1 SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subparts KKK and LLL) ( Renewal)

1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subparts KKK and LLL) ( Renewal)

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants, published at 40 CFR part 60.630, were proposed on January 20, 1984 and promulgated on June 24, 1985. These standards apply to the following affected facilities located at onshore natural gas processing plants: compressors in volatile organic compound ( VOC) service or in wet gas service, and the group of all equipment ( except compressors) within a process unit. Affected facilities commenced construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal. A process unit is defined as the equipment assembled for extraction of natural gas liquids from field gas, fractionation of liquids into natural gas products, or other processing of natural gas products.

The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO 2 Emissions, published at 40 CFR part 60.640, were proposed on January 20, 1984 and promulgated on October 1, 1985. These standards apply to the following affected facilities located at onshore natural gas processing plants: each sweetening unit, and each sweetening unit followed by a sulfur recovery unit. Affected facilities commenced construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal. A sweetening unit is defined as a process device that separates the hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide ( CO 2) contents from the sour natural gas stream. The provisions of subpart LLL do not apply to sweetening facilities that produce acid gas that is completely re injected into oil or gas bearing geologic strata or that is otherwise not released to the atmosphere. The control and monitoring requirements of subpart LLL do not apply to affected facilities with design capacities of less than two long tons per day of hydrogen sulfide in the acid gas, expressed as sulfur.

For the purposes of this document, new facilities are those affected facilities that have had construction, modification or reconstruction within the last three years. This information is being collected to determine compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subparts KKK and LLL.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and 2 duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NSPS.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of these subparts shall maintain a file of these measurements and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) regional office. Once received by the authority, reports are reviewed and the data is entered, analyzed, and maintained in the Air Facility System ( AFS). Information from these reports can be used by any regions, states, agencies and offices with access to AFS and may be used in determining where inspections and enforcement actions may be necessary.

Approximately 561 sources are currently subject to subpart KKK, and it is estimated that one additional source per year will become subject to the regulation in the next three years. It is further assumed that there is an average of 4 affected facilities per plant. Approximately 79 sources are currently subject to subpart LLL, and it is estimated that 3 additional sources will become subject to the regulation in the next three years. It is further assumed that there is an average of 1 affected facility per plant.

The following table presents the annual costs of the ICR for subparts KKK and LLL.

Category Burden Cost Labor ( hours)

subpart KKK Labor $ 6,887,057 107,940 Nonlabor $ 0

subpart KKK Subtotal $ 6,887,057 107,940 subpart LLL Labor $ 2,631,301 41,240 Nonlabor $ 338,700

subpart LLL Subtotal $ 2,970,001 41,240 Total $ 9,857,058 149,174 These estimates are based on the Oil and Gas Journal's PennWell Surveys, industry contacts, consultation with the Department of Energy, EPA's Online Tracking Information 1 Oil and Gas Journal. " Rest of world continues to gain ground on Canada, US." June 30, 2003.

2 Telephone conversation with Jim Tobin, Office of Oil and Gas, Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy.

3 Oil and Gas Journal. " 2003: Processing outside North America nearly grabs the lead." June 28, 2004.

4 Oil and Gas Journal. " Shift in global industry continues; 2001 tests US processors." June 24, 2002.

5 Correspondence with Lynn Reed, Compliance Engineer, ONEOK, Inc.

6 Correspondence with Lance Lodes, Environmental Coordinator, OGE  Enogex, Inc.

3 System ( OTIS), and internal EPA cost and burden information. The number of onshore natural gas processing plants has increased by three since the previous approval. This trend of one new respondent per year for subpart KKK is expected to continue over the next three years. The number of onshore natural gas processing plants subject to subpart LLL has increased by 17 since the previous approval. This trend is not expected to continue at the same rate, as sulfur production in the United States has declined in recent years. EPA expects three new respondents per year for subpart LLL over the next three years. The previous approval anticipated that no new respondents would become subject to these rules in the following three years; this prediction appears to have been incorrect, based on the number of sources indicated by the Oil and Gas Journal's PennWell Surveys.

The active ( previous) ICR had the following Terms of Clearance:

" The requested extension of this information collection is approved for three years in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before resubmission of this ICR for further extension, the Agency should verify the estimate of the number of respondents subject to these requirements and also provide further detail in the Supporting Statement to explain the adjustments to the estimated number of respondents."

EPA has addressed each item of concern in the Terms of Clearance in a number of ways. To determine the number of respondents subject to subpart KKK, EPA consulted the Oil and Gas Journal's PennWell Surveys. 1 These surveys indicate that there are 590 natural gas processing plants in the U. S., including both onshore and offshore processing plants. EPA believes that the vast majority of natural gas processing operations take place onshore; this belief was supported by a contact in the Department of Energy. 2 EPA therefore assumes that 95 percent of natural gas processing plants are located onshore. This results in an estimate of 561 respondents subject to subpart KKK. To determine the rate of industry growth, EPA again consulted the PennWell Surveys1,3,4 and consulted with industry contacts. 5,6 Based on this research, EPA believes that there is very little growth in this industry. EPA therefore assumes that there will be one additional 7 Oil and Gas Journal. " New data, old story: US, Canada continue to dominate world's gas processing." June 25, 2001.

8 Oil and Gas Journal. " Shift in global industry continues; 2001 tests US processors." June 24, 2002.

9 Oil and Gas Journal. " Rest of world continues to gain ground on Canada, US." June 30, 2003.

4 respondent per year over the next three years.

