[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27249-27255]
[DOCID:fr14my10-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534; FRL-9151-4]
RIN 2060-AQ24

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emissions
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste
Incinerators

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: On October 6, 2009, EPA promulgated its response to the remand
of the new source performance standards and emissions guidelines for
hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and satisfied the Clean
Air Act Section 129(a)(5) requirement to conduct a review of the
standards every five years. This action proposes to amend the new
source performance standards in order to correct inadvertent drafting
errors in the emissions limits for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide
promulgated for large hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators,
which did not correspond to our description of our standard-setting
process. This action will also correct erroneous cross-references in
the reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 28, 2010.
Because of the need to revise the new source performance standards
(NSPS) emissions limits and reporting and recordkeeping requirements in
a timely manner, EPA will not grant requests for extensions beyond this
date.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA by May 24, 2010 requesting
to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on June 1,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0534, by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    E-mail: Send your comments via electronic mail to a-and-r-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
    Facsimile: Fax your comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
    Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0534. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a
separate copy also be sent to the contact person identified below (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
Such deliveries are accepted only during the normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0534. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Public Hearing: If a public hearing is held, it will be held at
EPA's Campus located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive in Research Triangle
Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby. Contact Ms. Joan Rogers at (919)
541-4487 to request a hearing, to request to speak at a public hearing,
to determine if a hearing will be held, or to determine the hearing
location. If no one contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing concerning this proposed rule by May 24, 2010, the hearing will
be cancelled without further notice.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534 and Legacy Docket ID No. A-91-61. All
documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ketan D. Patel, Natural Resources
and Commerce Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-03),

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does the proposed action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?
II. Background
III. Summary of Proposed Amendments
    A. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Limit
    B. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Limit
    C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
IV. Impacts of the Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

    A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
changes in this action is available in the docket.

I. General Information

A. Does the proposed action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected by
the proposed action are those which operate hospital/medical/infectious
waste incinerators (HMIWI). The NSPS and emissions guidelines (EG) for
HMIWI affect the following categories of sources:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of potentially
            Category               NAICS code       regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................          622110  Private hospitals,
                                         622310   other health care
                                         325411   facilities, commercial
                                         325412   research laboratories,
                                         562213   commercial waste
                                         611310   disposal companies,
                                                  private universities.
Federal Government.............          622110  Federal hospitals,
                                         541710   other health care
                                         928110   facilities, public
                                                  health service, armed
                                                  services.
State/local/tribal Government..          622110  State/local hospitals,
                                         562213   other health care
                                         611310   facilities, State/
                                                  local waste disposal
                                                  services, State
                                                  universities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be affected
by the proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria
in 40 CFR 60.50c of subpart Ec. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of the proposed action to a particular entity, contact
the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments?

1. Submitting CBI
    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address:
Mr. Ketan D. Patel, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02),
U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534. Clearly mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to
EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions. EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified in the preceding section titled DATES.
3. Docket
    The docket number for the proposed action regarding the HMIWI NSPS
(40 CFR part 60, subpart Ec) is Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0534.
4. Worldwide Web (WWW)
    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the proposed action is available on the WWW through the Technology
Transfer Network Web site (TTN Web). Following signature, EPA posted a
copy of the proposed action on the TTN's policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

II. Background

    On September 15, 1997, EPA adopted NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart
Ec) and EG (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce) for HMIWI under the authority
of Sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Emissions standards
were adopted for the nine pollutants required to be regulated under CAA
Section 129--particulate matter, lead, cadmium, mercury, chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins/dibenzofurans, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides,
hydrogen chloride and sulfur dioxide. The EPA developed emissions
limits for all nine pollutants for three HMIWI size subcategories
(large, medium and small) for the NSPS and four HMIWI size
subcategories (large, medium, small and small rural) for the EG.
    On November 14, 1997, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources
Defense Council (Sierra Club) filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court). The Sierra Club
claimed that EPA violated CAA Section 129 by setting emissions
standards for HMIWI that are less stringent than required by Section
129(a)(2); that EPA violated Section 129 by not including pollution
prevention or waste minimization requirements; and that EPA had not
adequately considered the non-air quality health and environmental
impacts of the standards.
    On March 2, 1999, the Court issued its opinion in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1999). While the Court rejected the Sierra
Club's statutory arguments under CAA Section 129, the Court remanded
the rule to EPA for further explanation regarding how EPA derived the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floors for new and
existing HMIWI. The Court did not vacate the regulations, and the
regulations remained in effect during the remand.
    On October 6, 2009, EPA promulgated its response to the Court's
remand of the HMIWI regulations and also satisfied its requirement
under CAA Section 129(a)(5) to conduct a five-year review of the HMIWI
standards. The promulgated rule revised the NSPS and EG emissions
limits for all nine of the CAA Section 129 pollutants.
    Following promulgation of the revised emissions limits, an industry
representative informed EPA of an error in the published NSPS emissions
limit for nitrogen oxides (NOX) for large HMIWI, which did
not appear to reflect EPA's described analytical process for adopting
the revised standards. On review, EPA staff determined that the
published revised NOX NSPS for large HMIWI indeed did not
reflect EPA's intent in the final rule. EPA also reviewed the other
published NSPS and EG emissions limits for similar errors, and
determined that the published revised sulfur dioxide (SO2)
NSPS for large HMIWI also did not reflect EPA's intent in the final
rule. To correct these errors, this action issues proposed amendments
to the NSPS emissions limits for NOX and SO2 for
large HMIWI.
    Also after promulgation, a State agency representative informed EPA
of an error in the published NSPS reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, which incorrectly referred to Sec.  60.56, instead of
Sec.  60.56c, in three separate paragraphs. To correct this error, this
action issues proposed amendments to the NSPS reporting and
recordkeeping provisions that have this incorrect cross-reference.

