[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2472-2478]
[FR Doc No: 2012-819]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 1043

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0928; FRL-9618-9]
RIN 2060-XXXX

Great Lakes Steamship Repower Incentive Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to simplify an existing
provision in our marine diesel engine program that is intended to
encourage owners of Great Lakes steamships to repower those steamships
with cleaner marine diesel engines. The simplified program will
automatically permit the use of residual fuel, through December 31,
2025, in a steamship if it has been repowered with a certified Tier 2
or later marine diesel engine, provided the steamship was operated
exclusively on the Great Lakes and was in service on October 30, 2009.
Steamships are powered by old, inefficient steam boilers. Voluntary
replacement of these boilers with modern fuel-efficient marine diesel
engines will result in reductions of particulate matter and sulfur
oxides, even while the replacement diesel engines are operated on
higher sulfur residual fuel, and will provide human health and welfare
benefits for the people who live in the Great Lakes region. Conversion
to new diesel engines will also result in considerable carbon dioxide
reductions and fuel savings.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 19, 2012 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 17, 2012. If EPA
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2011-0928, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, Mail-
code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0928. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0928. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Unit III of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ``Great Lakes Steamship
Repower Incentive Program'' Docket, 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the ``Great Lakes Steamship
Repower Incentive Program'' Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Marie Revelt, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment
and Standards Division, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan
48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because
we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposed rule to adopt the provisions in this Direct Final Rule if
adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public

that this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all
public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    This action will affect companies that own steamships operating
exclusively on the Great Lakes that were in service on October 30,
2009. The following table gives some examples of entities that may be
affected by this rule; however, since these are only examples, you
should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions
regarding the applicability of this action as noted in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  NAICS codes
                   Category                           \a\          Examples of potentially regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................          483113  Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation.
Industry......................................          483114  Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger
                                                                 Transportation.
Industry......................................          336611  Ship building and repairing.
Industry......................................          811310  Engine repair, remanufacture, and maintenance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to 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 so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

IV. Summary of Rule

A. Overview

    EPA's final rule for Category 3 marine engines \1\ and their fuels
(75 FR 22896, April 30, 2010) exempted steamships from the sulfur
limits that apply to fuel used in ships operating on the Great Lakes
\2\ beginning August 1, 2012 (40 CFR 1043.95(a)). This means steamships
can continue to operate indefinitely on high sulfur residual fuel.
However, because steamship engines have high emissions and low fuel
efficiency, we included a provision to encourage owners of Great Lakes
steamships to voluntarily replace their steam boilers with cleaner,
more fuel-efficient marine diesel engines (40 CFR 1043.95(b)(4)(iv)).
The current voluntary repower incentive is in the form of relief
through EPA's economic hardship program, through which an owner may
apply for a relaxation of the Great Lakes fuel sulfur limits for fuel
used by the repowered diesel ship, for a defined period of time. The
use of lower price, higher sulfur residual fuel can help offset vessel
repower costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Category 3 marine engines are diesel engines with per
cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters.
    \2\ For the purpose of this program, ``Great Lakes'' means all
the streams, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water that are
within the drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River, west of
Anticosti Island. (40 CFR 1043.20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the goal of repowering the fleet of Great Lakes
steamships will be achieved more effectively by adding a new incentive
program to provide an automatic, time-limited fuel waiver for repowered
steamships. Instead of applying for relief through the economic
hardship program, Great Lakes steamship owners who voluntarily repower
their steamships with diesel engines would automatically qualify for a
waiver that will allow the use of residual fuel in the replacement
diesel engines that exceeds the global and ECA sulfur limits that
otherwise apply to the fuel used in marine diesel engines operated on
the U. S. portions of the Great Lakes. This automatic Great Lakes
steamship repower fuel waiver will be valid through December 31, 2025;
after that date, repowered steamships will be required to comply with
the Great Lakes ECA fuel sulfur limits for diesel engines.\3\ To
qualify for this automatic fuel sulfur waiver, the steamship must be
exempt from existing requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 1043.95(a) in that
it must operate exclusively on the Great Lakes and must have been in
service on October 30, 2009. In addition, the replacement engine must
be a Tier 2 or cleaner marine diesel engine as specified in 40 CFR
1042.104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Compliance can be through switching to ECA-compliant fuel or
through the installation and use of an exhaust gas cleaning system
(scrubber) or other technology or procedure that achieves equivalent
sulfur emissions. See Section V.C of the preamble for our Category 3
FRM for a discussion of compliance strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Voluntary replacement of steam engines with cleaner, more efficient
Tier 2 or better marine diesel engines through this modification to our
steamship repower incentive program will provide important air quality
and energy benefits immediately, due to the improved fuel efficiency of
the diesel engines, and even larger benefits in the long term, when the
repowered ships will use fuel that complies with the 1,000 ppm sulfur
limit on the Great Lakes.