To determine the number of respondents subject to subpart LLL, EPA consulted the Oil and Gas Journal's PennWell Surveys1 and industry contacts. 5,6 Based on this consultation, EPA believes that between 10 and 20 percent of sources subject to subpart KKK may operate sweetening units and may therefore be subject to subpart LLL. The PennWell surveys indicate that 83 natural gas processing plants produced sulfur in 2003. This figure includes both onshore and offshore plants. As with subpart KKK, EPA assumes that 95 percent of such processing operations take place onshore. EPA therefore assumes that there are 79 onshore natural gas processing plants that produce sulfur and are subject to the requirements of subpart LLL. This is about 14 percent of the KKK respondents and so corroborates the 10 to 20 percent assumption derived from consultation. To determine the rate of industry growth, EPA again consulted the PennWell Surveys. 7,8,9 Based on this research, EPA believes that an average of six respondents per year became subject to subpart LLL since the previous approval. These data sources also indicate that sulfur production in the U. S. is in decline. EPA therefore believes that the number of respondents will continue to grow, but at a lesser rate. EPA anticipates that three respondents per year will become subject to subpart LLL over the next three years.

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

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

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate, revise such standards every four years. 5 In the Administrator's judgment, VOC and sulfur dioxide ( SO 2) emissions from onshore natural gas processing plants cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NSPS were promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 60, subparts KKK and LLL.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of emissions of VOC and SO 2 from onshore natural gas processing plants requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Emissions of VOC and SO 2 from onshore natural gas processing plants are the result of operation of the affected facilities. The subject standards are achieved by the reduction of VOC and SO 2 emissions using leak detection and repair procedures and the control of SO 2 emissions using oxidation or reduction control systems, with the optional use of incinerators. The notifications required in the applicable regulations are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements of the regulations. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, leaks are being detected and repaired, and the regulations are being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that sources affected by the NSPS continue to operate the control equipment in compliance with the regulation. Adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting are necessary to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act. The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part 60, subparts KKK and LLL.

3( a) Nonduplication If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency. If a state or local agency has adopted its own similar standards to implement the federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the federal standards. Therefore, no duplication exists. 6 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register ( 69 FR 29718) on May 25, 2004. No comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3( c) Consultations In addition to holding a public comment period following the First Federal Register Notice, the EPA consulted with industry representatives to determine whether it would be possible for the Agency to reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden or improve the language in the standards to facilitate industry compliance. The Oil and Gas Journal's PennWell Surveys were the primary sources of information regarding the number of existing affected sources. Consultations with industry representatives were used to verify such information and provide other key data ( e. g., industry growth rate, level of electronic reporting). The EPA database OTIS was also consulted. Finally, EPA personnel in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( OAQPS) were consulted regarding industry burden table assumptions. The burden tables were revised based on OAQPS input.

EPA consulted with four individuals with knowledge of the respondents to these rules. These individuals include: Jim Tobin, Office of Oil and Gas, Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy ( 202 586 4835); Lynn Reed, Compliance Engineer, ONEOK, Inc. ( 918 588 7380); Lance Lodes, Environmental Coordinator, OGE  Enogex, Inc. ( 405 557 6846); and Johnny Dreyer, Gas Processors Association ( 918 493 3872). They provided information regarding the number of affected onshore natural gas processing plants, industry growth rate, level of electronic reporting, number of facilities using CEM, number of affected facilities per respondent, and representation of small businesses, as well as anecdotal information regarding industry's opinion of the rules.

EPA received the following comments regarding the burden associated with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of subparts KKK and LLL:

" Subpart A notification letters are burdensome because there is no easy trigger for remembering to send them. It requires a great deal of communication between our corporate office who writes the letters and the project engineer or plant manager or area ESH coordinator. There are 3 and can be as many as 4 letters that need to be written for each new affected facility, i. e., 40 CFR § 60.7 ( a)( 1), ( 3), ( 4) potentially, and § 60.8( d)."

" Documentation of each process unit within the gas plant and why 7 it is or is not subject to NSPS subpart KKK is burdensome. Typically this determination is made by a small group of 2 or 3 people who are familiar with the project and the regulations. Committing the thought process to paper with all the dates, costs and emissions estimates is time consuming and sometimes requires additional meetings to settle gray areas and assure regulatory interpretation consistency within the plant and within the company."

" Auditing of contractor's LDAR findings is burdensome. This requires a great deal of communication between the ESH coordinator, the plant mechanics and the LDAR contractor. If you don't have a person delegated to responding to the contractor on the first and second repair attempts, then it is easy to forget to do the second attempt."

Complying with these regulations " is burdensome and expensive. Changes reducing the recordkeeping and reporting requirements should be considered. Reporting requirements can be very confusing for field operations personnel."

EPA received the following comments regarding the clarity of the language of subparts KKK and LLL:

There is some confusion about what triggers the need for notification letters or performance tests. Is it a new, modified or reconstructed process unit? Does a few valves added to an existing process unit constitute a modification?

There is some confusion about the exemption for reciprocating compressors under 40 CFR 60.633( f). Is the entire skid unit exempt, or is it only the packing unit?

In 40 CFR 60.630( a)( 2), a compressor in VOC service or in wet gas service is an affected facility. Is the compressor defined as the packing unit? Or is it defined as the entire skid/ unit that also includes valves?

Positive displacement ( PD) " pump seals are designed to leak. That is how they work. The rule should give an exemption for PD pumps the same as it did on reciprocating compressors in wet gas 8 service. There is no way to " repair" these PD pump seals within 15 days because industry does not have a packing or seal that will work. This is very frustrating to our operators to change the seals and packing as required by the regulation and still have a leak   by design of the pump. It is costly to continue to try repairs when there is no solution. This has been a big problem throughout our industry."

" Refineries are exempt from monitoring reciprocating pumps due to ` burden of cost.' It is my opinion that the natural gas industry should have the same exemption as refineries. Natural gas industry should not be required to monitor reciprocating pumps."