III. Summary of Proposed Amendments

    The NSPS emissions limits for new and reconstructed HMIWI were
developed in accordance with the criteria specified in CAA Section
129(a)(2), which provides that the ``degree of reduction in emissions
that is deemed achievable [* * *] shall not be less stringent than the
emissions control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled
similar unit, as determined by the Administrator.''
    In order to properly account for variability in the data, we
calculated upper limits associated with the data for the best
controlled similar unit (best performer), prior to setting the
emissions limits. We would typically take into account the distribution
of the emissions data (i.e., determine whether the data are distributed
normally or lognormally) prior to calculating the upper limit value.
Where there were a sufficient number of datapoints for the best
performer, we used the skewness of the data to determine the
distribution. Because normal distributions typically have a skewness of
zero, we concluded that those datasets with a skewness less than 0.5
were normally distributed, while those with a skewness of 0.5 or
greater were lognormally distributed. Where there were only a few
datapoints for the best performer, we decided to assume a normal
distribution in calculating the upper limit value, which provides a
more stringent limit, rather than a lognormal distribution. (See 2009
memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT Floors, Data Variability Analysis,
and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,'' which is included in
the docket.) (A lognormal distribution would tend to provide less
stringent emissions limits than a normal distribution.)
    We used the 99th percentile to calculate the upper limits, because
we found it provided a more reasonable compensation for variability
than the other percentiles we considered (i.e., 90, 95 and 99.9
percent). We determined the emissions limits by rounding up the upper
limit values to two significant figures, in accordance with standard
engineering practices.

    Note: In the preamble to the October 6, 2009, final rule, we
erroneously referred to these calculated values as ``upper
confidence limits'' or ``UCLs.'' In today's notice, we are using the
more accurate term ``upper limits.''

    The following two sections discuss the proposed amendments to the
NOX and SO2 NSPS emissions limits for new large
HMIWI, which have been revised to correspond to the aforementioned
standard-setting process. The third section discusses the proposed
amendments to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for new
HMIWI, which have been revised to correct the cross-reference to Sec.
60.56c.

A. Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Limit

    For the large HMIWI size subcategory, the NOX emissions
estimate associated with the best controlled similar unit is 66.9 parts
per million by volume (ppmv). (See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised
MACT Floors, Data Variability Analysis and Emission Limits for Existing
and New HMIWI,'' which is included in the docket.) Because there were
only a few datapoints for NOX for the best performer, we
assumed a normal distribution in calculating the NOX upper
limit value. The 99 percent upper limit for NOX for new
large HMIWI (assuming a normal distribution) is 144 ppmv. (See 2009
memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT Floors, Data Variability Analysis,
and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,'' which is included in
the docket.) Rounding up to two significant figures, we estimated the
NOX emissions limit for new large HMIWI would be 150 ppmv,
which would be less stringent than the corresponding NOX EG
limit for existing HMIWI (140 ppmv).
    This unusual situation occurred due to a difference in the size of
the datasets used to determine the NOX upper limit values
for existing and new HMIWI. The NOX dataset for the best
performer (used to determine the MACT floor for NOX for new
sources) was smaller than the NOX dataset for the best-
performing 12 percent of sources (used to determine the MACT floor for
existing sources) and had a higher standard deviation.

Since the upper limit calculation depends on both the average and
standard deviation, the higher standard deviation resulted in the
NOX upper limit value for the best performer being less
stringent. (See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT Floors, Data
Variability Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,''
which is included in the docket.)
    In this and other similar cases, we decided to use existing source
limits for new sources where they are more stringent than new source
limits, in order to prevent a situation where a new source would have a
less stringent emissions limit than an existing source. We estimated
the NOX EG limit for existing large HMIWI to be 140 ppmv.
(See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT Floors, Data Variability
Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,'' which is
included in the docket.) Therefore, the NSPS NOX emissions
limit for new large HMIWI should have also been 140 ppmv. However, a
NOX NSPS limit of 130 ppmv was erroneously published, which
does not correspond to our analytical process.
    The source of this error lies in the previous draft of the
NOX EG limit for existing large HMIWI (130 ppmv), which was
incorrectly determined assuming a normal distribution of the
NOX emissions dataset for the best-performing 12 percent of
the large HMIWI size subcategory. The distribution of the
NOX emissions dataset for the best-performing 12 percent of
large HMIWI was actually lognormal (based on a skewness of 1.44).
Assuming a normal distribution would result in a NOX upper
limit value of 121 ppmv, which would be rounded up to 130 ppmv to
establish the NOX EG limit. Assuming a lognormal
distribution, the NOX upper limit would actually be 131
ppmv, which would be rounded up to 140 ppmv to establish the
NOX EG limit. The correct NOX EG limit (140 ppmv)
was included in the final rule for existing large HMIWI, but the
incorrect, previous draft of the NOX NSPS limit (130 ppmv)
was erroneously included in the final rule for new large HMIWI. Today's
action proposes to correct this error and amend the HMIWI NSPS to
include the correct NOX NSPS limit of 140 ppmv for new large
HMIWI, which matches the final NOX EG limit and reflects
EPA's intent in the October 6, 2009 final rule.

B. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Limit

    For the large HMIWI size subcategory, the SO2 emissions
estimate associated with the best controlled similar unit is 0.462
ppmv. (See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT Floors, Data
Variability Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,''
which is included in the docket.) In our analysis for the October 6,
2009, final rule, we indicated that the SO2 data for the
best performer were normally distributed, but a closer examination of
the skewness of the data (0.54) indicates that the SO2 data
are actually lognormally distributed. For the October 6, 2009, final
rule, we erroneously estimated a 99 percent upper limit of 1.59 ppmv
and an emissions limit of 1.6 ppmv for new large HMIWI, based on our
incorrect estimation that the SO2 data were normally
distributed. (See 2009 memorandum entitled ``Revised MACT Floors, Data
Variability Analysis, and Emission Limits for Existing and New HMIWI,''
which is included in the docket.) The 99 percent upper limit for
SO2 for new large HMIWI based on a lognormal distribution is
8.04 ppmv. Rounding up to two significant figures, the SO2
NSPS emissions limit should be 8.1 ppmv, if our standard-setting
process is to be correctly followed. (See 2009 memorandum entitled
``Revised Sulfur Dioxide MACT Floor, Data Variability Analysis, and
Emission Limit for New Large HMIWI,'' which is included in the docket.)
This action proposes to amend the HMIWI NSPS to include the correct
SO2 limit of 8.1 ppmv for new large HMIWI, which reflects
EPA's intent in the October 6, 2009, final rule.

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The NSPS reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the October 6,
2009, final rule include three separate cross-references to ``Sec.
60.56(d), (h), or (j).'' The correct cross-reference in each case
should have been ``Sec.  60.56c(d), (h), or (j),'' consistent with the
section numbering format for NSPS subpart Ec. This action proposes to
amend the HMIWI NSPS to correct this error.

IV. Impacts of the Proposed Action

    Based on the stringency of the HMIWI standards promulgated on
October 6, 2009, sources would likely respond to the HMIWI rule by
choosing not to construct new HMIWI and would use alternative waste
disposal options rather than incur the costs of compliance. Considering
this information, we do not anticipate any new HMIWI, and, therefore,
no costs or impacts are associated with the proposed NSPS amendments
for NOX and SO2 for new large units.
    However, in the unlikely event that a new unit is constructed, we
estimated costs and impacts expected for each of three HMIWI model
plants (large, medium and small), which we entered into the docket for
the October 6, 2009, promulgation. (See 2009 memoranda entitled
``Revised Compliance Costs and Economic Inputs for New HMIWI'' and
``Revised Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Existing and
New HMIWI,'' which are included in the docket.) We estimated baseline
NOX emissions of 80 ppmv and baseline SO2
emissions of 0.84 ppmv for the large HMIWI model plant, based on the
average NOX and SO2 emissions measured at the
latest large HMIWI to be installed since the 1997 rule. Consequently,
the NOX and SO2 emissions associated with the
large HMIWI model plant are already below both the incorrect
NOX and SO2 emissions limits of 130 ppmv and 1.6
ppmv, respectively, promulgated in the October 6, 2009, Federal
Register notice and the correct NOX and SO2
emissions limits of 140 ppmv and 8.1 ppmv, respectively, being proposed
in today's action. Therefore, even if a new large unit were
constructed, we would estimate no cost savings or negative impacts
associated with today's proposed amendments to the NOX and
SO2 emissions limits for new large HMIWI.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order (EO) 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is,
therefore, not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Today's proposed
rule only includes revised NOX and SO2 emissions
limits for new large HMIWI, and, as noted previously, no new HMIWI are
anticipated. Consequently, today's proposed action will not impose any
additional information collection burden for new sources.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small organizations and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, small entity is defined as follows: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations
at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that
is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.
Today's proposed action only includes revised NOX and
SO2 emissions limits for new large HMIWI, and no new HMIWI
are anticipated.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538
for State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This
proposed action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this proposed
action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the
UMRA.
    This proposed action is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EO 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' are defined in the EO to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects 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.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects 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,
as specified in EO 13132. This proposed action will not impose
substantial direct compliance costs on State or local governments, and
will not preempt State law. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    In the spirit of EO 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in EO
13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000). EPA is not aware of any HMIWI
owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, EO 13175 does not
apply to this action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) as applying
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it is based solely on technology
performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in EO
13211 (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of
energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EO 12898 (59 FR 7629)(February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it affects only
new large units and no new units are anticipated to be constructed.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 10, 2010.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
60 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Ec--[Amended]

