 directs pipelines to report
the same barrel figures as those reported on line 33b of page 601 of
the Form 6. Thus, the instructions on page 700 specify that the
throughput data reported on page 700 is the same throughput data
that is reported on page 600-601. The instructions for page 600
direct pipelines to include ``all oils received'' by the pipeline,
which consequently may have led some filers to report combined
interstate and intrastate barrel-miles on lines (11) and (12) of
page 700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In addition to modifying the instructions for the page 700, the
NOPR further proposed to require any pipeline that reported combined
interstate and intrastate data in lines (1) through (12) on page 700 to
file a revised page 700 of the 2010 Form 6 containing interstate-only
data for 2009 and 2010.
    5. On April 18, 2012, following the issuance of the NOPR and after
the filing of comments in this proceeding, pipelines filed the 2011
Form 6, which contains page 700 data for 2011 and 2010.

II. Comments

    6. Comments on the NOPR were due on October 3, 2011. Comments were
filed by Valero Marketing and Supply Company (Valero); Air Transport
Association of America and the National Propane Gas Association (ATA/
NPGA); Magellan Pipeline, L.P. (Magellan); Association of Oil Pipelines
(AOPL); \12\ Enbridge Pipelines Inc.; and R. Gordon Gooch (Mr. Gooch).
AOPL, Valero and Mr. Gooch filed reply comments, which the Commission
accepts as they assisted our decision-making process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ AOPL states that it is a nonprofit trade association that
represents the interests of common carrier oil pipelines. AOPL
states that its members transport almost 85 percent of the crude oil
and refined petroleum products shipped through pipelines in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

A. Clarification to Page 700 Requiring That All Pipelines Report
Interstate-Only Barrels and Barrel Miles

1. The NOPR
    7. The NOPR proposed to modify the instructions for line (11) and
line (12) of page 700 to specify that pipelines must report only
interstate barrels and interstate barrel-miles and not a combination of
interstate and intrastate throughput.
2. Comments
    8. Valero, ATA/NPGA, and Mr. Gooch support the clarification that
pipelines are to report on page 700 only interstate barrels and barrel-
miles. They state that this change is consistent with the purpose of
page 700. Magellan also states that it supports the proposal. AOPL and
Enbridge state that they do not oppose the proposal to change the
instructions on page 700.
3. Discussion
    9. The Commission adopts the proposal to clarify that the barrel
and barrel-mile data reported on lines (11) and (12) of page 700 must
include interstate-only data and may not comingle interstate and
intrastate data. None of the parties oppose this change. This
modification will ensure that the interstate-only revenues and costs
currently required to be reported on page 700 are accompanied by
interstate-only volumes.

B. Filing Revised Page 700

1. The NOPR
    10. The NOPR proposed that pipelines that reported combined
interstate and intrastate data in lines (1) through (12) on page 700
should file a corrected 2010 Form 6 page 700 containing interstate only
data for 2009 and 2010.
2. Comments
i. Initial Comments
    11. Valero, ATA/NPGA, and Mr. Gooch support requiring pipelines
that included intrastate data in the page 700 on the 2010 Form 6 to
file revised 2009 and 2010 data containing interstate-only information.
In addition, Valero and ATA/NPGA request that the Commission require
pipelines to re-file corrected page 700 going back to the 2005 Form 6.
Valero, ATA/NPGA, and Mr. Gooch state that once the Commission has
gathered the page 700 information, it should then re-evaluate the
appropriateness of the current oil pipeline index \13\ based upon the
prior years' page 700 information. The current index adjustment is the
result of the Commission's recent five-year review of the index
conducted in 2010.\14\ Shipper parties had proposed using page 700 in
the 2010 five-year review of the index level and now claim that the
Commission rejected the use of the page 700 data only due to the
interstate/intrastate mismatch on page 700, which is being remedied by
this proceeding. Valero argues that burden on pipelines of re-filing
data back to 2005 is likely to be negligible. Extrapolating from the
cost estimates in the NOPR, Valero asserts that re-filing corrected
Form 6, page 700 going back to 2005 would be $171.10 for a pipeline
that is re-filing all five-years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Under the index, an oil pipeline may change its ceiling
rates effective every July 1 by multiplying the previous index
year's ceiling rates by the index multiplier published by the
Commission. The index is currently set at the Producer Price Index
for Finished Goods (PPI-FG) plus an adjustment factor of 2.65
percent.
    \14\ Five-Year Review of Oil Pipeline Pricing Index, 133 FERC ]
61,228, at P 64-85 (2010) (2010 Five-Year Index Review), reh'g
denied, 135 FERC ] 61,172, at P 27-43 (2011) (2010 Five-Year Index
Review Rehearing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In contrast, AOPL, Magellan, and Enbridge oppose requiring any
pipeline