" Clarify frequency of monitoring when coming out of skip leak period. Rule is not clear whether or not the facility should revert back to quarterly monitoring or monthly monitoring."

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

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

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

3( g) Sensitive Questions 9 None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the owners or operators of onshore natural gas processing plants with affected facilities constructed, reconstructed or modified after January 20, 1984. The SIC codes for the respondents affected by the standards are SIC ( United States Standard Industrial Classification) 1311 and 1321, which correspond to NAICS ( The North American Industry Classification System) 211111 and 211112 for crude petroleum/ natural gas extraction and natural gas liquid extraction.

Standard SIC Codes NAICS Codes 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK 1311, 1321 211111, 211112 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL 1311, 1321 211111, 211112 4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that are recorded and/ or reported are required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK  Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants and 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL  Standards of Performance for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO 2 Emissions.

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports Notification of construction or reconstruction. 60.7( a)( 1)

Notification of actual startup date. 60.7( a)( 3)

Notification of modification. 60.7( a)( 4)

Notification of demonstration of continuous monitoring system. 60.7( a)( 5) Notification Reports 10 Notification of initial performance test. 60.8( d)

Reports subparts KKK and LLL Semiannual reports of excess emissions 60.7( c)

Performance test results. 60.8( a), 60.636( a), 60.487( e)

subpart KKK Only Semiannual reports. 60.636( a)( c), 60.487( a)

subpart LLL Only Semiannual reports of excess emissions from and performance of continuous monitoring systems, and/ or summary report forms. 60.647( b)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping subparts KKK and LLL Keep records of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of affected facilities; malfunctions of control devices; and periods where the continuous monitoring system is inoperative. 60.7( b)

Keep records of measurements, performance evaluations, calibration checks, adjustments and maintenance related to continuous monitoring systems. 60.7( f)

subpart KKK Only Recordkeeping 11 Keep records of parts of closed vent systems designated as unsafe or difficult to inspect. 60.632( a), 60.482 10( l)( 1),( 2)

Keep records of inspections of closed vent systems during which no leaks are detected. 60.632( a), 60.482 10( l)( 4),( 5)

Perform attachment of identification numbers to leaking equipment. 60.635( a),( b), 60.486( b)

Keep records of leak detection and repair. 60.632( a), 60.635( a),( b), 60.482 10( l)( 3), 60.486( c)

Keep records of design requirements for and operation of closed vent systems and control devices. 60.635( a), 60.486( d)

Keep records listing all equipment subject to subpart KKK. 60.635( a),( b), 60.486( e)

Keep records of compliance tests. 60.635( a), 60.486( e)( 4)

Keep records of valves designated as unsafe or difficult to monitor. 60.635( a), 60.486( f)

Keep records of design criterion that indicate failure. 60.635( a), 60.486( h)

Keep records of parts not in VOC service or otherwise exempt. 60.635( a),( c), 60.486( j)

subpart LLL Only Keep records of calculations and measurements. 60.647( a)

Facilities that choose to comply with 60.646( e) shall keep, for the life of the facility, records demonstrating that the facility design capacity is less than 150 long tons per day of hydrogen sulfide expressed as sulfur 60.647( d) 10 Correspondence with Lynn Reed, Compliance Engineer, ONEOK, Inc.

11 Correspondence with Lance Lodes, Environmental Coordinator, OGE  Enogex, Inc.

12 Electronic Reporting Presently, some sources are using monitoring equipment that provide automated parameter data. Based on industry consultation, EPA believes that the majority of respondents use some form of automated recordkeeping. 10,11 Although personnel at the affected facilities must evaluate the data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping. In addition, some regulatory entities ( both government agencies and respondents) are setting up electronic reporting systems to allow sources to report electronically which is reducing the reporting burden. However, electronic reporting systems are still not widely used by the regulatory agencies. The extent of this practice among respondents is unclear, but EPA believes that at least 10 percent of respondents use electronic reporting.

( ii) Respondent Activities Respondent Activities subparts KKK and LLL Read instructions.

Write the notifications and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

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

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

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information. Respondent Activities 13 Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

subpart KKK Only Perform initial performance test, reference the methods discussed in the rule language, and repeat performance tests if necessary. ( applicable if controls are used)

Monitor control devices to ensure that they are operated and maintained in conformance with design. ( applicable if controls are used)

Perform monthly monitoring of pumps in light liquid service and valves in gas/ vapor service or in light liquid service.

Repair pump, compressor, valve, and vapor collection system leaks.

Perform weekly visual inspections of pumps in light liquid service.

Monitor pressure relief devices in gas/ vapor service for no detectable emissions, following pressure release.

Monitor or repair leaks in pumps or valves in heavy liquid service, pressure relief devices in light or heavy liquid service, and connectors.

Conduct annual inspections of vapor collection systems.

subpart LLL Only Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for ( a) total sulfur emission rate and ( b) exhaust gas temperature for oxidation control systems or reduction control systems that are followed by an incinerator.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS for reduced sulfur compound emission rate for reduction control systems that are not followed by an incinerator.

Perform initial performance test, reference the methods discussed in the rule language, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Perform daily monitoring of ( a) accumulation of sulfur product and ( b) H 2 S concentration in the acid gas from the sweetening unit. Respondent Activities 14 Perform hourly monitoring of acid gas flow rate from the sweetening unit and calculate the daily average.

Calculate ( a) daily sulfur feed rate and ( b) daily required SO 2 emission reduction efficiency.

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

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

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

Audit facility records.

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

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority may inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated, leaks are being detected and repaired, and the regulations are being met. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Note that subpart KKK does not require VOC control devices. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into the AFS, which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Compliance. AFS is EPA's database for the collection, 12 Correspondence with Lynn Reed, Compliance Engineer, ONEOK, Inc.