    2. Section 60.58c is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1) through
(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.58c  Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) The values for the site-specific operating parameters
established pursuant to Sec.  60.56c(d), (h), or (j), as applicable.
    (2) The highest maximum operating parameter and the lowest minimum
operating parameter, as applicable, for each operating parameter
recorded for the calendar year being reported, pursuant to Sec.
60.56c(d), (h), or (j), as applicable.
    (3) The highest maximum operating parameter and the lowest minimum
operating parameter, as applicable, for each operating parameter
recorded pursuant to Sec.  60.56c(d), (h), or (j) for the calendar year
preceding the year being reported, in order to provide the
Administrator with a summary of the performance of the affected
facility over a 2-year period.
* * * * *
    3. Table 1B to Subpart Ec is revised to read as follows:

 Table 1B to Subpart Ec of Part 60--Emissions Limits for Small, Medium, and Large HMIWI at Affected Facilities as Defined in Sec.   60.50c(a)(3) and (4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Emissions limits
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------                        Method for
           Pollutant                 Units (7 percent                            HMIWI size                           Averaging time     demonstrating
                                    oxygen, dry basis)   ----------------------------------------------------------        \1\           compliance \2\
                                                                 Small              Medium             Large
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Particulate matter.............  Milligrams per dry       66 (0.029)........  22 (0.0095)......  18 (0.0080)......  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  standard cubic meter                                                               hour minimum       Method 5 of
                                  (grains per dry                                                                    sample time per    appendix A-3 of
                                  standard cubic foot).                                                              run).              part 60, or EPA
                                                                                Reference Method
                                                                                M 26A or 29 of
                                                                                appendix A-8 of
                                                                                part 60.
Carbon monoxide................  Parts per million by     20................  1.8..............  11...............  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  volume.                                                                            hour minimum       Method 10 or 10B
                                                                                sample time per    of appendix A-4
                                                                                run).              of part 60.
Dioxins/furans.................  Nanograms per dry        16 (7.0) or 0.013   0.47 (0.21) or     9.3 (4.1) or       3-run average (4-  EPA Reference
                                  standard cubic meter     (0.0057).           0.014 (0.0061).    0.035 (0.015).     hour minimum       Method 23 of
                                  total dioxins/furans                                                               sample time per    appendix A-7 of
                                  (grains per billion                                                                run).              part 60.
                                  dry standard cubic
                                  feet) or nanograms per
                                  dry standard cubic
                                  meter TEQ (grains per
                                  billion dry standard
                                  cubic feet).
Hydrogen chloride..............  Parts per million by     15................  7.7..............  5.1..............  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  volume.                                                                            hour minimum       Method 26 or 26A
                                                                                sample time per    of appendix A-8
                                                                                run).              of part 60.
Sulfur dioxide.................  Parts per million by     1.4...............  1.4..............  8.1..............  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  volume.                                                                            hour minimum       Method 6 or 6C
                                                                                sample time per    of appendix A-4
                                                                                run).              of part 60.
Nitrogen oxides................  Parts per million by     67................  67...............  140..............  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  volume.                                                                            hour minimum       Method 7 or 7E
                                                                                sample time per    of appendix A-4
                                                                                run).              of part 60.
Lead...........................  Milligrams per dry       0.31 (0.14).......  0.018 (0.0079)...  0.00069 (0.00030)  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  standard cubic meter                                                               hour minimum       Method 29 of
                                  (grains per thousand                                                               sample time per    appendix A-8 of
                                  dry standard cubic                                                                 run).              part 60.
                                  feet.
Cadmium........................  Milligrams per dry       0.017 (0.0074)....  0.0098 (0.0043)..  0.00013            3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  standard cubic meter                                            (0.000057).        hour minimum       Method 29 of
                                  (grains per thousand                                                               sample time per    appendix A-8 of
                                  dry standard cubic                                                                 run).              part 60.
                                  feet) or percent
                                  reduction.
Mercury........................  Milligrams per dry       0.014 (0.0061)....  0.0035 (0.0015)..  0.0013 (0.00057).  3-run average (1-  EPA Reference
                                  standard cubic meter                                                               hour minimum       Method 29 of
                                  (grains per thousand                                                               sample time per    appendix A-8 of
                                  dry standard cubic                                                                 run).              part 60.
                                  feet) or percent
                                  reduction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except as allowed under Sec.   60.56c(c) for HMIWI equipped with CEMS.
\2\ Does not include CEMS and approved alternative non-EPA test methods allowed under Sec.   60.56c(b).

[FR Doc. 2010-11585 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EPA New England

MEMORANDUM

DATE:	August 14, 2006

SUBJ:	Technical Support Document for Massachusetts’ Request to Amend
Certification of

Roadway Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the Metropolitan Boston Air
Pollution Control District.

FROM: 	Donald O. Cooke, Environmental Scientist

Air Quality Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection

  TO:	Files

	I have completed my review of Massachusetts' July 12, 2006, submission
to revise the certification of roadway tunnel ventilation systems in the
Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control District approved into the
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan on October 8, 1992, (57 FR
46310).

Technical Support Document

Background and Purpose.