that comingled interstate and intrastate costs to re-submit 2009 page
700 data. AOPL and Magellan assert that there is no compelling
regulatory need for the 2009 data. AOPL argues that requiring 2009 data
is a retroactive action that is contrary to the precepts of
administrative law.\15\ These parties do not raise objections to filing
interstate-only 2010 data as part of the 2011 Form 6 to be filed on
April 18, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ AOPL Comments at 6 (citing Bowen v. Georgetown Univ.
Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Additionally, AOPL and Magellan dispute the NOPR's estimate
that re-filing 2009 and 2010 data will only be one hour per filer. AOPL
contends that it can be difficult to determine whether a movement is
interstate or intrastate. Similarly, Magellan states that until the
most recent 2010 Form 6 filed on April 18, 2011, Magellan filed
comingled interstate and intrastate throughput and operating cost data
on its page 700. Based upon its own experience, Magellan estimates that
revisions to 2009 data for other pipelines would require forty man-
hours over a three-week period involving multiple personnel.
ii. Reply Comments
    14. In its reply comments, AOPL asserts that Valero, ATA/NPGA, and
Mr. Gooch's proposal to require re-filing of page 700 data going back
the 2005 Form 6 is an improper collateral attack on the Commission's
decisions in the 2010 Five-Year Index Review. AOPL adds that if the
Commission considers using page 700 to calculate the index in the
future, the Commission must address the objections that were raised in
the last five-year review.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ AOPL Comments at 3 (citing Reply Comments of the
Association of Oil Pipe Lines at 30-37, Docket No. RM10-25-000
(Sept. 20, 2010); Response of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines at
19-28, Docket No. RM10-25-000 (Oct. 20, 2010)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Also in its reply comments, AOPL reiterates its position that
the request for corrected 2009 data has not been justified. AOPL
contends that the burden of recalculating the 2010 Form 6, page 700
data substantially exceeds the one hour per filer estimated by the
NOPR. AOPL states that sorting out the jurisdictional status of
individual pipeline movements and recalculating the correct number of
barrels and barrel-miles to each destination can be quite time
consuming. Responding to Valero, ATA/NPGA, and Mr. Gooch, AOPL states
that the further back in time the recalculation is required, the more
difficult the data is to reconstruct. AOPL adds that there have been
significant changes in pipeline ownership and operations since 2005,
making it more difficult to reconstruct historic data.
    16. In its reply comments, Valero denies that its request is a
collateral attack on the 2010 Five-Year Index Review. Valero emphasizes
the importance of the index level for shipper costs. Citing the NOPR's
estimate of a total cost of $11,362.70 to correct the referenced
reporting errors for the years 2009 and 2010, Valero asserts that
requiring pipelines to file corrected data for 2006, 2007, and 2008
would cost $35,000. Valero disputes AOPL's and Magellan's claims
regarding burden of filing revised interstate-only page 700
information. Valero observes that only one pipeline (Magellan) raised
objections to the Commission's burden estimate. Valero states that
pipelines such as Magellan already report intrastate and interstate
revenue on page 301 of the Form 6. Thus, Valero concludes that
pipelines should be fully aware of the corresponding interstate and
intrastate movements, barrels, and barrel-miles, underlying these
reported revenue amounts. Valero notes that pipelines are already
required to report interstate-only data for lines (1) through (10).
3. Commission Determination
    17. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require any pipeline
that reported comingled interstate and intrastate data on lines (1)
through (12) of the 2010 Form 6, page 700 to file revised 2010 Form 6,
page 700 data for the years 2010 and 2009. In addition, following the
issuance of the NOPR and after the filing of comments, pipelines filed
the 2011 Form 6 on April 18, 2012, which contains page 700 data for
2011 and 2010.
    18. Accordingly, the Commission directs any pipeline that reported
combined interstate and intrastate data in any field on lines (1)
through (12) of page 700 of its 2010 Form 6 or page 700 of its 2011
Form 6 to file revised page 700 data containing only interstate data
for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011.
    19. This action ensures the availability of complete interstate
cost per barrel-mile data consistent with the Commission's regulation
of interstate oil pipeline rates and the intent of page 700 to enable
the Commission and shippers to analyze interstate pipeline costs. For
example, the interstate-only information for the year 2009, 2010 and
2011 will provide the Commission with useful information during the
next five-year review of the Commission's index level.\17\ In the
recent 2010 Five-Year Index Review, parties urged the Commission to
modify its existing practice and to use page 700 data to calculate the
oil pipeline index.\18\ The Commission determined that it could not use
data from page 700 because the page 700 instructions, which are being
corrected by this order, created a ``mismatch between the page 700
total cost-of-service, which includes only interstate data, and the
page 700 throughput data, which includes interstate and intrastate
data.'' \19\ Thus, by collecting the interstate-only page 700 data for
2009, 2010 and 2011, as directed by this order, the Commission will
have available complete page 700 data for the five-year (2009-2014)
period to use during the 2015 Five-Year Index Review if deemed
appropriate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Under the index, an oil pipeline may change its ceiling
rates effective every July 1 by multiplying the previous index
year's ceiling rates by the index multiplier published by the
Commission. The Commission reviews the index level every five years
to determine whether it continues to track oil pipeline cost changes
and to revise the index level if necessary. The Commission completed
its most recent review, establishing an index level to be effective
for the period July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2016, of the Producer
Price Index for Finished Goods (PPI-FG) plus an adjustment factor of
2.65 percent. 2010 Five-Year Index Review, 133 FERC ] 61,228, reh'g
denied, 135 FERC ] 61,172.
    \18\ The Commission has historically used data from elsewhere on
the Form 6, not the page 700. Specifically the Commission has used
data drawn from the Form 6: Carrier Property, page 110; Accrued
Depreciation, page 111; Operating Revenues and Operating Expenses,
page 114; Crude and Products Barrel-Miles, page 600. 2010 Five-Year
Index Review, 133 FERC ] 61,228 at n.9.
    \19\ 2010 Five-Year Index Review, 133 FERC ] 61,228 at P 83.
    \20\ In each five-year review, the Commission has considered
cost per barrel mile changes over the prior five year period. E.g.,
2010 Five-Year Index Review, 133 FERC ] 61,228 at P 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. The Commission will not require pipelines to file revised page
700 data for the years prior to 2009. The sole purpose given by Valero,
ATA/NPGA, and Mr. Gooch for requesting this information is to
reconsider the conclusions of the Commission's 2010 Five-Year Index
Review. The proposal to revisit the indexing calculation is a
collateral attack on the recently completed 2010 Five-Year Index
Review, which has been administratively final as of the Commission's
order on rehearing.\21\ A request to further reconsider the
Commission's indexing methodology and to re-calculate the index level
is unnecessary given the scope of that proceeding and the use of the
Commission's established methodology.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 2010 Five-Year Index Review Rehearing, 135 FERC ] 61,172.
    \22\ Id. P 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. In response to AOPL, Magellan, and Enbridge, the Commission
does not view the re-filing requirement for the