B. Background

    The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway are the longest deep draft
navigation system in the world. About 160 million tons of cargo is
moved each year through the 110 ports located on this 2,300 mile
system, which extends from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the western
shores of Lake Superior. According to a recent study, this

transportation system generated nearly 93,000 directly-related jobs and
134,000 indirect jobs in the U.S. and Canada in 2010, providing about
$34.5 billion in business revenue.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Economic Impacts of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway
System. Martin Associates. October 18. 2011. A copy of this report
can be found at http://www.marinedelivers.com/economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Great Lakes fleet consists of 57 vessels that carry about
65 percent of Great Lakes cargo.\5\ This fleet is ``captive,'' meaning
that many of these ships operate solely on the Great Lakes. For some
ships, this is because they are too large to pass through the Welland
Canal to the St. Lawrence Seaway; others service only Great Lakes
ports. Operation in fresh water minimizes hull corrosion and therefore
these captive cargo ships remain in service for a long time. The
average age of the fleet of all U.S. cargo vessels operating on the
Great Lakes today is about 44 years. The Canadian fleet of 96 ships
carries about 25 percent of Great Lakes cargo. This fleet is different
from the U.S. fleet in that the ships are younger, on average 35 years,
tend to be smaller, and are more likely to operate in the brackish
water of the lower end of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, and the Atlantic Ocean. The remaining Great Lakes cargo is
carried by foreign ocean-ships operating on the system temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Data in this section derived from Greenwoods Guide to Great
Lakes Shipping 2010 (Harbor House Publishing, 2010), Lake Carriers'
Association, the Canadian Shipowners Association, and the St.
Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. See http://www.lcaships.com/TONPAGE.HTM, http://www.shipowners.ca/index.php?page=annual-report-and-statistics, and http://www.seaway.ca/en/seaway/facts/traffic/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Steamships are the oldest segment of the Great Lakes fleet. There
are thirteen U.S. steamships operating on the Great Lakes; twelve of
these have boilers burning residual fuel oil and the thirteenth
operates on coal. The average age of these steamships is about 58
years, the youngest being built in 1960 and the oldest in 1942. The
average age of the smaller fleet of 6 Canadian steamships is 57 years,
with the youngest built in 1967. Because they operate primarily in
fresh water, the U.S. steamships do not experience the corrosion of
saltwater and are expected to remain in operation for several more
decades.
    Steamships remaining in operation today, on both the Great Lakes
and the ocean, are part of a legacy fleet that uses technology
originally developed before the diesel engine became the dominant ship
propulsion method worldwide. In steam technology engines, residual fuel
or coal is burned to heat water in a boiler; the resulting steam is
converted into energy to rotate the ship's main propellers. Steam
engines are less efficient than internal combustion engines and can use
30 to 50 percent more fuel than a diesel engine. This translates to
high sulfur oxide (SOX) and particulate matter (PM)
emissions. As discussed in our Category 3 marine rule, these emissions
have important impacts on human health and the environment.
    Steamships that operate in salt water are retired from service as a
result of hull corrosion, and much of today's fleet of ocean steamships
is expected to be retired by 2020. Owners choose diesel engines for the
replacement vessels because of their better fuel efficiency and
performance characteristics; diesel engines have lower SOx and PM
emissions as well. Increasing fuel prices have led some Great Lakes
steamship owners to carry out repower projects to replace their
inefficient steam engines with cleaner fuel-efficient diesel engines.
This type of vessel modification can be expensive, with costs of $15 to
$25 million or more (20 to 25 percent of the cost of a new vessel),
because the steam engine is an integral part of the vessel and the hull
must be cut away to remove it. Repowering also requires extensive
engine room and propeller modifications. However, the fuel savings
associated with a 30 percent improvement in fuel efficiency combined
with the long service life of Great Lakes ships helps the owner recover
these costs. The fuel savings can make repowering attractive to owners
on a long-term basis, and several Great Lakes steamships were repowered
in the last decade, including the Paul R. Tregurtha, the Charles M.
Beeghly (now the James L. Oberstar), the Michipicoten, and the Saginaw.
This dynamic was changed, however, with the designation of the North
American Emission Control Area (ECA) and the application of the
stringent ECA fuel sulfur limits to the Great Lakes through our
Category 3 marine rule. As explained below, ECA-compliant fuel is
expected to be higher price distillate fuel, and steamship owners may
not be able to recover the cost of a repower even with the better fuel
efficiency of diesel engines compared to steam engines. As a result,
the incentives for repowering any one of the thirteen remaining
steamships became less compelling.

C. EPA's Coordinated Strategy for Ships and Steamship Repowers

    In our 2010 Category 3 marine rulemaking, EPA adopted a Coordinated
Strategy for ships that will reduce emissions from all foreign and
domestic vessels that affect U.S. air quality. The Coordinated Strategy
applies to all ships that operate in the United States, including those
that operate on the U.S. portions of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Seaway. The Coordinated Strategy consists of three parts:
    (i) Addition of new tiers of Clean Air Act (CAA) emission standards
that apply to Category 3 marine engines installed on U.S. vessels, and
certain compliance requirements that are consistent with our regulatory
program for Category 1 and Category 2 marine engines;
    (ii) Designation of U.S. coastal waters as an Emission Control Area
(ECA) through amendment to Annex VI of the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Annex VI); ships
operating in a designated ECA are required to meet the most stringent
engine and marine fuel sulfur requirements contained in MARPOL Annex
VI; and
    (iii) Adoption of the engine emission and fuel sulfur limits
contained in the amendments to MARPOL Annex VI that are applicable to
all vessels regardless of flag and implementation of those requirements
in the U.S. through the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) and
regulations issued under APPS.
    The North American ECA was designated through amendment to MARPOL
Annex VI that was adopted by the Parties to Annex VI in March 2010.\6\
A fuel sulfur limit of 10,000 ppm will begin to apply in this
designated ECA starting in August 2012; this is reduced to 1,000 ppm
beginning January 1, 2015.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ MEPC.1/Circ.723, 13 May 2010. Information on North American
Emission Control Area (ECA) Under MARPOL Annex VI. A copy of this
document can be found at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/mepc1-circ-re-na-eca.pdf.
    \7\ See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/dieselfuels/documents/420b11002.pdf for a summary of the EPA and MARPOL Annex VI fuel
sulfur limits and their effective dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our 2010 Category 3 marine rulemaking finalized regulations
implementing the MARPOL Annex VI and North American ECA requirements
for U.S. vessels under the CAA and for U.S. and foreign vessels under
APPS. That rule also adopted regulatory text to clarify that vessels
operating in U.S. internal waters, shoreward of an ECA, that can be
accessed by ocean-going vessels must meet the MARPOL Annex VI ECA
requirements. This includes ports and internal waters such as the Great
Lakes. In the regulatory text we refer to the internal waters in which
we are applying the ECA requirements as