		On July 12, 2006, the State of Massachusetts submitted a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP).  The SIP revision
consists of technical revisions to 310 CMR 7.38, entitled
“Certification of Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the Metropolitan
Boston Air Pollution Control District”.  The technical revisions apply
to the emissions monitoring section of the regulation at 310 CMR
7.38(8)(a) and are a result of improved emissions monitoring techniques
developed during early operating phases of the Central Artery/Tunnel
Project (CA/T Project) and of the availability of more cost effective,
longitudinal tunnel ventilation technology.  A new subsection 310 CMR
7.38 (1)(b) requires the tunnel ventilation systems subject to federal
New Source Performance Standard or National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants to operate in compliance these regulations.  A
new section 310 CMR 7.38 (10) “Removal of Air Pollution Control and
Monitoring Equipment” has been added to protect air pollution control
equipment, and equipment used to monitor emissions or operations
required in accordance with 310 CMR 7.38.   In addition to the technical
revisions, typographical errors are also being corrected in the existing
regulation.

		The Certification of Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the Metropolitan
Air Pollution Control District regulation, 310 CMR 7.38, was promulgated
on January 18, 1991 and applies to the construction and operation of any
tunnel ventilation system for highway projects constructed after January
1, 1991.  On October 8, 1992, EPA approved 310 CMR 7.38 as a revision to
the Massachusetts SIP (57 FR 46310).  In the final rule, EPA agreed with
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) that
tunnel ventilation systems are not stationary sources subject to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or to New Source Review
(NSR) permitting requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), nor to MA DEP
Plan Approval and Emissions Limitations Regulation for stationary
sources, 310 CMR 7.02.

		The purpose of the regulation is to require certification that tunnel
ventilation systems for highway projects in the Metropolitan Boston Air
Pollution Control District including the CA/T Project, meet applicable
air quality requirements, thereby protecting public health and the
environment.  The regulation requires an initial, “preconstruction”
certification, an operation certification (required 12-15 months after a
project becomes fully operational), and re-certification every five
years.  In accordance with 310 CMR 7.38(2)(a) through (c), the proponent
must certify that the project will not: (a) cause or exacerbate a
violation of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard as set forth at
40 CFR 50, or a Massachusetts Ambient Air Quality Standard as set forth
at 310 CMR 6.00; or (b) cause or exacerbate a violation of the MA
DEP’s one hour ambient NO2 guideline of 320 ug/m3; or (c) result in an
actual or projected increase in the total amount of non-methane
hydrocarbons measured within the project area when compared with the
no-build alternative.

		This action will improve emission monitoring techniques for roadway
tunnel ventilation systems in the Boston Metropolitan Air Control
District.  Under the air emission monitoring  protocol established by
this process as a SIP element, MA DEP will be able to amend the
monitoring requirements to ensure that the most appropriate monitoring
techniques are implemented, and that  ambient air quality does not
exceed Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the
tunnel portal areas, or downwind of the roadway ventilation stacks.  Air
emission monitoring protocols, subsequent modifications,
(preconstruction, operating, and 5-year renewal operating certificates),
and all mitigation plans or conditions imposed by the state under this
SIP revision, will be subject to Federal enforcement under the SIP.
While the certification process is established as a SIP element;
approval of individual certifications or conditions which require
written approval by MA DEP, will not require SIP revisions.  This
concept is included in the existing SIP-approved rule and the recent
revisions do not change this previously established process.  Finally,
statistical and modeling elements were addressed under subsection (8)(a)
to be used where actual emission monitoring is not feasible.

Addition of Longitudinal Ventilation.

	During the late 1980s when the CA/T Project was initially planning and
designing the ventilation system, the only Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) authorized tunnel ventilation system was the
traditional “full transverse ventilation.”  Therefore, when 310 CMR
7.38 was promulgated in 1991, the emissions monitoring requirements were
based on full transverse ventilation technology.  In 1995, FHWA issued a
memorandum titled “Mechanical Ventilation in Road Tunnels using Jet
Fans” authorizing applicable projects, including the CA/T Project, to
use longitudinal ventilation with jet fan technology.  The availability
of this additional ventilation technology was neither anticipated nor
provided for in 310 CMR 7.38 (8).

	Following the FHWA authorization memo, the CA/T Project studied the
supplementary use of longitudinal ventilation at several exit ramps as a
cost saving measure.   The CA/T Project subsequently filed a Notice of
Project Change, and implemented longitudinal ventilation at eight exit
ramps.  Although longitudinal ventilation was approved for use on the
CA/T Project, the resulting emission impacts at the eight exit ramp
portals cannot be monitored using CFR Part 60 Continuous Emissions
Monitoring (CEM) methods because Part 60 is designed to measure
emissions from stacks, not exit ramp portals.  The revised subsection
7.38(8)(a) specifically requires the development of an “Air Emissions
Monitoring Protocol” to install and operate emissions monitoring and
recording equipment in tunnel roadway exit portals that utilize
longitudinal ventilation.

	The revisions to the Certification of Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the
Metropolitan Air Boston Control District, contain a revised set of
allowable techniques and emissions monitoring approaches that
incorporate elements of 40 CFR 58 – Ambient Air Quality Surveillance,
40 CFR 60 – Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, 40
CFR 75 – Continuous Emission Monitoring, as well as statistical
analysis, computer modeling, and innovative technologies.  This proposed
“hybrid” approach to emission monitoring, (which includes elements
of ambient air quality monitoring and continuous emission monitoring),
will provide more accurate monitoring of ambient emissions within the
portal area environment which could not be conducted with the original
stack monitoring approach under 40 CFR 60 Appendix B –Performance
Specifications.  Additional monitoring flexibility is proposed by
allowing the MA DEP approved “Air Emissions Monitoring Protocol” to
be modified, but any modification would require written approval by MA
DEP.