2010 Form 6, page 700 and the 2011 Form 6, page 700 as creating an
undue burden. The Commission is not persuaded that requiring pipelines
to file revised 2009, 2010 or 2011 interstate only page 700 data will
be as difficult or costly as AOPL, Magellan, and Enbridge suggest. This
requirement will only affect pipelines that filed comingled interstate
and intrastate data on the page 700. Regarding cost and revenue data,
the Commission's directive does not impose an expense on pipeline
parties that is not already embodied in existing Commission rules. The
Commission clarified over a decade ago that cost and revenue
information reported on lines (1) through (10) of page 700 data should
include interstate-only data.\23\ No party disputes this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In Order No. 620-A, the Commission stated:
    The Commission never intended in the Final Rule to have a
pipeline report its non-jurisdictional costs on page 700.* * * [W]e
take this opportunity to clarify Order No. 620 that the cost-of-
service and revenue data reported on page 700 will be the cost of
service and revenues related to FERC jurisdictional services.
    94 FERC at 61,498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Regarding the barrel and barrel-mile data on lines (11) and
(12), Magellan and AOPL contend that it is sometimes difficult to
determine whether a shipment is interstate or intrastate. However,
compliance with the existing requirement for pipelines to file only
interstate costs and revenues on lines (1) through (10) requires a
similar determination distinguishing between interstate shipments and
intrastate shipments.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Page 301 of the Form 6 also requires pipelines to
separately identify interstate revenues and intrastate revenues.
Furthermore, under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), carriers must
charge the correct rate on file for transportation service, and
shippers are required to provide accurate information regarding the
nature of their shipments in order to ensure that the correct rate
is charged, which would include distinguishing interstate and
intrastate rates. See 49 app. U.S.C. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Magellan's Request for Clarification