the ``ECA associated area.'' The regulatory text applies the ECA
requirements for these internal waters beginning at the same time as
the ECA takes effect under MARPOL Annex VI.
    We received many comments from Great Lakes stakeholders during our
Category 3 rulemaking process about the application of the ECA
standards to the Great Lakes. Steamship owners raised technical and
safety issues associated with operating Great Lakes steamships on
distillate fuel, since these steamships were designed specifically to
operate on residual fuel oils. In response to these comments, we
considered a number of options to address the safety concerns for these
vessels. However, Congress placed a prohibition on EPA's use of funds
to issue a final rule that included fuel sulfur standards applicable to
existing steamships that operate exclusively in the Great Lakes.
Therefore, under our APPS section 1903 authority to ``prescribe any
necessary or desired regulations to carry out the provisions'' of
MARPOL Annex VI, our final regulations exclude Great Lakes steamships
from the final fuel sulfur requirements (40 CFR 1043.95(a)). This means
that steamships can continue to use high sulfur residual fuel
indefinitely.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Steamships operated in the coastal areas of the North
American ECA are exempt from the fuel sulfur requirements through
December 31, 2019, by amendment to MARPOL Annex VI. See MEPC 62/24,
Annex 14, page 4 (July 26, 2011). These ships are expected to be
retired from service as of that date as a result of hull corrosion
from operating in salt water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, however, we recognized that the steamship fuel
sulfur exemption, combined with the application of ECA fuel sulfur
requirements to diesel ships operating on the Great Lakes, would reduce
the incentives for steamship owners to repower their ships. This is
because once the steamship is repowered with diesel engines it would no
longer be exempt from the fuel sulfur requirements. In addition, the
higher price of fuel that is compliant with ECA and global fuel
requirements would make it harder to recover the costs of the repower
project through fuel savings from the more fuel efficient diesel
engines.
    As a result, we added a provision to our economic hardship waiver
program that would allow EPA to consider ``the ability of an individual
vessel to recover capital investments incurred to repower or otherwise
modify a vessel to reduce air emissions'' (40 CFR 1043.95(b)(4)(iv)).
Using this provision, EPA intended that steamship owners who
voluntarily repower their steamships with diesel engines could apply
for an economic hardship waiver that would allow the ship to use lower-
price residual fuel in the repowered diesel engine for a specified
period of time, which can help offset the capital costs of a repower
project.
    Since EPA finalized the Category 3 marine rule, we recognized that
the goal of encouraging voluntary Great Lakes steamship repowers can be
achieved more effectively by providing an automatic fuel sulfur waiver
for a defined period of time for Great Lakes steamships that are
repowered with a Tier 2 or better diesel engine.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In certain cases EPA may approve the use of an engine that
meets a less stringent tier of standards, if the owner can
demonstrate that the engine was purchased for a steamship repower
prior to October 30, 2009 and it meets the criteria set out in the
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A waiver is appropriate and reasonable due to the significant
emissions and energy benefits from repowering a steamship with a diesel
engine, both immediately and in the long run. A diesel engine is 30 to
50 percent more fuel-efficient than a steam power plant, due to better
combustion technology. In a typical steamship, replacing the steam
power plant with a diesel engine will immediately reduce SOX
emissions by about 34 percent; PM emissions would be about the same for
both engines when operating on high sulfur residual fuel. In the long
term, beginning January 1, 2026 when the replacement diesel engines
will be required to use fuel that complies with the 1,000 ppm sulfur
limit on the Great Lakes, the estimated emission reductions will be
even more significant: About 97 percent reduction in SOX and
about 84 percent reduction in PM emissions compared to the steam
engine. These SOX and PM emission reductions are
extraordinary, especially given that Great Lakes steamships, repowered
or not, will have many years of service life remaining even after the
expiration of the fuel sulfur waiver. Steam engines have inherently low
NOX emissions due to their inefficient combustion process,
and replacing a steam engine with a diesel engine may result in several
times more NOX emissions. However, the diesel marine engines
that would replace the steam engine have NOX emissions
comparable to diesel engines used in other marine and land-based
applications, and would be required to meet at least EPA's Tier 2
standards. In addition, the health and human welfare benefits of
reducing PM and SOX emissions overwhelm the impacts of the
NOX emission increase of the repowered engine compared to
the original steam engine. Therefore, the impacts of repowering Great
Lakes steamships are expected to be significantly beneficial.
    An automatic waiver is appropriate because it will give owners
greater flexibility with regard to how and when they repower. A ship
repower is a lengthy process that requires significant redesign of the
ship engine room and propulsion system. Also, the scheduling of dry
dock time must be timed with the order and delivery of the replacement
engine and other important ship components. An automatic waiver will
avoid an additional review and approval phase for a repower project. It
also may facilitate financing as the waiver is available for any
qualifying steamship repower.
    Consistent with our existing steamship fuel sulfur waiver (40 CFR
1043.95(a)), this steamship incentive program fuel waiver is available
only to steamships that were operating exclusively on the Great Lakes
and that were in service on October 30, 2009 \10\ and therefore are
otherwise exempt from the requirements of Part 1043. In addition, the
steam engine must be replaced with an engine that meets the EPA
standards in effect at the time the ship will enter dry dock (i.e., it
is covered by an EPA-issued certificate of conformity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``In service'' means operating as a steamship, but is not
limited to actually performing that service on that day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify for this steamship repower waiver, the vessel must
remain intact in that the cargo section of the vessel must remain
connected to the section that contains the pilothouse. This means that
if a steamship is converted to a barge and is subsequently paired,
either permanently or sporadically, with a tug, the tug will not
qualify for this fuel sulfur waiver. Removal of the engine section of
the vessel and replacing it with a tug is more consistent with
replacing the existing vessel rather than repowering it. In addition,
the replacement tug would likely be powered by a Category 2 engine that
does not use residual fuel, due to the space restrictions on tugs and
the requirements for fuel handling equipment to use residual fuel, and
therefore a residual fuel waiver would be irrelevant.
    The waiver is valid through December 31, 2025. Beginning January 1,
2026, the owner will be required to use ECA-compliant fuel in the
repowered diesel engine. This limited waiver period is intended to
encourage steamship owners to repower early to take full advantage of
the amount of time they can use lower price residual fuel. This,