15 maintenance, and retrieval of compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and government owned facilities. EPA uses the AFS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA regional offices and EPA headquarters. EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by these regulations must be retained by the owner or operator for two years. However, facilities subject to subpart LLL that produce less than 150 long tons per day ( LT/ D) and elect to do reduced monitoring, records must be kept for the life of the facility showing that the design capacity of that facility is less than 150 LT/ D.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility A majority of the affected facilities are large entities ( e. g., large businesses). Based on industry consultation, EPA estimates that between 10 and 20 percent of respondents could be described as small entities. 12 However, the impact on small entities ( i. e., small businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the regulation. Due to technical considerations involving the process operations and the types of control equipment employed, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and large entities. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce them further for small entities. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced.

Subpart LLL contains a provision to reduce the burden on respondents with small facilities. The control and monitoring requirements do not apply to affected facilities with design capacities of less than two long tons per day of hydrogen sulfide in the acid gas, expressed as sulfur. These respondents need only maintain analyses showing the design capacities of such facilities.

Subpart KKK contains provisions to reduce the burden on some respondents. For example, pumps, compressors, and valves with no detectable emissions can be exempted from certain monitoring and inspection requirements. This rule contains reduced monitoring requirements for valves that have not had leaks detected for at least two months. Also, certain pumps, valves, and pressure relief devices are exempt from monthly monitoring requirements if they are either ( a) located at a nonfractionating plant that does not have the design capacity to process 10 million standard cubic feet per day or more of field gas, or ( b) located within a process unit that is located in the Alaskan North Slope. 16 5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Table 1A: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK), and Table 1B: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO 2 Emissions ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL), below.

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

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

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 149,174 hours ( 107,940 hours for subpart KKK and 41,240 hours for subpart LLL). These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the regulation, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

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

Managerial $ 95.32 ($ 45.39 + 110%) Technical $ 64.60 ($ 30.76 + 110%) Clerical $ 40.09 ($ 19.09 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December, 2003, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rates are from column 1, " Total compensation." The rates have been increased by 110% to account for the 17 benefit packages available to those employed by private industry.

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The standard for NSPS subpart KKK consists of a leak detection and repair program; this rule does not require continuous monitoring. Therefore, the only costs to the regulated industry resulting from information collection activities required by subpart KKK are labor costs. There are no capital/ startup or operation and maintenance costs. The standard for NSPS subpart LLL may consist of continuous monitoring of SO 2 emissions. Therefore, the type of industry costs associated with the information collection activities required by subpart LLL are both labor costs, which are addressed elsewhere in this ICR, and the costs associated with continuous monitoring. The capital/ startup costs are one time costs when a facility becomes subject to the regulation. The annual operation and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor( s) and other costs such as photocopying and postage.

This ICR results in an increase in the estimated capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to the respondents. This is due to several revisions. The number of existing respondents to subpart LLL has increased since the previous approval; therefore, there are greater anticipated operation and maintenance costs. The number of expected new respondents to subpart LLL has also increased since the previous approval, which predicted no new respondents; therefore, there are greater anticipated capital/ startup costs. Also, the previous approval assumed that only one respondent to subpart LLL required use of continuous monitoring. EPA believes that the number of respondents needing continuous monitoring is 7. This ICR also uses updated cost information for monitoring devices.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs The following table presents the respondent costs associated with capital/ startup, and operation and maintenance of the control devices and monitoring systems that are required by 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL:

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

subpart KKK Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs 18 No controls required

subpart LLL SO2 CEM, control outlet only $ 73,000 1 3 $ 219,000 $ 17,100 1 7 $ 119,700 Total $ 219,000 $ 119,700 1 These capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs are based on EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition ( January 2002). Costs reflect installation and maintenance of an in situ SO2 CEM after the control device and assume installation occurred during the construction of the facility. Costs do not include any labor.

The total capital/ startup costs for this ICR are $ 219,000. This is the total of column D in the above table. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 119,700. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 338,700. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars.

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

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 501,916. 19 This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

Managerial $ 54.66 ( GS 13, Step 5, $ 34.16 x 1.6) Technical $ 40.56 ( GS 12, Step 1, $ 25.35 x 1.6) Clerical $ 21.95 ( GS 6, Step 3, $ 13.72 x 1.6)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2A: Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK), and Table 2B: Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO 2 Emissions ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL), below.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 561 existing sources are currently subject to NSPS subpart KKK and approximately 79 existing sources are currently subject to NSPS subpart LLL. It is estimated that one additional source per year will become subject to subpart KKK over the next three years, and three additional sources per year will become subject to subpart LLL over the next three years.

The number of respondents is calculated using the following table, which addresses the three years covered by this ICR:

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

subpart KKK 1 113 2 561 0 112 2 562 2 113 2 562 0 112 2 563 3 114 2 563 0 113 2 564 Number of Respondents 20 Average 113 2 562 0 112 2 563 subpart LLL 1 3 79 3 3 0 85 2 3 82 3 3 0 88 3 3 85 3 3 0 91 Average 3 82 3 3 0 88 1 New respondents include sources that constructed, reconstructed and modified affected facilities in the past three years. In this standard, existing respondents submit initial notifications.

2 Based on industry consultation, EPA believes that approximately 20 percent of existing respondents for Subpart KKK will construct one new affected facility per year. Column D represents this estimate of the number of existing respondents adding new affected facilities. Column A represents the same number, plus the estimated number of wholly new sources per year ( 1 per year).