    23. Magellan requests that the Commission permit flexibility in the
methodology that pipelines adopt for allocating intrastate and
interstate cost data in page 700. Magellan asserts that it is not
possible to precisely segregate interstate cost data from intrastate
cost data in all instances. Thus, Magellan asserts that a dual use
pipeline will need to develop its own methodology for allocating such
costs. Magellan states that prior to the Form No. 6 it filed in 2010,
Magellan included both interstate and intrastate data on page 700.
Magellan states that to do so, it developed and adopted a methodology
to allocate operating expenses between interstate and intrastate
movements based upon a barrel-mile analysis. Thus, Magellan states that
it used this methodology to allocate operating expenses between
interstate and intrastate movements on a barrel-mile basis.
    24. The Commission will deny Magellan's request. We will not pass
judgment in this proceeding on past or future page 700 submissions or
the methodologies used to separate interstate from intrastate. The
purpose of this order is to modify the instructions for lines (11) and
(12) of page 700 related to reporting barrels and barrel-miles of
throughput. In filing page 700, pipelines are required to follow the
Commission's cost-of-service methodology. Magellan's request for
clarification is further inapposite because the Commission clarified a
decade ago in Order No. 620-A\25\ that pipelines were only to report
interstate (as opposed to interstate and intrastate) costs on lines (1)
through (10) of page 700. To the extent that Magellan is concerned that
its system creates novel circumstances, Magellan can seek specific
guidance from the Commission or Commission Staff regarding the
particular allocation methodology that it has adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Order No. 620-A, 94 FERC at 61,498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Other Issues

1. Comments
    25. The parties raised multiple issues related to other aspects of
page 700 or Form 6. Valero and ATA/NPGA contend that revisions should
be made to page 700 so that each pipeline and/or system is separately
reported on page 700.\26\ Valero and ATA/NPGA also argue that pipelines
should be required to provide the workpapers supporting page 700 to the
shippers. ATA/NPGA also proposes to require pipelines to file the
entire Form 6 before they can file for an index rate increase.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Currently, page 700 data contains total company data that
is not broken down by pipeline or system. Valero Comments at 16. For
example, Valero states that Mid-America Pipeline Company, LLC, has
three distinct and separate systems, each with their own separate
cost of service. Valero states that without being able to evaluate
the cost of service for the specific segments at issue, it is
impossible for shippers to determine the appropriateness or
reasonableness of a particular segment's rates.
    \27\ Currently, pipelines with operating revenues less than
$500,000 but more than $350,000 are only required to file page 301,
``Operating Revenues Accounts (Account 600)'' and page 700. 18 CFR
Sec.  357(a)(2) (2011). Pipelines with operating revenues less than
$350,000 must only file page 700. Id. Sec.  357(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Parties also raised issues not involving Form 6. ATA/NPGA
further asserts that the Commission should change the interest rate
applicable to refunds and reparations. ATA/NPGA and Mr. Gooch also
raise issues related to alleged over-recoveries by certain pipelines.
ATA/NPGA and Mr. Gooch argue that pipelines showing over-recoveries on
their Form No. 6 annual report should be required to show cause why
their rates should not be considered unjust and unreasonable. Mr. Gooch
also objects to the Commission's regulations and policies regarding
protests and complaints against oil pipeline rates. Valero asserts that
the Commission should clarify that shippers retain the right to
challenge, via protest or complaint, the 2011 index rate increases for
pipelines that have filed deficient cost and revenue data on page 700.
Mr. Gooch also asks that the Commission clarify precisely how barrel-
miles may be used to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe that the
rate increase is ``substantially divergent'' from the costs so that the
resulting rates may not be just and reasonable.
    27. In its reply comments, AOPL states that these comments are
beyond the scope. AOPL adds that the Shippers have repeatedly raised
and the Commission has repeatedly rejected (a) proposals to segregate
Form 6 and page 700 data by pipeline system and (b) require pipelines
to file their page 700 workpapers with the Form 6.\28\ AOPL states that
nothing has changed since the Commission last rejected these proposals
in 2008. Specifically responding to Mr. Gooch's comments regarding
pipeline over-recoveries, AOPL states that shippers have the option to
file a complaint to the extent that they are concerned with the level
of individual pipeline rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ AOPL Reply Comments at 5 (citing Cost of Service Reporting
and Filing Requirements for Oil Pipelines, Order No. 571, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,006, at 31,168-169 (1994); Order No. 620, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,115 at 31,959; Review of FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-
Q, 125 FERC ] 61,308, at P 5-9 (2008)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. In his reply comments, Mr. Gooch contends that his comments are
not beyond the scope because, he argues, they are a constitutionally
protected petition for a redress of grievances. Mr. Gooch also
reiterates his comments regarding alleged over-recoveries by certain
pipelines and asserts that it is difficult to file complaints.
2. Commission Decision
    29. These issues are beyond the scope of this proceeding, which is
limited to a minor correction to the throughput levels reported on page
700 and obtaining corrected data for 2009, 2010, and 2011. No party
opposed the limited change to page 700 that was actually