Ted Williams Tunnel Emission Monitoring Program.

	The years of experience gained from the monitoring program developed
since the early opening phase of the TWT, as well as the need to meet
the unique monitoring requirements of longitudinal ventilation, has
afforded DEP and the CA/T Project the opportunity to develop and assess
more appropriate monitoring methods than those allowed by the
traditional 40 CFR Part 60 CEM methods as required by 310 CMR 7.38.
These proposed monitoring approaches will apply to the CA/T Project as
well as apply to future highway projects with tunnel ventilation
systems.

	On December 15, 1995, the Ted Williams Tunnel (TWT) opened to
commercial and authorized traffic only.  MA DEP notified the CA/T
Project that the emissions monitoring requirements of the regulation
applied to this restricted-use tunnel operation and required the CA/T
Project to develop and begin an air monitoring program to measure the
emissions from ventilation buildings six and seven, which service the
TWT.  The CA/T Project then developed an emissions monitoring and data
collection and reporting program, which was subsequently approved by MA
DEP.  In 1996, the CA/T Project began the emissions monitoring program,
which was originally planned for five quarters (15 months).  The
monitoring program was extended to nine quarters (27 months) at the
request of MA DEP, and was refined and enhanced during this period.  The
monitoring program approved for this “early opening phase” lasted
through December 1998.    Data gathered during this monitoring program
served two purposes.  First it provided an indication of the emission
levels from the two ventilation buildings during the “early opening
phase.”  Second, as required by 310 CMR 7.38 (8), it would be used to
determine the appropriate scope of the required compliance monitoring
program (CMP) for the CA/T Project’s eventual full operation.  It
should be noted that monitoring has continued since the specific
“early opening phase” as required by 310 CMR 7.38 (8) and is being
used to gather supplemental data to further refine the CMP.

	Vent building six in South Boston serves a section of TWT including
east and west-bound lanes and has six exhaust stacks linked to two
ventilation zones.  Vent building seven in East Boston serves a section
of TWT including east and westbound lanes, Ramp T-AD, and has fourteen
exhaust stacks linked to five ventilation zones.  Of the seven
ventilation zones, six cover both the east and westbound lane
directions.  MA DEP determined that monitoring at the exhaust plenums of
these six ventilation zones instead of the twenty associated exhaust
stacks housed in ventilation buildings six and seven would enable a more
efficient and cost effective capture of all ventilation building
emissions for TWT without compromising the results.

	Based on the monitoring program completed in 1998, MA DEP and the CA/T
Project determined that there were more practical alternatives to
monitoring in strict accordance with 40 CFR Part 60.  For example, while
310 CMR 7.38(2)(c) requires a tunnel ventilation system, project roadway
or roadway network (including the CA/T) to “not result in an actual or
projected increase in the total amount of” NMHC, no monitor actually
exists to measure NMHC; instead, THC emissions are the chemical
substances typically measured.  In attempting to measure THC, the
monitored concentrations of THC were found to be low, leading to
“operational difficulties regarding system calibration and maintenance
due to low concentration measurements” (see page 33 in “Ted Williams
Tunnel Emissions Monitoring Data Collection Program and Proposed
Project-Wide Compliance Monitoring Program - Final Report - Revision
1,” April 2000).  Based on these issues, MA DEP has devised an
innovative approach of using continuously monitored traffic data as a
surrogate for NMHC.

	Similarly, based on the results of continuous CO, NO and NOx monitoring
in the TWT, the CA/T Project proposed a statistical approach to explore
the possibility of using continuously monitored CO emission levels as a
surrogate to predict NO and NOx concentrations.  The results of a
correlation analysis indicate a moderate to strong correlation between
CO and NO and CO and NOx.  This correlation analysis was based on data
sets representing different seasons, ventilation zones, and direction of
traffic.   Pollutant monitoring data collected since this “early
opening phase” continues to support the CO/NOX relationship and a
statistical approach to determining NOx emissions based on measured CO
concentrations.

	The “Air Emissions Monitoring Protocol” to be required under the
proposed SIP revision provides flexibility in monitoring at the exhaust
stacks or exhaust plenums of roadway tunnel ventilation buildings.  In
addition, the “Air Emission Monitoring Protocol” can provide
alternative methods to cost-effectively and accurately measure
emissions.  MA DEP has devised innovative approaches of using
continuously monitored traffic data as a surrogate for NMHC; as well as
using continuously monitored carbon monoxide (CO) emission levels as a
surrogate to predict nitrous oxide (NO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)
concentrations.

Future Monitoring Improvements

	MA DEP has also proposed a revision to the emissions monitoring
requirements at 310 CMR 7.38 (8)(a) to allow flexibility so that as
technological advances occur in contaminant and emissions monitoring, MA
DEP will be able to modify monitoring procedures without necessarily
having to complete a regulatory revision process.  Therefore, the
proposed regulation would allow affected projects to periodically modify
or update their air emission monitoring protocol with written approval
of MA DEP.