in turn, will maximize the human health and environmental benefits of
the steamship repower waiver.
    A steamship owner taking advantage of the automatic steamship
repower incentive program is required to notify EPA's designated
certification officer of the intention to use this provision. The
notification must include a description of the project, the expected
timeline, and other relevant information. The owner is also required to
notify EPA's designated certification officer at completion of the
project. At that time, EPA will provide the owner with a statement that
the repowered ship is covered by the steamship repower incentive
program fuel sulfur waiver. This document should be kept with the
ship's International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) and Engine
International Air Pollution Prevention (EIAPP) certificates, for
compliance purposes.
    The owner of the repowered steamship is required to comply with all
other aspects of EPA's marine diesel engine program, including the
MARPOL Annex VI requirements with respect to bunker delivery notes.
    EPA has determined that no changes are needed to our 40 CFR part 80
fuels program to effectuate the fuel sulfur waiver for repowered
steamships. This is because the prohibitions contained in 40 CFR 80.610
specify that ``no person shall * * * (6) beginning January 1, 2015,
introduce (or permit the introduction of) any fuel with a sulfur
content greater than 1,000 ppm for use in a Category 3 marine vessel
within an ECA, except as allowed by 40 CFR part 1043,'' and the
steamship repower incentive program regulations will be part of 40 CFR
1043.95. In addition, ECA fuel is defined in 40 CFR 80.2(ttt)(2)(i) as
excluding ``fuel that is allowed by 40 CFR part 1043 to exceed the fuel
sulfur limits for operation in an ECA (such as fuel used by excluded
vessels * * *).''

D. Regulatory Action

    Under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 1903 to ``prescribe any necessary
or desired regulations to carry out the provisions'' of MARPOL Annex
VI, EPA is taking direct final action to add an automatic fuel sulfur
waiver to our marine diesel program for repowered steamships operating
on the Great Lakes. This automatic fuel waiver is available only to
owners of steamships that operate exclusively on the Great Lakes and
that were in service on October 30, 2009, where ``in service'' means
operating as a steamship, but is not limited to actually performing
that service on that day. This waiver will allow the converted
steamship to use non-compliant residual fuel in the repowered diesel
engine through December 31, 2025.
    This action will not have an adverse cost impact on steamship
owners. Steamship owners are not required to replace the steam engines
on their vessels with diesel engines. This direct final rule merely
adds a provision to allow steamship owners who voluntarily repower with
diesel engines to automatically continue to use the fuel they would
otherwise be permitted to use had the ship not been repowered, for a
period of time. This provision will provide important air quality and
energy benefits immediately, due to the improved fuel efficiency of the
diesel engines, and even larger benefits beginning in 2026, when the
repowered ship will use fuel that complies with the 1,000 ppm sulfur
limit on the Great Lakes.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This direct final rule merely adds an
automatic waiver provision to encourage Great Lakes steamship owners to
repower their vessels with cleaner marine diesel engines. There are no
costs associated with this rule because steamship owners are not
required to repower their ships.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule will be
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    The program contained in this rule is a voluntary incentive program
to encourage owners of Great Lakes steamship to repower their ships
with diesel engines. A steamship owner taking advantage of the
automatic fuel waiver is required to notify EPA's designated
certification officer of the intention to use this provision. The
notification must include a description of the project, the expected
timeline, and other relevant information. The owner is also required to
notify EPA's designated certification officer at completion of the
project. The purpose of the reporting is to ensure that a repower has
taken place, with a qualified EPA-certified engine. Because this
program is voluntary, a steamship owner would provide this information
only if the provision is exercised. When the project is completed, EPA
will provide the owner with a statement that the repowered ship is
covered by the steamship repower incentive program fuel sulfur waiver,
which is to be kept onboard for compliance purposes.
    There are potentially six companies affected, which own the twelve
remaining diesel steamships that operate on the Great Lakes. It is not
known how many of these companies will actually take advantage of the
waiver, or when they would repower. However, it is likely that the
repowers would occur prior to 2015, to maximize the fuel savings
afforded by the fuel sulfur waiver before it expires on December 31,
2025.
    The total estimated burden associated with the automatic steamship
repower incentive program is 14.0 hours annually. This is based on two
steamship owners repowering two steamships in each of three years and
an estimated 3.5 annual labor hours for each manufacturer to prepare
and submit the required information for each ship. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure 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 today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business primarily
engaged in shipbuilding and repairing as defined by NAICS code