presented in the NOPR. Given the limited nature of the NOPR, this
proceeding is not the appropriate forum for considering additional
changes to FERC Form No. 6, such as the segregation of data or changing
Commission policy to make available pipeline cost-of-service
workpapers. Other issues, such as the Commission's policies regarding
protests to pipeline rates, are also not before the Commission and will
be addressed as they arise in litigation.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    30. The Commission's estimate of the additional Public Reporting
Burden and cost related to the final rule in Docket RM11-21-000 follow.
The Commission recognizes that there will be a one-time increased
burden involved in the initial implementation associated with: (a)
Using only interstate figures for lines 1-12 of page 700, and (b) re-
filing of revised data for lines (1) through (12) of page 700 for 2009,
2010, and 2011. Given the time it takes to verify data and file it with
the Commission, we may have underestimated the one hour average per
filer. Consequently we have revised the average burden to four hours
for filing corrected 2009 and 2010 page 700 data. In this final rule,
the Commission is also seeking revised 2011 data. Thus, we estimate an
additional one-time burden of six hours per filer for the combined
implementation and the re-filing of the page 700 for the 2009, 2010,
and 2011 data. For the recurring effort involved in filing interstate
data on lines (1) through (12) of page 700 for 2012 and future years,
we estimate that the change in burden is negligible (after the initial
implementation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Estimated         Total         Estimated
                                                                    additional       estimated      additional
              RM11-21, FERC Form 6                Annual No.  of     one-time       additional    one-time  cost
                                                      filers        burden per       one-time     per  filer ($)
                                                                    filer (Hr.)    burden (Hr.)        \29\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation Burden (one-time); and Re-filing         \30\ 166               6             996         $414.06
 of Page 700, lines 1-12 for 2009-2010 (one-
 time)..........................................
    Total.......................................             166  ..............             996      $68,733.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The additional one-time burden of 996 hours is being spread over
the three years for the purposes of submittal to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), giving an average additional annual burden
of 332 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Based on an estimated average cost per employee for 2012
(including salary plus benefits) of $143,540, the estimated average
hourly cost per employee is $69.01. The average work year is 2,080
hours.
    \30\ Although 166 pipelines file page 700, the number of
pipelines that must file corrected information will likely be
substantially less. Some pipelines only transport interstate
shipments and thus would have reported only interstate data on page
700. Other pipelines may have reported only interstate data on lines
(1)-(12) on page 700, and these pipelines would not need to file
additional data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the
costs and burden to comply with these requirements.
    Total additional one-time cost = $68,733.96.
    Title: FERC Form No. 6, Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies.
    Action: Revision to the FERC Form 6.
    OMB Control No: 1902-0022.
    Respondents: Public and non-public utilities.
    Frequency of Responses: Initial implementation and one-time re-
filing of selected data for 2009, 2010, and 2011.
    Necessity of the Information: This action ensures the availability
of complete interstate cost per barrel-mile data consistent with the
Commission's regulation of interstate oil and petroleum product
pipeline rates and the intent of page 700 to enable the Commission and
shippers to analyze interstate pipeline costs.
    Internal review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes
and has determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the energy industry. The
Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there
is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information collection requirements.
    31. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office
of the Executive Director, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone: (202)
502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>]. Comments on the requirements of this
rule may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference OMB Control No. 1902-0022,
FERC-6 and the docket number of this rulemaking in your submission.