3 Affected facilities with design capacities of less than two long tons per day of hydrogen sulfide ( H2S) in the acid gas, expressed as sulfur, have no reporting requirements pursuant to Subpart LLL. Based on information from the Oil and Gas Journal's PennWell Surveys, three respondents have source capacities below this threshold.

To avoid double counting respondents, Column D is subtracted. As shown above, the average Number of Respondents over the three year period of this ICR is 563 ( all sources subject to subpart LLL are also subject to subpart KKK). This number appears on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( a), Number of respondents.

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

Total Annual Responses ( A)

Information Collection Activity ( B)

Number of Respondents ( C)

Number of Responses ( D) Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit Reports ( E) Total Annual Responses E=( BxC)+ D subpart KKK Notification of construction or reconstruction. 57 1 1  57 Notification of modification. 56 1 1  56 Total Annual Responses 21 Notification of anticipated startup 113 1  113 Notification of actual startup date. 113 1  113 Notification of demonstration of continuous monitoring system. 0 1  0 Notification of initial performance test. 0 1  0 Performance test results. 0 1 0 0 Semiannual reports. 563 2 0 1,126 subpart LLL Notification of construction or reconstruction. 1.5 1 1  1.5 Notification of anticipated startup. 3 1  3 Notification of actual startup. 3 1  3 Notification of demonstration of continuous monitoring system. 3 1  3 Notification of initial performance test. 3 1  3 Semiannual reports. 82 2 2 164 CEMS demonstration report 3 0.2 0.6 Total 1,643 1 EPA assumes that one half of the new affected facilities are the result of construction or reconstruction, while the other half are the result of modifications of existing facilities.

2 This figure represents the average number of respondents over the next three years ( 85 respondents), one affected facility per respondent, and three respondents that do not require controls ( 85 * 1  3 = 82).

The number of Total Annual Responses is 1,643. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses. Note that 113 respondents for subpart KKK have been double counted in the above table because they have both existing affected facilities and new affected facilities.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs for respondents are $ 9,518,358. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1A: Annual 22 Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK), and Table 1B: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO 2 Emissions ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL), below. Table 1A: Annual Response Burden and Cost, NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKK) 23 Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences / Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 1 1. Applications 2. Survey and Studies 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 1 1 1 563 563 28.2 56.3 41,315 B. Required activities Notification of construction/ reconstruction 2 1 2 57 114 5.7 11.4 8,365 Notification of modification4 8 1 8 56 448 22.4 44.8 32,872 Notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 113 226 11.3 22.6 16,583 Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 113 226 11.3 22.6 16,583 Table 1A: Annual Response Burden and Cost, NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKK)

Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences / Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 1 24 Notification of electing to comply with alternative standards for valves2 8 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 Notification of initial performance test3 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Semiannual reports5 8 2 16 563 9,008 450.4 900.8 660,962 C. Create Information Initial Performance Tests NA D. Gathering Existing Information NA E. Time to write reports See 3B 4. Recordkeeping Requirements Table 1A: Annual Response Burden and Cost, NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKK)

Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences / Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 1 25 A. Read Instructions See 4C B. Plan Activities See 4C C. Implement Activities Filing and maintaining records 80 1 80 563 45,040 2,252 4,504 3,304,810 Startup, shutdown, or malfunction4 80 1 80 112 8,960 448 896 657,440 Recalibrate monitors 4 12 48 563 27,024 1,351.2 2,702.4 1,982,886 Method 21 performance evaluation 2 2 4 563 2,252 112.6 225.2 165,241 D. Develop Record System See 4C Table 1A: Annual Response Burden and Cost, NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKK)

Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences / Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 1 26 E. Time to Enter Information See 4C F. Train Personnel See 4C G. Audits NA Total Burden 6,887,057 Assumptions for Table 1A:

1. This cost is based on the sum of personnel hours multiplied by their hourly labor rate [( Technical hrs x $ 64.60) + ( Management hrs x $ 95.32) + ( Clerical hrs x $ 40.09)].

2. No respondents are expected to use the alternative standards.

3. While Subpart KKK includes the option of using closed vent systems and control devices to demonstrate compliance, this is not required by rule. No respondents are expected to use this option.

Therefore, no respondents are expected to submit the associated notifications and reports.

4. Activity added since previous ICR based on research of original ICR and consultation with OAQPS.

5. Hours per occurrence changed based on research of original ICR and consultation with OAQPS. Table 1B: Annual Response Burden and Cost, NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions ( 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart LLL) 27 Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents1 ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 2 1. Applications 2. Survey and Studies 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read instructions 1 1 1 82 82 4.1 8.2 6,017 B. Required activities Initial performance test3 60 1 60 3 180 9 18 13,208 Repeat performance test3 60 0.2 12 3 36 1.8 3.6 2,642 Demonstration/

CEMS3 80 0.2 16 3 48 2.4 4.8 3,522 Repeat demonstration of CEMS3 80 0.2 16 3 48 2.4 4.8 3,522 Table 1B: Annual Response Burden and Cost, NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions ( 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart LLL) Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents1 ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 2 28 C. Create Information See 3B D. Gathering Existing Information See 3B E. Write Report Notification of Construction/ Reconstruction 2 1 2 1.5 3 0.15 0.3 220 Notification of modification NA Notification of Anticipated Startup 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 440 Notification of Actual Startup 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 440 Notification of Initial Performance Test 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 440 Table 1B: Annual Response Burden and Cost, NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions ( 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart LLL) Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents1 ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 2 29 Notification of CMS Demonstration 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 440 CMS Demonstration Report See 3B Semiannual Reports3 40 2 80 82 6,560 328 656 481,340 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions See 3A B. Plan Activities NA C. Implement Activities NA D. Develop Record System 40 1 40 3 120 6 12 8,805 E. Time to Enter Information Table 1B: Annual Response Burden and Cost, NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions ( 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart LLL) Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences/

Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents1 ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 2 30 Records of startup,

shutdown, or malfunction 1.5 12 18 3 54 2.7 5.4 3,962 Records of continuous recording 0.5 700 350 82 28,700 1,435 2,870 2,105,863 Records of capacity data 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 440 F. Train Personnel NA G. Audits NA Total Burden 2,631,301 Assumptions for Table 1B:

1. See " Number of Respondents" table in Section 6( d), 82 facilities submit reports and 3 facilities only keep records.

2. This cost is based on the sum of personnel hours multiplied by their hourly labor rate [( Technical hrs x $ 64.60) + ( Management hrs x $ 95.32) + ( Clerical hrs x $ 40.09)].