336611 with 1,000 or fewer employees (based on Small Business
Administration size standards); (2) a small business that is primarily
engaged in freight or passenger transportation on the Great Lakes as
defined by NAICS codes 483113 and 483114 with 500 or fewer employees
(based on Small Business Administration size standards); (3) a small
business primarily engaged in commercial and industrial machinery and
equipment repair and maintenance with annual receipts less than $7
million (based on Small Business Administration size standards); (4) 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; and (5) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This direct final rule merely adds an automatic waiver provision to
encourage Great Lakes steamship owners to repower their vessels with
cleaner marine diesel engines. There are no costs and therefore no
regulatory burden associated with this rule because steamship owners
are not required to repower their ships and can continue using their
vessels indefinitely. This Great Lakes steamship repower incentive
program will assist those steamship owners who choose to voluntarily
repower their ships, however, by allowing them to use lower-price
residual fuel in the repowered diesel ship for a specified period of
time, which may help them cover the costs of the repower project. We
have therefore concluded that today's final rule will not increase
regulatory burden for affected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This 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. This direct final
rule merely adds an automatic waiver provision to encourage Great Lakes
steamship owners to repower their vessels with cleaner marine diesel
engines. None of the thirteen U.S. steamships operating on the Great
Lakes as of October 30, 2009, are owned or operated by a State, local,
or tribal government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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 Executive Order 13132. This direct final rule merely adds
an automatic waiver provision to encourage Great Lakes steamship owners
to repower their vessels with cleaner marine diesel engines. None of
the thirteen U.S. steamships operating on the Great Lakes as of October
30, 2009, are owned or operated by a State. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This direct
final rule merely adds an automatic waiver provision to encourage Great
Lakes steamship owners to repower their vessels with cleaner marine
diesel engines. None of the thirteen U.S. steamships operating on the
Great Lakes as of October 30, 2009, are owned or operated by an Indian
tribal government. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined
in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This direct final rule merely adds
an automatic waiver provision to encourage Great Lakes steamship owners
to repower their vessels with cleaner marine diesel engines. To the
extent Great Lakes steamship owners take advantage of this incentive
program, their action will provide immediate air quality and energy
benefits, due to the improved fuel efficiency of the diesel engines,
and even larger benefits in the long term, when the repowered ship will
use fuel that complies with the 1,000 ppm sulfur limit on the Great
Lakes. These emission reductions will improve air quality for all
people who live in the Great Lakes region, including children and other
sensitive populations.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 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 OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 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 final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This direct final rule merely adds an automatic
waiver provision to encourage Great Lakes steamship owners to repower
their vessels with cleaner marine diesel engines. To the extent Great
Lakes steamship owners take advantage of this incentive program, their
action will provide immediate air quality and energy benefits, due to
the improved fuel efficiency of the diesel engines, and even larger
benefits in the long term, when the repowered ship will use fuel that
complies with the 1,000 ppm sulfur limit on the Great Lakes. These
emission reductions will improve air quality for all people who live in
the Great Lakes region, including minority and low-income populations.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on March 19, 2012.

L. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action comes from section 1903 of
the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). The
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships implements Annex VI to the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) and makes those requirements enforceable domestically. Section
1903 gives the Administrator the authority to prescribe any necessary
or desired regulations to carry out the provisions of Regulations 12
through 19 of MARPOL Annex VI.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 1043

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Economic
hardship waiver, Great Lakes, North American Emission Control Area,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Steamships.

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 1043--CONTROL OF NOX, SOX, AND PM EMISSIONS FROM MARINE
ENGINES AND VESSELS SUBJECT TO THE MARPOL PROTOCOL

0
1. The authority citation for part 1043 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1901-1915.

0
2. Section 1043.95 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c)
as paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively, and adding a new paragraph (b)
to read as follows:

Sec.  1043.95  Interim provisions.