V. Environmental Analysis

    32. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\31\ The
actions taken here fall within categorical exclusions in the
Commission's regulations for information gathering, analysis, and
dissemination.\32\ Therefore, an environmental assessment is
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 486 FR 1750 (Jan. 22, 1988), FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 30,783 (1987).
    \32\ 18 CFR Sec.  380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    33. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) requires agencies
to prepare certain statements, descriptions, and analyses of proposed
rules that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.\33\ Agencies are not required to make such an
analysis if a rule would not have such an effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. The Commission does not believe that this rule will have an
adverse impact on small entities, nor will it impose upon them any
significant costs of compliance. The Commission identified 29 small
entities as respondents to the requirements in the proposed rule.\34\
As explained above,

the change to page 700 will not increase the burden of preparing page
700. Further, the time required to implement changes and to file any
necessary one-time revision of the page 700 data as specified in this
order is minimal (an average of six hours per company). The Commission
does not estimate that there are any other regulatory burdens
associated with this final rule. Thus, the Commission certifies that
the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The RFA definition of ``small entity'' refers to the
definition provided in the Small Business Act, which defines a
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. 15
U.S.C. 632. The Small Business Size Standards component of the North
American Industry Classification System defines a small oil pipeline
company as one with less than 1,500 employees. See 13 CFR 121, 201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    35. These regulations are effective December 31, 2012. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule
is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

VIII. Document Availability

    36. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC's
Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
    37. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field.
    38. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web
site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email the Public Reference Room at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    Note: Appendix A will not be published in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

Appendix A--Summary of Proposed Changes to FERC Form 6, Page 700

Instruction 4 is revised to read as follows:
    Enter on line 11, columns b and c, the interstate throughput in
barrels for the current and previous calendar years.

Instruction 5 is revised to read as follows:
    Enter on line 12, columns b and c, the interstate throughput in
barrel-miles for the current and previous calendar years.

Line 11 is revised to read as follows:
    Total Interstate Throughput in Barrels

Line 12 is revised to read as follows:
    Total Interstate Throughput in Barrel-Miles

    Note: Appendix B will not be published in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

Appendix B: Revised Page 700 to Form 6

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01OC12.010

[FR Doc. 2012-23806 Filed 9-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 171)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50879-50882]
[DOCID:fr05se07-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-NM-0006; FRL-8463-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source
Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving revisions to the New Mexico State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that were submitted to EPA on April 11, 2002,
and December 29, 2005. The revisions modify New Mexico's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) regulations in the SIP to address changes to the Federal PSD and
NNSR regulations which were promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002 and
reconsidered with minor changes on November 7, 2003 (collectively,
these two Federal actions are called the ``2002 New Source Review (NSR)
Reform Rules''). The revisions include provisions for baseline
emissions calculations, an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for
calculating emissions changes, options for plantwide applicability
limits (PALs), and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. EPA is
approving these revisions pursuant to section 110, part C, and part D
of the Federal Clean Air Act (Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R06-OAR-2005-NM-0006. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed

in the index, some information is not publicly

available, e.g., Confidential Business information or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Permits Section (6PD-R),

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for
public inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of Information Act Review
Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for
legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If
possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in
advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making
photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at
the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection during
official business hours by appointment at the New Mexico Environment
Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits
Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, any reference to
``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' shall mean EPA.