Administrative Processing

	A Public Hearing on the State's proposed amendments to 310 C.M.R. 7.38
was held on July 19, 2005, after proper advertisement and legal notice.
Following the public comment period Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection – Bureau of Waste Prevention, Division of
Consumer and Transportation Programs, prepared a summary and
satisfactory responded to comments raised.  The regulation was filed
with the Massachusetts Secretary of State on December 13, 2005 and
became effective upon publication in the Massachusetts Register on
December 30, 2005.

	EPA is now proceeding with the publishing of a direct final rulemaking
notice, at the same time as we are publishing the notice of proposed
rulemaking associated with a direct final rule in the Federal  Register.
 The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments.  However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant
adverse comments be filed.  If the EPA receives relevant adverse
comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and
informing the public that the rule will not take effect.  All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule.  The EPA will not institute a second comment
period on the proposed rule.  If EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

 Boston Metropolitan Air Control District is defined at 310 CMR 7.00 --
Air Pollution Control Districts; as well as at 40 CFR 81.19 --
Metropolitan Boston Intrastate Air Quality Control Region.

 PAGE

 PAGE   5


[Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 7)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1514-1516]
[DOCID:fr11ja11-5]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 232

[Release Nos. 33-9169; 34-63646, 39-2473, IC-29547]

Adoption of Updated EDGAR Filer Manual

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) is
adopting revisions to the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and
Retrieval System (EDGAR) Filer Manual to reflect updates to the EDGAR
system. The revisions are being made primarily to implement the new
EDGARLink Online Application which will allow filers to submit
EDGARLink submission form types online without the use of the offline
EDGARLink Tool, to support the electronic filing of submission form
types ABS 15G, ABS 15G/A, a new Form 8-K Item 6.10, and to support
minor changes in XBRL validations for filings containing Exhibit 101
attachments. The EDGAR system is scheduled to be upgraded to support
this functionality on December 13, 2010.
    The filer manual is also being revised to address changes
previously made in EDGAR to support the electronic filing of new
submission form types SC 14N, SC 14N/A, SC 14N-S, SC 14N-S/A, and the
new Form 8-K Item 5.08.
    The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume I
entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: ``General Information,'' Version
9 (December 2010) and Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II:
``EDGAR Filing,'' Version 16 (December 2010). The updated manual will
be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.

DATES: January 11, 2011. The incorporation by reference of the EDGAR
Filer Manual is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
January 11, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In the Division of Corporation
Finance, for questions concerning submission form types ABS 15G, ABS
15G/A, SC 14N, SC 14N/A, SC 14N-S, SC 14N-S/A, Form 8-K Item 5.08 and
Item 6.10 contact Cecile Peters, Chief, Office of Information
Technology, at<PHONE_NUMBER>; in the Office of Interactive Disclosure
for questions concerning XBRL validation requirements contact Jeffrey
Naumann, Assistant Director of the Office of Interactive Disclosure, at
(202) 551-5352; and in the Office of Information Technology, contact
Rick Heroux, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer
Manual, Volume I and Volume II. The Filer Manual describes the
technical formatting requirements for the preparation and submission of
electronic filings through the EDGAR system.\1\ It also describes the
requirements for filing using EDGARLink \2\, EDGARLink Online, and the
Online Forms/XML Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We originally adopted the Filer Manual on April 1, 1993,
with an effective date of April 26, 1993. Release No. 33-6986 (April
1, 1993) [58 FR 18638]. We implemented the most recent update to the
Filer Manual on September 15, 2010. See Release No. 33-9140
(September 9, 2010) [75 FR 55965].
    \2\ This is the filer assistance software we provide filers
filing on the EDGAR system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Filer Manual contains all the technical specifications for
filers to submit filings using the EDGAR system. Filers must comply
with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order