* * * * *
    (b) The fuel-use requirements of this part do not apply through
December 31, 2025, for a ship qualifying under paragraph (a) of this
section if it was in service as a steamship on October 30, 2009 and it
is repowered with one or more marine diesel engines, subject to the
following conditions and requirements:
    (1) Engines must meet exhaust emission standards using one of the
following approaches:
    (i) All the installed replacement engines must be certified to
applicable standards under 40 CFR part 1042 based on the date the
vessel enters dry dock for service.
    (ii) We may approve the use of an engine meeting less stringent
standards if the owner can demonstrate that it took possession of the
engine before October 30, 2009, and that engine is a new engine that
has not been installed in a non-marine application. Such an engine must
at a minimum be certified to the Annex VI NOX emission
standard in Sec.  1043.60 that applies based on its build date.
    (2) The vessel owner must notify us regarding the intent to use
this provision. The notification must include a description of the
vessel and a summary of the project, including the expected timeline,
and other relevant information.
    (3) The vessel owner must notify the Designated Certification
Officer when the project is complete. We will send the owner a
statement that the repowered ship is exempt from fuel sulfur
requirements through December 31, 2025; this statement must be kept
onboard the vessel for compliance purposes.
    (4) All other requirements under this part 1043 continue to apply,
including requirements related to bunker delivery notes.
    (5) This paragraph (b) applies only for vessels whose hull remains
intact through the repowering process. For example, if a steamship is
converted to a barge for use with tugboats, those vessels must use fuel
meeting the requirements of this part 1043.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-819 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 82350]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25936]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-097]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed November 13, 2023 10 a.m. EST Through November 17, 2023 10 a.m.
EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20230162, Final, USAF, FL, KC-46A Main Operating Base No. 6
Beddown, Review Period Ends: 12/26/2023, Contact: Austin Naranjo 813-
263-9331.
EIS No. 20230163, Draft Supplement, USACE, HI, Draft General
Reevaluation Report with Integrated Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement: Ala Wai Canal Flood Risk Management Study, Oahu, Hawaii,
Comment Period Ends: 01/08/2024, Contact: Eric Merriam<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 17, 2023.
Julie Smith,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2023-25936 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


research.
The Systematic Assessment of Risks and Benefits. It is commonly said that benefits and
risks must be "balanced" and shown to be "in a favorable ratio." The metaphorical character of
these terms draws attention to the difficulty of making precise judgments. Only on rare
occasions will quantitative techniques be available for the scrutiny of research protocols.
However, the idea of systematic, nonarbitrary analysis of risks and benefits should be
emulated insofar as possible. This ideal requires those making decisions about the justifiability
of research to be thorough in the accumulation and assessment of information about all
aspects of the research, and to consider alternatives systematically. This procedure renders
the assessment of research more rigorous and precise, while making communication between
review board members and investigators less subject to misinterpretation, misinformation and
conflicting judgments. Thus, there should first be a determination of the validity of the
presuppositions of the research; then the nature, probability and magnitude of risk should be
distinguished with as much clarity as possible. The method of ascertaining risks should be
explicit, especially where there is no alternative to the use of such vague categories as small
or slight risk. It should also be determined whether an investigator's estimates of the
probability of harm or benefits are reasonable, as judged by known facts or other available
studies.
Finally, assessment of the justifiability of research should reflect at least the following
considerations: (i) Brutal or inhumane treatment of human subjects is never morally justified.
(ii) Risks should be reduced to those necessary to achieve the research objective. It should be
determined whether it is in fact necessary to use human subjects at all. Risk can perhaps
never be entirely eliminated, but it can often be reduced by careful attention to alternative
procedures. (iii) When research involves significant risk of serious impairment, review
committees should be extraordinarily insistent on the justification of the risk (looking usually to
the likelihood of benefit to the subject -- or, in some rare cases, to the manifest voluntariness
of the participation). (iv) When vulnerable populations are involved in research, the
appropriateness of involving them should itself be demonstrated. A number of variables go
into such judgments, including the nature and degree of risk, the condition of the particular
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm (12 of 14) [12/23/2009 4:27:45 PM]

/humansubjects/guidance/ documents
population involved, and the nature and level of the anticipated benefits. (v) Relevant risks
and benefits must be thoroughly arrayed in documents and procedures used in the informed
consent process.
3. Selection of Subjects. -- Just as the principle of respect for persons finds expression in
the requirements for consent, and the principle of beneficence in risk/benefit assessment, the
principle of justice gives rise to moral requirements that there be fair procedures and
outcomes in the selection of research subjects.
Justice is relevant to the selection of subjects of research at two levels: the social and the
individual. Individual justice in the selection of subjects would require that researchers exhibit
fairness: thus, they should not offer potentially beneficial research only to some patients who
are in their favor or select only "undesirable" persons for risky research. Social justice requires
that distinction be drawn between classes of subjects that ought, and ought not, to participate
in any particular kind of research, based on the ability of members of that class to bear
burdens and on the appropriateness of placing further burdens on already burdened persons.
Thus, it can be considered a matter of social justice that there is an order of preference in the
selection of classes of subjects (e.g., adults before children) and that some classes of potential
subjects (e.g., the institutionalized mentally infirm or prisoners) may be involved as research
subjects, if at all, only on certain conditions.
Injustice may appear in the selection of subjects, even if individual subjects are selected fairly
by investigators and treated fairly in the course of research. Thus injustice arises from social,
racial, sexual and cultural biases institutionalized in society. Thus, even if individual
researchers are treating their research subjects fairly, and even if IRBs are taking care to
assure that subjects are selected fairly within a particular institution, unjust social patterns
may nevertheless appear in the overall distribution of the burdens and benefits of research.
Although individual institutions or investigators may not be able to resolve a problem that is
pervasive in their social setting, they can consider distributive justice in selecting research
subjects.
Some populations, especially institutionalized ones, are already burdened in many ways by
their infirmities and environments. When research is proposed that involves risks and does not
include a therapeutic component, other less burdened classes of persons should be called
upon first to accept these risks of research, except where the research is directly related to the
specific conditions of the class involved. Also, even though public funds for research may often
flow in the same directions as public funds for health care, it seems unfair that populations
dependent on public health care constitute a pool of preferred research subjects if more
advantaged populations are likely to be the recipients of the benefits.
One special instance of injustice results from the involvement of vulnerable subjects. Certain
groups, such as racial minorities, the economically disadvantaged, the very sick, and the
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm (13 of 14) [12/23/2009 4:27:45 PM]