Outline

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to approve the SIP revisions that
the Governor of New Mexico submitted on December 29, 2005. This
submittal consists of revisions to two regulations that are already
part of the New Mexico SIP. The affected regulations are 20.2.74 New
Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) (Permits--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration) and 20.2.79 NMAC (Permits--Nonattainment Areas). The
revisions will update New Mexico's PSD and NNSR regulations to make
them consistent with changes to the Federal NSR regulations published
on December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186) and November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021).
These EPA rulemakings are collectively referred to as the ``2002 NSR
Reform Rules.'' EPA finds that the changes meet section 110, part C,
and part D of the Act.
    This SIP revision also includes other non-substantive changes to
New Mexico's PSD and NNSR rules needed to update the regulatory
citations, make clarifying revisions to the regulatory text, and
correct typographical errors. Since the non-substantive changes do not
change the regulatory requirements, EPA finds they meet section 110(l),
part C and part D of the Act. Please see the Technical Support Document
for further information.
    The EPA is also approving portions of the SIP submittal dated April
11, 2002. This action only approves the following provisions of the
April 11, 2002, SIP submittal:
     The removal of the definition of ``complete'' currently in
Paragraph O of <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC; and
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS>0 NMAC and 20.2.79 NMAC which
relate to the requirements for public notice and public participation
for PSD and NNSR permits. Although the definition of ``complete'' is
removed from New Mexico's rules, other provisions in the rules address
the criteria that a permit application must include in order to be
administratively complete. These provisions meet Federal requirements.
While New Mexico's rules governing the procedures for determining
administrative completeness and for public participation have been
revised, these rules also meet Federal requirements. Therefore, the
removal of the definition of ``complete'' and the revisions to
administrative completeness and public participation for PSD and NNSR
permits meet section 110(l), part C, and part D of the Act. The EPA
will take appropriate action on the remaining provisions of the April
11, 2002, submittal in a separate action.
    On June 20, 2007 (72 FR 33933), we published our proposed approval
of this SIP revision. The proposal provided detailed information about
the New Mexico SIP revision that we are approving today. The proposal
also provided a detailed analysis of EPA's rationale for approving the
New Mexico SIP revisions. In the proposal, we provided opportunity for
public comment on the proposed action. The comment period for this
proposed rulemaking ended July 20, 2007. We received no comments,
adverse or otherwise, on the proposed rulemaking. We are therefore
finalizing our proposed approval without changes. For more details on
this submittal, please refer to the proposed rulemaking and to the
Technical Support Document, which is in the docket for this action.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, the relationship between the national government and the
States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions
that concern health or safety risks such that the analysis required
under section 5-501 of

the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it would approve a
State program. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994))
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Because
this rule merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard,
EPA lacks the discretionary authority to modify today's regulatory
decision on the basis of environmental justice considerations.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 5, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 23, 2007.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart GG--New Mexico

0
2. The first table in Sec.  52.1620(c) entitled ``EPA Approved New
Mexico Regulations'' is amended by revising the entries for part 74 and
part 79 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                       EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
                                                        approval/
         State citation              Title/subject      effective   EPA  approval  date        Explanation
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20--Environment Protection Chapter 2--Air Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Part 74.........................  Permits--Prevention     12/06/05  09/05/07 [Insert FR
                                   of Significant                    page number where
                                   Deterioration.                    document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Part 79.........................  Permits--Nonattainm     12/06/05  09/05/07 Insert FR
                                   ent Areas.                        page number where
                                                                     document begins].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-17514 Filed 9-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


TO:	John Bradfield, U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD  -  Natural Resources Group

FROM:	Eastern Research Group, Inc.

DATE:	February 8, 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	February 2, 2017 Meeting Between the EPA and the Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing Industry on the Proposed Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0730

Summary
The American Baker's Association (ABA) and representatives of nutritional yeast manufacturing facilities participated in a meeting with the EPA on February 2, 2017, to discuss the proposed rule revisions to the Nutritional Yeast NESHAP (40 CFR, part 63, subpart CCCC). This memo presents the participants, agenda, and summary of the meeting.

Participants
 John Bradfield, EPA
 Bill Schrock, EPA
 Robin Dunkins, EPA
 Nora Greenglass, EPA
 Chris Sarsony, EPA
 Rasma Zvaners, ABA - Policy Director
 Max Williamson, Williamson Law & Policy - ABA Counsel
 Chris Kaltenbach, Red Star/Lesaffre - Red Star Counsel
 James Parker, AB Mauri - VP of the Fermentation Process
 Bryan Keyt, Bryan Cave LLC -AB Mauri Counsel
 Gary Edwards, American Yeast/Lallemand - President of the American Yeast plant in Memphis, TN
 Jean Francois Lejeune, American Yeast/Lallemand  -  Director of Operations for the American Yeast plant in Memphis, TN
 Richard Ames, Minn-Dak - Operations Manager of the Minn-Dak Yeast Plant in Wahpeton, ND
 Brandon Long, ERG
 James Chesnut, ERG

Agenda
The ABA provided the following questions to EPA:
Emissions Standard
 ABA appreciates RTR conclusions of no technology change or residual risk.
 Without discussing any particular facility that is currently using brew ethanol monitoring, can you please explain EPA's rationale for proposing to delete the use of that methodology?
 Are the old and new form of standard equivalent, or is EPA making the standard more stringent than 2001 MACT?
 In the proposed rule, a facility will have two options for its compliance demonstration:
          100% compliance for all batches over a rolling 12-month period.  The standard now is 98%. -- How has EPA shown that this is attainable?
          Average VOC concentrations over a 12-month are subject to "5 percent discounted" limits. -- Could EPA please discuss justification for discount and clarify the "5% discount" in a practical example?
 Will EPA consider a phase-in period?