to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in
electronic format.\3\ Filers may consult the Filer Manual in
conjunction with our rules governing mandated electronic filing when
preparing documents for electronic submission.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 301 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.301).
    \4\ See Release No. 33-9140 (September 9, 2010) [75 FR 55965] in
which we implemented EDGAR Release 10.3. For a additional history of
Filer Manual rules, please see the cites therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 10.4 on December 13,
2010 and will introduce a new EDGARLink Online Application (EDGARLink
Online) to allow filers to submit EDGARLink submission form types
online, without the use of the offline EDGARLink Tool. EDGARLink Online
can be accessed from the EDGAR Filing Web site (https://
www.edgarfiling.sec.gov), by selecting the ``EDGARLink Online
Submissions'' or by clicking the ``Are you an EDGARLink filer or would
you like to create a new Asset-Backed Securities Issuing Entity?'' link
from the EDGAR Portal Web site (http://www.portal.edgarfiling.sec.gov).
The existing offline EDGARLink Tool and the associated Templates 1-6
will continue to be available. A new chapter, ``Preparing and
Transmitting EDGARLink Online Submissions'', has been added to Volume
II of the EDGAR Filer Manual to guide filers through the filing process
using the new tool.
    Submission type ABS 15G \5\ and its amendment will be available on
EDGARLink Online only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Proposing Release No. 33-9148, Disclosure for Asset-
Backed Securities Required by Section 943 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A new 8-K Item 6.10 (Alternative Filings of Asset-Backed Issuers)
will be available on EDGARLink Submission Template 3 and
EDGARLink Online for submission form types 8-K and 8-K/A. Item 6.10
requires a PDF attachment to be included as Exhibit 99.
    In addition, the validation rules processed for filings containing
EX-101.INS XBRL documents will be changed to remove restrictions to
allow domain items to be abstract and to allow footnoteArc elements to
omit the order attribute. The validations were relaxed for EX-101.INS
XBRL documents to allow a Discoverable Taxonomy Set (DTS) that has type
declarations in any standard international or US namespace, to allow
internationally recommended type and role declarations to be used in
its DTS, and for documents whose DTS has arc role declarations to allow
the link:footnoteArc element to have an arcrole that is either standard
or is declared in a standard taxonomy schema. Additional validations
were added for EX-101.INS XBRL documents to require a DTS that has type
declarations in any standard international or US namespace to enforce
restrictions on combinations of numeric data types and unit of measure
declarations according to internationally recommended and US-specific
data types registry.
    The filer manual is also being revised to address a changes made
previously in EDGAR to support new submission form types SC 14N, SC
14N-S and their amendments on both the offline EDGARLink Template
2 and EDGARLink Online and a new item in Form 8-K Item 5.08
(Shareholder Director Nominations) on both the offline EDGARLink
Template 3 and EDGARLink Online for submission form types 8-K,
8-K12B, 8-K12G3, 8-K15D5 and their amendments. However, the use of the
SC 14N, SC 14N-S and Form 8-K Item 5.08 is delayed until further
notice. See Order Rel. No. 33-9149 (Order Granting Stay) and Rel. No.
33-9151 (Notice of stay of effective and compliance dates) for more
information.
    Along with adoption of the Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301
of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into
the Code of Federal Regulations of today's revisions. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    You may obtain paper copies of the updated Filer Manual at the
following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1543, Washington DC 20549, on
official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. We will
post electronic format copies on the Commission's Web site; the address
for the Filer Manual is http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml.
    Since the Filer Manual relates solely to agency procedures or
practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).\6\ It follows that the requirements
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act\7\ do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
    \7\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule
amendments is January 11, 2011. In accordance with the APA,\8\ we find
that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30
days after publication of these rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to
Release 10.4 is scheduled to become available on December 13, 2010. The
Commission believes that establishing an effective date less than 30
days after publication of these rules is necessary to coordinate the
effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the system upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Basis

    We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under Sections 6,
7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,\9\ Sections 3, 12,
13, 14, 15, 23, and 35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,\10\
Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,\11\ and Sections 8, 30,
31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, and 77s(a).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78w, and 78ll.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 77sss.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, and 80a-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232

    Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.

Text of the Amendment

    In accordance with the foregoing, Title 17, Chapter II of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 232--REGULATION S-T--GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
ELECTRONIC FILINGS

0
1. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read in part as
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3,
77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-6(c),
80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, and 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350.

* * * * *

0
2. Section 232.301 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  232.301  EDGAR Filer Manual.

    Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by
the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets out
the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The
requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are
set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: ``General
Information,'' Version 9 (December 2010). The requirements for filing
on EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II:
``EDGAR Filing,'' Version 16 (December

2010). Additional provisions applicable to Form N-SAR filers are set
forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: ``N-SAR Supplement,''
Version 1 (September 2005). All of these provisions have been
incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, which
action was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You must comply with
these requirements in order for documents to be timely received and
accepted. You can obtain paper copies of the EDGAR Filer Manual from
the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1543, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m and 3 p.m.
Electronic copies are available on the Commission's Web site. The
address for the Filer Manual is http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml.
You can also inspect the document 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.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: January 5, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-378 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


2015 Ozone Transport FIP Meeting Title:	Meeting with Texas Transport Working Group (TTWG) Date/Time: September 6, 2022, 11:30 a.m. ET Agenda/Meeting Summary:	 Meeting to discuss the proposed 2015 Ozone Transport FIP.  Participants/Affiliations: Name Affiliation Lisa Clyde CPS Don Stanton CPS Joe Trevino CPS Jeremy Wilks CPS Melanie Roberts Targa David Hillesheim Xcel Energy Kathleen Bertolatus Phillips 66 Craig Eckberg NRG Walter Stone NRG Susana Hildebrand Vistra Renee Collins Luminant David Mitchell Vistra Bharat Contractor Marathon Patti Hershey LCRA Kerri Rowland LCRA Natalie Hossain LCRA Bill Steinhauser LCRA Grady Moore Balch & Bingham LLP Stephen Codoluto ExxonMobil Carol Butero Kinder Morgan Brittany Brumley Kinder Morgan Eric Tiemeyer Energy Transfer Jake Krautsch Energy Transfer Scott Clements Energy Transfer Nicholas Blandino Energy Transfer Matt Kuryla Baker Botts Debra Jezouit Baker Botts Sam Olson Baker Botts Holly DeJong EPA Matthew Mahler EPA Dylan Mataway-Novak EPA Garrett Powers EPA Megan Lundequam EPA Jeanhee Hong EPA Dan Schramm EPA Bob McConnell EPA Alison Simcox EPA George Bowker EPA David Lifland EPA Brian Fisher EPA