/humansubjects/guidance/ documents
institutionalized may continually be sought as research subjects, owing to their ready
availability in settings where research is conducted. Given their dependent status and their
frequently compromised capacity for free consent, they should be protected against the
danger of being involved in research solely for administrative convenience, or because they
are easy to manipulate as a result of their illness or socioeconomic condition.
(1) Since 1945, various codes for the proper and responsible conduct of human
experimentation in medical research have been adopted by different organizations. The best
known of these codes are the Nuremberg Code of 1947, the Helsinki Declaration of 1964
(revised in 1975), and the 1971 Guidelines (codified into Federal Regulations in 1974) issued
by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Codes for the conduct of social and
behavioral research have also been adopted, the best known being that of the American
Psychological Association, published in 1973.
(2) Although practice usually involves interventions designed solely to enhance the well-being
of a particular individual, interventions are sometimes applied to one individual for the
enhancement of the well-being of another (e.g., blood donation, skin grafts, organ
transplants) or an intervention may have the dual purpose of enhancing the well-being of a
particular individual, and, at the same time, providing some benefit to others (e.g.,
vaccination, which protects both the person who is vaccinated and society generally). The fact
that some forms of practice have elements other than immediate benefit to the individual
receiving an intervention, however, should not confuse the general distinction between
research and practice. Even when a procedure applied in practice may benefit some other
person, it remains an intervention designed to enhance the well-being of a particular individual
or groups of individuals; thus, it is practice and need not be reviewed as research.
(3) Because the problems related to social experimentation may differ substantially from those
of biomedical and behavioral research, the Commission specifically declines to make any policy
determination regarding such research at this time. Rather, the Commission believes that the
problem ought to be addressed by one of its successor bodies.
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm (14 of 14) [12/23/2009 4:27:45 PM]


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14328-14329]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-23099;
FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291;
FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0365]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
17 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective March 15, 2014. Comments must be
received on or before April 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2002-
12844; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-
2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-
2011-0365], using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 17 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 17 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

Gene Bartlett, Jr. (VT)
Danial C. Berry (AR)
Ronald D. Boeve (MI)
Marland L. Brassfield (TX)
Daniel M. Cannon (OR)
Jamie French (NC)
Wayne H. Holt (UT)
Billy R. Jeffries (WV)
Guy A. Lanham (FL)
Oscar N. Lefferts (AL)
Craig R. Martin (TX)
John D. McCormick (WY)
Carlos A. MendezCastellon (VA)
Willie L. Parks (CA)
Bradley S. Sanders (NM)
Gary N. Wilson (UT)
William B. Wilson (KY)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with

the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 17 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 70 FR
7545; 71 FR 4194; 71 FR 13450; 72 FR 39879; 72 FR 40362; 72 FR 52419;
72 FR 62897; 73 FR 9158; 74 FR 19267; 74 FR 28094; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR
57551; 74 FR 60021; 74 FR 64124; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 1451; 75 FR 1835;
75 FR 9482; 75 FR 9484; 76 FR 44652; 76 FR 66123; 76 FR 78729; 77 FR
3552; 77 FR 10604; 77 FR 10606; 77 FR 13691). Each of these 17
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by April 14, 2014.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 17 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-
2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-
2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0365 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, to submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2007-27897;
FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321;
FMCSA-2011-0365 and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to the
proposed rulemaking.

    Issued on: February 26, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-05508 Filed 3-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 52035-52037]
[DOCID:fr24au10-97]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0021]

Grantee Quarterly Progress Report; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
the Office of Management and

Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements
specified for its Grantee Quarterly Progress Report.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
October 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2010-
0021, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA-2010-
0021). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. To obtain a copy of the ICR, you may
contact Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly A. Newell, OSHA Directorate
of Training and Education, 2020 S. Arlington Heights Road, Arlington
Heights, IL 60005-4102; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Section 21 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 670) authorizes OSHA to
conduct directly, or through grants and contracts, education and
training courses. These courses must ensure an adequate number of
qualified personnel to fulfill the purposes of the OSH Act, provide
them with short-term training, inform them of the importance and proper
use of safety and health equipment, and train employers and employees
to recognize, avoid, and prevent unsafe and unhealthful working
conditions.
    Under Section 21, OSHA awards training grants to nonprofit
organizations to provide part of the required training. The Agency
requires organizations that receive these grants to submit quarterly
progress reports that provide information on their grant-funded
training activities; these reports allow OSHA to monitor the grantee's
performance and to determine if an organization is using grant funds as
specified in its grant application. Accordingly, the Agency compares
the information provided in the quarterly progress report to the
quarterly milestones proposed by the organization in the work plan and
budget that accompanied the grant application. This information
includes: identifier data (organization name and grant number); the
date and location where the training occurred; the length of training
(hours); the number of employees and employers attending training
sessions provided by the organization during the quarter; a description
of the training provided; a narrative account of grant activities
conducted during the quarter; and an evaluation of progress regarding
planned versus actual work accomplished. This comparison permits OSHA
to determine if the organization is meeting the proposed program goals
and objectives, and spending funds in the manner described in the
proposed budget.
    Requiring these reports on a quarterly basis enables OSHA to
identify work plan, training, and expenditure discrepancies in a timely
fashion so that it can implement appropriate action. In addition, this
information permits the Agency to assess an organization's ability to
meet projected milestones and expenditures.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements specified for the Grantee Quarterly Progress
Report. The Agency is requesting an increase in burden hours from 2,640
hours to 4,944 hours. The increase is a result of an increase in the
average annual number of grants during the past three-year period from
55 to 103. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response
to this notice, and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Grantee Quarterly Progress Report.
    OMB Number: 1218-0100.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Not-for-profit
institutions.
    Number of Respondents: 103.
    Frequency of Responses: Quarterly.
    Average Time per Response: 12 hours per quarter.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4,944.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0021). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007
(72 FR 31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on August 17, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-21053 Filed 8-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38904-38905]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17268]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0449; FRL-9966-51-OLEM]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions
(Revision)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit a
revised information collection request (ICR), ``Identification, Listing
and Rulemaking Petitions (Revision)'' (EPA ICR No. 1189.26, OMB Control
No. 2050-0053) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before
doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collection as described below. This is a request
for approval of a new collection and revision to a single activity
contained in an existing approved collection. An 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2017-0449, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or
by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Kirsten Hillyer, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
Mail Code 5304-P, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 347-
0369; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the
public law that creates the framework for the proper management of
hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste. The RCRA regulations
established by EPA can be found in 40 CFR parts 239 through 282. This
ICR (ICR No. 1189.26) is a consolidation of a number of previously
approved RCRA ICRs, including the ICR

for the rulemaking titled ``Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from
Electric Utilities'' (CCR rule), a rulemaking which was published in
the Federal Register on April 17, 2015. The CCR rule establishes a
comprehensive set of requirements for the disposal of CCR in landfills
and surface impoundments, including minimum federal criteria for
groundwater monitoring and corrective action, structural stability,
design and operation standards, closure and post-closure care
standards, and recordkeeping, reporting and internet posting
requirements.
    In December 2016, the President signed the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act. Section 2301 of the WIIN Act
amended RCRA Subtitle D and established new statutory provisions for
the control of CCR when placed in CCR landfills and surface
impoundments. In particular, the WIIN Act provides that states may, but
are not required to, develop and submit a permit program (or other
system of prior approval) for control of CCR to EPA for approval. Such
a program does not have to be identical to the requirements in the CCR
rule (40 CFR part 257, subpart D), but must be at least as protective
as the federal CCR requirements. In order for a state to receive
approval of its CCR permit program, the state must submit to EPA
specific materials that would constitute a ``complete'' CCR permit
program application. The information collection includes those
activities to develop the necessary CCR permit (or other system of
prior approval) program materials for submittal to EPA for approval.
EPA is developing a guidance document to provide states with the
information needed to apply for CCR program approval.
    To enable EPA to implement the new authorities provided by the WIIN
Act (that is, to review and make determinations on State programs), EPA
is revising ICR No. 1189.26 to account for the new burden and cost
estimates associated with the voluntary actions that states may take to
obtain CCR permit program approval. In this revision to the ICR, EPA is
also making changes to the current burden and cost estimates associated
with a separate voluntary state activity. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to revise the respondent universe associated with the
activity of submitting a solid waste management plan to EPA for
approval. The solid waste management plan is the mechanism where a
state is able to set out, as part of their overall solid waste program,
how the state intends to regulate CCR landfills and surface
impoundments. While the burden and cost associated with this activity
is included in the currently approved ICR, EPA is revising the burden
and cost estimates to better reflect the actual state response observed
since the CCR rule was published in 2015.
    The EPA is not making any other substantive revisions to the
currently approved ICR. The EPA is only soliciting comments on burden
and cost estimates associated with activities relating to state CCR
permit programs and state solid waste management plans and will not
consider comments on other aspects of the currently approved ICR.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: This ICR affects owners and
operators of CCR landfills and surface impoundments that dispose or
otherwise engage in solid waste management of CCR generated from the
combustion of coal at electric utilities and independent power
producers. This ICR also affects states that voluntarily elect to seek
approval from EPA of their state CCR permit program or solid waste
management plan.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: For the CCR rule portion of the
ICR, the recordkeeping, notification, and internet posting requirements
are mandatory under 40 CFR part 257, subpart D. The actions that states
may take to obtain approval from EPA of either their CCR permit program
or solid waste management plan is voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 494 (total subject to the CCR rule
portion of the ICR).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, annually, and every
five years.
    Total estimated burden: 354,602 hours (per year) for the CCR rule
portion of the ICR. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $63,858,128 (per year) for the CCR rule
portion of the ICR, which includes $41,112,513 annualized capital cost
or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is decrease of 4,355 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. The decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is due
to adjustments in the respondent universe associated with state solid
waste management plan activities. The most recently approved ICR
overestimated the number of states that would voluntarily update their
overall solid waste program by submitting to EPA a solid waste
management plan for CCR for approval. The revision to the burden
estimates for the solid waste management plan activity exceeded the
burden estimates associated with the new state CCR permit program
approval activity, which resulted in an overall decrease in burden
hours.

    Dated: August 8, 2017.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2017-17268 Filed 8-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P