3. Hours per occurrence changed based on research of original ICR and consultation with OAQPS. Table 2A: Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKK) 31 Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences / Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 1 1. Review of notification of construction/

reconstruction 2 1 2 56 112 5.6 11.2 5,095 2. Review of notification of modification 2 1 2 56 112 5.6 11.2 5,095 3. Review of notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 112 224 11.2 22.4 10,189 4. Review of notification of actual startup 2 1 2 112 224 11.2 22.4 10,189 5. Notification of demonstration of CEMS2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 6. Review of initial CEMS demonstration report2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 7. Review of notification of performance test2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Table 2A: Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKK)

Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences / Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 1 32 8. Review of results of performance test2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 9. Review of semiannual reports 8 2 16 563 9,008 450.4 900.8 409,756 Total Burden 440,324 Assumptions for Table 2A:

1. This cost is based on the sum of personnel hours multiplied by their hourly labor rates [( Technical hrs x $ 40.56) + ( Management hrs x $ 54.66) + ( Clerical hrs x $ 21.95)].

2. While Subpart KKK includes the option of using closed vent systems and control devices to demonstrate compliance, this is not required by rule. No respondents are expected to use this option.

Therefore, no respondents are expected to submit the associated notifications and reports. Table 2B: Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions ( 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart LLL) 33 Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences / Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 1 1. Review of notification of construction/ reconstruction 2 1 2 1.5 3 0.15 0.3 137 2. Review of notification of modification 2 1 2 1.5 3 0.15 0.3 137 Review notification of anticipated startup 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 273 3. Review of notification of actual startup 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 273 Review notification of demonstration of CEMS 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 273 4. Review of CEMS demonstration report 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 273 Table 2B: Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions ( 40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart LLL) Activity ( A) Hours/ Occurrence ( B) Occurrences / Respondent/

Year ( C) Hours/ Respondent/

Year [ C = A x B] ( D) Number of Respondents ( E) Technical Hrs/ Yr [ E = C x D] ( F) Management Hrs/ Yr [ F = 0.05 x E] ( G) Clerical Hrs/ Yr [ G = 0.1 x E] ( H)

Total Labor Costs/ Yr [$] 1 34 5. Review of notification of initial performance test 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 273 6. Review of semiannual reports 8 2 16 82 1,312 65.6 131.2 59,680 7. Review of results of performance test 2 1 2 3 6 0.3 0.6 273 Total Burden 61,592 Assumptions for Table 2B:

1. This cost is based on the sum of personnel hours multiplied by their hourly labor rates [( Technical hrs x $ 40.56) + ( Management hrs x $ 54.66) + ( Clerical hrs x $ 21.95)]. 35 6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B, and summarized below.

( i) Respondent Tally The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 9,518,358. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1A: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK), and Table 1B: Annual Respondent Burden and Cost, NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO 2 Emissions ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL), above. Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 91 hours per response.

The total annual capital/ startup and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 338,700. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The cost calculations are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

( ii) The Agency Tally The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is estimated to be 12,689 labor hours at a cost of $ 501,916. See Table 2A: Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC From Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK), and Table 2B: Annual Agency Burden and Cost, NSPS for Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO 2 Emissions ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL), above.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due to adjustments. The adjustment increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR is primarily due to an increase in the number of respondents and an adjustment of the recordkeeping and reporting burden.

This ICR results in an increase in the estimated capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to the respondents. This is due to the following factors. The number of expected new respondents to subpart LLL has increased to 3 since the previous approval, which predicted no new respondents; therefore, there are greater anticipated capital/ startup costs. The number of existing respondents to subpart LLL that have CEMs has increased from 1 to 7 since the previous approval. This results in an increase in both the estimated capital/ startup and 36 operation and maintenance costs. Also note that the previous ICR erroneously used $ 74,000 as the cost of O& M for one facility, instead of $ 17,100. Capital/ startup and O& M cost for this ICR is taken from EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition ( January 2002). This ICR also uses updated cost information for monitoring devices.

Summarizing the changes in capital and O& M cost since the previous ICR:

* Anticipated new facilities went from 0 to 3, increasing cost from $ 0 to $ 219,000 ( 3 x $ 73,000). * Existing facilities incurring O& M cost went from 1 to 7, increasing cost from $ 74,000 to $ 119,700 ( 7 x $ 17,100).

6( g) Burden Statement The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 91 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA 2004 0005, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is ( 202) 566 1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to 37 the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number OECA 2004 0005 and OMB Control Number 2060 0120 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information.