Cumulative Effect of Proposed Revisions
 The industry is confident that the cumulative impact of eliminating malfunctions, requiring that all (not 98%) of batches meet the emissions limits, the requirement of qualified CEMS data from each (not 75%) of the batch hours and a potential 5% reduction in emissions limits, there is significantly increased likelihood of non-compliance and the potential of enforcement action.
 Would EPA explain why these compounding effects have been included in the proposed revision, even when EPA has deemed:
          Accepted that the risks from the Manufacturing of Nutritional Yeast source category are acceptable (81 Fed. Reg. at 95825);
          Deemed that no additional technology are necessary to provide an ample margin of safety (81 Fed. Reg. at 95825); and
          Determined that it is not necessary to set a more stringent HAP standard to prevent adverse environmental effect. (81 Fed. Reg. at 95825.)

Economic Impact
 EPA evaluated the impact of compliance with the proposed NESHAP revisions as a proportion of the sales of the ultimate parent company.
 Would EPA explain why the basis should not be site or location based as companies evaluate profitability, allocate production volumes and investment by site location?

Discussion of SSM
 Does EPA feel that removal of malfunction is compelled by court decisions?  In the Yeast MACT, the emissions standard contains flexibility allowing some batches to be disregarded in recognition of the inherent variability of the regulated process, which is continuous control.
 Could EPA clarify its expectation on how periods of malfunction will be addressed if the malfunction provision is eliminated?
 How does the rule distinguish between process malfunctions and CEMs malfunction?
 Is a batch with unexpected variability considered a process malfunction, and how is process variability considered in the emissions standard if the 2% exemption is removed?
 Under the proposed rule, what is the specific documentation that would be required if there is a malfunction?
 What happens with the Malfunction Plan (e.g., in Title V permit) that must currently be maintained?

Monitoring
 What monitoring instrumentation and logging times are envisioned?
 What missing data policies will apply if instrumentation fails or other monitoring "deviation"?  Would this result in non-compliance?
 Will EPA recognize estimates based on recipe for missing data for batch hours?
 What are expectations for QC and RATA?

Additional Data
 What additional data is EPA seeking, and how will it affect final rule?

Rule Trajectory
 Does EPA anticipate the timeframe changing in the new Administration?
 Have Sierra Club and others in the deadline suit expressed positions on any of these issues?
 ABA intends to request an additional 60-day extension for the public comment period due to uncertain technical issues.

Summary
 Where applicable, EPA provided clarifications to the administrative record filed in the docket for the proposed rule.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 14424]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

Wolf Ridge Wind Energy, LLC..............  EG21-43-000
Blue Summit I Wind, LLC..................  EG21-44-000
Dickerson Power, LLC.....................  EG21-45-000
Morgantown Power, LLC....................  EG21-46-000
Morgantown Station, LLC..................  EG21-47-000
Water Strider Solar, LLC.................  EG21-48-000
325MK 8ME LLC............................  EG21-49-000
Chalk Point Power, LLC...................  EG21-50-000
Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy LLC.............  EG21-51-000
Harry Allen Solar Energy LLC.............  EG21-52-000
Centerfield Cooper Solar, LLC............  EG21-53-000
PGR Lessee O, LLC........................  EG21-54-000
Dry Lake Solar Holdings LLC..............  EG21-55-000
HO Clarke II, LLC........................  EG21-57-000
Indiana Crossroads Wind Farm LLC.........  EG21-58-000
Wallingford Renewable Energy LLC.........  EG21-59-000
Topaz II, LLC............................  EG21-60-000
Braes Bayou Generating, LLC..............  EG21-61-000
KCE TX 23, LLC...........................  EG21-62-000
Midway-Sunset Cogeneration Company.......  EG21-63-000

    Take notice that during the month of February 2021, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a)
(2020).

    Dated: March 10, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05388 Filed 3-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P