[Federal Register: April 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 72)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19993-19995]
[DOCID:fr14ap08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0339; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-182-AD;
Amendment 39-15464; AD 2008-08-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 757 airplanes. This AD requires repetitive inspections of
the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing thermal
anti-ice (TAI) system for cracks at certain outboard stations of the
left and right wings, and corrective action if necessary. This AD also
provides optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
This AD results from reports of cracks found at the anchor tab of the
bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing TAI system. In one incident, the
anchor tab and bulkhead seal assembly had separated because of the
cracks. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the anchor tab of
the bulkhead seal assembly, which in icing conditions could result in
insufficient airflow to the wing TAI system, subsequent ice on the
wings, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective May 19, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Mudrovich, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
all Boeing Model 757 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on December 17, 2007 (72 FR 71275). That NPRM proposed to
require repetitive inspections of the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal
assemblies of the wing thermal anti-ice (TAI) system for cracks at
certain outboard stations of the left and right wings, and corrective
action if necessary. That NPRM also proposed to provide for optional

terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing concurs with the contents of the NPRM.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    Northwest Airlines (NWA) asks that the repetitive inspection
intervals specified in the NPRM be changed from 6,000 flight hours to
24 months. NWA states that because the NPRM already allows up to 36
months after the airplane has accumulated 20,000 total flight hours to
accomplish the initial check, an acceptable level of safety would be
maintained if repetitive intervals coincide with operator-scheduled
heavy check intervals not to exceed 24 months. NWA adds that if
repetitive inspections are at the proposed 6,000-flight-hour intervals,
the inspections would need to be accomplished in a line environment.
NWA asks that we allow the repetitive inspections to be done during
heavy maintenance checks where specialized personnel are available in a
controlled environment more conducive to performing the work.
    We do not agree to extend the compliance time for the repetitive
inspections. Based on data from the manufacturer, we find that a 6,000-
flight-hour interval is appropriate. We do not currently have data or
analysis, nor did NWA provide any, that can support such an extension
of the compliance time. We have determined that the 6,000-flight-hour
compliance time is appropriate given the probability of crack
initiation, crack growth characteristics, and the ability of operators
to integrate the required actions into established maintenance
practices. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (i) of
this AD, we may approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the
request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the AD
in this regard.

Request To Increase Work Hour Estimate

    NWA also states that the work-hour estimate specified in the Costs
of Compliance section of the NPRM is underestimated. NWA states that
the 2-hour estimate for the inspections is well below the estimate
provided by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 757-30-0021 and
757-30-0022, both Revision 1, both dated June 13, 2007, as referenced
in the NPRM. NWA adds that an accurate estimate for accomplishing the
inspections is 8 work hours (2 work hours per support) when access is
provided at a heavy maintenance check.
    From this comment, we infer that NWA would like us to increase the
work-hour estimate given in the NPRM. We do not agree. The cost
information below describes only the direct costs of the specific
actions required by this AD. Based on the best data available, the
manufacturer provided the number of work hours (2) necessary to do the
required inspections, as specified in the service bulletins. This
number represents the time necessary to perform only the actions
actually required by this AD. We recognize that, in doing the actions
required by an AD, operators might incur incidental costs in addition
to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD rulemaking actions,
however, typically does not include incidental costs such as the time
required to gain access and close up, time necessary for planning, or
time necessitated by other administrative actions. Those incidental
costs, which might vary significantly among operators, are almost
impossible to calculate. We have made no change to the AD in this
regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 929 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 530 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The inspection takes about 2 work hours per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated
cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $84,800, or $160 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-08-12 Boeing: Amendment 39-15464. Docket No. FAA-2007-0339;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-182-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 19, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB,
and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of cracks found at the anchor
tab of the bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing thermal anti-ice
(TAI) system. In one incident, the anchor tab and bulkhead seal
assembly had separated because of the cracks. We are issuing this AD
to prevent failure of the anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assembly,
which in icing conditions could result in insufficient airflow to
the wing TAI system, subsequent ice on the wings, and consequent
reduced controllability of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Repetitive Inspections/Corrective Action

    (f) At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-
0021 or 757-30-0022, both Revision 1, both dated June 13, 2007, as
applicable; except where the service bulletins specify starting the
compliance time `` * * * from the date on this service bulletin,''
this AD requires starting the compliance time from the effective
date of this AD: Perform detailed inspections for cracks of the
anchor tab of the bulkhead seal assemblies of the wing TAI system at
certain outboard stations of the left and right wings by doing all
the actions, including all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service bulletin. Do all applicable corrective actions before
further flight.

Optional Terminating Action

    (g) Installing a new duct anchor support bracket adjacent to the
bulkhead seal assemblies in accordance with Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 757-30-0021 or 757-30-0022, both Revision 1, both dated
June 13, 2007, as applicable, ends the repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (f) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Issue of Service
Information

    (h) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletins 757-30-
0021 and 757-30-0022, both dated August 15, 2006, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified
in this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-
30-0021, Revision 1, dated June 13, 2007; or Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 757-30-0022, Revision 1, dated June 13,
2007; as applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 3, 2008.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-7662 Filed 4-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2923-2924]
[FR Doc No: 2010-828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26367]

Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee (MCSAC) will hold a committee meeting on February 1-2, 2010
to complete its work of providing information, concepts and ideas to
the Agency relating to the hours-of-service (HOS) requirements for
drivers of property-carrying vehicles.

DATES: The meeting will be held on February 1-2, 2010, from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    Location: This meeting is open to the public via conference call.
Any interested person may call 1-800-593-0737, passcode 1997315, to
listen to the entire meeting.
    Matters To Be Considered: The MCSAC will complete its work on Task
10-01, provide information, concepts and ideas to FMCSA relating to the
HOS requirements for drivers of property-carrying vehicles.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jack Kostelnik, Acting Chief,
Strategic Planning and Program Evaluation Division, Office of Policy
Plans and Regulation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

MCSAC

    Section 4144 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L.
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005) required the Secretary of
Transportation to establish a Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee.
The committee provides advice and recommendations to the FMCSA
Administrator on motor carrier safety programs and regulations, and
operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App 2).

Hours-of-Service Task

    On October 26, 2009, Public Citizen, et al., (the Petitioners) and
FMCSA entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the parties
agreed to seek to have the petition for judicial review of the November
19, 2008, Final Rule on hours of service of drivers held in abeyance
pending the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The
settlement agreement states that FMCSA will submit the draft NPRM to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within nine months of the
date of the settlement, and will publish a Final Rule within 21 months
of the date of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement does
not include any guidance, direction(s) or restrictions on the scope and
content of the forthcoming NPRM or make any commitments on the outcome
of the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. The current rule will
remain in effect during the rulemaking proceedings.
    The MCSAC began work on Task 10-01 at its December 7-9, 2009,
meeting. Information from that meeting has been posted to the
Committee's Web site, http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov.
    The MCSAC task is one of several steps that FMCSA is taking as it
revisits the HOS requirements for drivers of property-carrying
vehicles. Other steps will include holding public listening

sessions across the country beginning on January 19, 2009 and the
opportunity for public comment on the forthcoming NPRM.

II. Meeting Participation

    The February 1-2 MCSAC meeting is open to the public via
teleconference so that all interested parties, including safety
advocacy groups, State safety agencies, motor carriers, motor carrier
associations, owner-operators, drivers, and labor unions may listen to
the discussion.
    For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to
request special assistance, please e-mail your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by Wednesday, January 27, 2010.
    Please note that because of time limitations, oral comments will
not be accepted via the teleconference line. However, members of the
public are invited to participate in one of the public listening
sessions announced on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 285), and elsewhere in
today's Federal Register, and to provide oral and/or written comments,
information, concepts and ideas the Agency should consider in
developing the forthcoming HOS NPRM during one of those public
listening sessions.
    Interested parties may also submit written comments on this topic
to Federal Docket Management System (FDMC) Docket Number FMCSA-2006-
26367 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room WI2-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Room WI2-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: January 13, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-828 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 52019]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21178]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14436-000]

Kaweah River Power Authority; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On July 17, 2012, Kaweah River Power Authority, 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
Terminus Project Incremental Generation Project to be located on the
Kaweah River/Lake Kaweah near the town of Lemon Cove, Tulare County,
Nevada. The project would affect federal lands and facilities
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 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 utilize the existing facilities under
the Kaweah River Power Authority's licensed Terminus Power Project No.
3947 that include: (1) The 2,375-foot-long, 250-foot-high, earthfill,
Corps, Terminus dam; (2) a 1,675-foot-long penstock; (3) a powerhouse
containing one generating unit with a rated capacity of 20.09 megawatts
(MW); (4) a 25-foot-long tailrace; (5) and a 2-mile-long, 66-kilovolt
transmission line interconnecting the Terminus Project to an existing
Southern California Edison Company transmission line.
    The proposed project would consist of the three additional units:
Unit 2, Unit 3 and Unit 4. The proposed Unit 2 would include: (1) A 6-
MW Francis turbine; (2) a 470-foot-long, 6-foot-diameter steel penstock
connecting to the existing Unit 1 penstock; and (3) a 50-foot-long by
40-foot-wide by 49-foot-tall concrete powerhouse. The proposed Unit 3
would include: (1) A 2-MW Francis turbine; and (2) a 3.5-foot-diameter
low-flow conduit branching off from the existing Unit 1 penstock. The
proposed Unit 4 would include a 1-MW Francis turbine and would be
connected by an extension to the proposed 3.5-foot-diameter low-flow
conduit. Unit 3 and Unit 4 would share a concrete powerhouse. The
annual energy output of all three proposed units (9 MW) would be
approximately 9.2 gigawatthours.
    Applicant Contact: Gene Kilgore, Kaweah River Power Authority, 2975
North Farmersville Blvd., Farmersville, CA 93223; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Brian Csernak; 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-14436) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-21178 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69735-69737]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-16-000]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Portland Natural Gas Transmission System Westbrook XPress
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    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 Westbrook XPress Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Portland Natural
Gas Transmission System (PNGTS) in Cumberland County, Maine. The
Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover 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, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues
to address in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
January 21, 2020.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission
staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the
EA.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on November 18, 2019, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP20-16-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an
easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
    PNGTS provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' 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 also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to

assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly
recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is also on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under
the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP20-16-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    PNGTS proposes modifications and additions to existing facilities
in Cumberland County, Maine. The Westbrook XPress Project would provide
about 131 billion standard cubic feet of natural gas per day to New
England. According to PNGTS, its project would provide access to, and
allow for the transportation of, natural gas supplies from North
American supply basins, such as Marcellus, Utica, and others, via
TransCanada PipeLines Limited's Canadian Mainline and Trans-Quebec &
Maritimes Pipeline.
    The Westbrook XPress Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     Installation of one new natural gas fired turbine
compressor unit and appurtenant facilities in a greenfield expansion
area approximately 1,500 feet southwest of the currently developed
Westbrook Compressor Station;
     approximately 1,500 feet of 30-inch-diameter suction and
discharge lines to connect the greenfield expansion area to the
existing station; and
     modifications at the existing Westbrook Metering and
Regulating Station 30006, including replacement of existing pipeline,
filter separator, and appurtenant facilities.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb 20.8 acres of
land for the aboveground facilities and suction and discharge lines.
Following construction, PNGTS would maintain 8.0 acres for permanent
operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be
restored and revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    Commission staff 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.
    The EA will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public
record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will
receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be
issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff will
consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the
Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to address
your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office,
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The EA for this project will
document findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize
the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices
related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project.
    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment
period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name

from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing List Update
Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP20-16). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: December 12, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27320 Filed 12-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P