[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9680-9681]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02455]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 232

[Release Nos. 33-10295; 34-79878; 39-2514; IC-32452]

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 and related rules to reflect
updates to the EDGAR system. The updates are being made primarily to
support an upgrade to the passphrase authentication process; and update
the recommended Internet browser language for all EDGAR Web sites. The
EDGAR system is scheduled to be upgraded to support the functionalities
on January 30, 2017.

DATES: Effective February 8, 2017. The incorporation by reference of
the EDGAR Filer Manual is approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of February 8, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In the Division of Corporation
Finance, for questions concerning the passphrase update process,
contact Heather Mackintosh<PHONE_NUMBER>; in the Division of Trading
and Markets, for questions concerning Form X-17A-5, contact Kathy
Bateman at<PHONE_NUMBER>; and in the Office of Information Technology,
for questions concerning recommended Internet browsers, contact Tammy
Borkowski at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer
Manual, Volume I, Volume II and Volume III. 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 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 December 12, 2016. See Release No. 33-10265 (January
23, 2017) [82 FR 7645].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume I
entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: ``General Information,'' Version
26 (January 2017), Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II:
``EDGAR Filing,'' Version 40 (January 2017), and Volume III: ``N-SAR
Supplement'', Version 6 (January 2017). The updated manual will be
incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.
    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.\2\ Filers may consult the Filer Manual in conjunction with our
rules governing mandated electronic filing when preparing documents for
electronic submission.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Rule 301 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.301).
    \3\ See Release No. 33-10265 in which we implemented EDGAR
Release 16.4. For additional history of Filer Manual rules, please
see the citations therein.

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

    The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 17.0.2 on January 30,
2017 and will introduce the following changes:
    EDGAR will be upgraded with an enhanced authentication process to
increase the security surrounding a filer's request for a passphrase
update. This includes the issuance of a one-time security token which
will be emailed to the registrant at the email address on record. If
the email on record is not valid, the filer will need to provide
authorization to have their codes reset, and in the case of a company,
the request must be on company letterhead. If a Power of Attorney (POA)
is provided, it must be manually signed. For more information, please
refer to Section 4.1.1 of ``EDGAR Filer Manual Volume I: General
Information''.
    Filers will have the option to add one or more attachments of type
``FULL'' to submission form types X-17A-5 and X-17A-5/A, which can be
designated as ``Public'' or ``Confidential.'' If a ``FULL'' attachment
designated as ``Public'' is attached, then all other attachment types
are optional.
    The EDGAR Portal, EDGAR Company Database, and the landing pages for
all EDGAR Web sites will be updated to remove any reference to Internet
Explorer (IE) 8.0 and Firefox version 24.x, and to update the language
so that vendor supported versions of IE and Google Chrome are the
recommended browsers. The references to Internet Explorer 8.0 and
Firefox 24.x will be deleted in ``EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: General
Information,'' ``EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: EDGAR Filing,'' and
``EDGAR Filer Manual: Volume III: N-SAR Supplement.''
    Along with the 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.
    The updated EDGAR Filer Manual will be available for Web site
viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is https://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edmanuals.htm. You may also 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.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
    Since the Filer Manual and the corresponding rule changes relate
solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and
comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA).\4\ It follows that the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act \5\ do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
    \5\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule
amendments is February 8, 2017. In accordance with the APA,\6\ 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 17.0.2 is scheduled to become available on January 30, 2017.
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 these system upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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,\7\ Sections 3, 12,
13, 14, 15, 23, and 35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,\8\
Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,\9\ and Sections 8, 30,
31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, and 77s(a).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78w, and 78ll.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 77sss.
    \10\ 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,
unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *

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 26 (January 2017). The requirements for filing
on EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II:
``EDGAR Filing,'' Version 40 (January 2017). Additional provisions
applicable to Form N-SAR filers are set forth in the EDGAR Filer
Manual, Volume III: ``N-SAR Supplement,'' Version 6 (January 2017). 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. The EDGAR Filer Manual is available
for Web site viewing and printing; the address for the Filer Manual is
https://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edmanuals.htm. 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., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. 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:
https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: January 26, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02455 Filed 2-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

To:	Margaret Sheppard , U.S. EPA

Cc:	Yaidi Cancel, U.S.EPA

From:	Emily Herzog, Ed Carr, Mark Wagner, ICF International

Date:	May 21, 2010

Re:	Sensitivity Analysis CMAQ results on projected maximum TFA rainwater
concentrations and maximum 8-hr ozone concentrations (Deliverable under
EPA Contract Number EP-W-06-008 Task Order 038, Task 06)

In addition to updating the baseline analysis for the Assessment of the
Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the Associated Production of TFA on
Aquatic Communities and Local Air Quality, ICF conducted a sensitivity
analysis based on the findings of Papasavva et al. as described in their
2009 paper Estimated 2010 Refrigerant Emissions of
2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFC-1234yf) in the United Stated Resulting
from Automobile Air Conditioning.  This memorandum summarizes the
results from the sensitivity analysis and provides a comparison of the
results with the baseline analysis as well as with the findings of
Luecken et al. (2010).

Please contact Mark Wagner at<PHONE_NUMBER> with any questions or
comments.

Assessment of Potential HFO-1234yf Emissions

The following section describes the assumptions used to determine
potential emissions of HFO-1234yf.

Scenarios of HFO-1234yf Market Penetration

For the Assessment of the Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf and the
Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic Communities, Soil and Plants,
and Local Air Quality, two scenarios were developed.  Both scenarios
assume that HFO-1234yf is used as a drop-in replacement for HFC-134a,
with a replacement ratio of 1:1 HFC-134a to HFO-1234yf.

Scenario 1: HFO-1234yf is used in the United States as a new car
refrigerant in the MVAC sector.  HFO-1234yf begins penetrating the
market in 2016 reaching 100 percent market penetration by 2020, as
described in   REF _Ref215975477 \h  Table 1  below.

Scenario 2: HFO-1234yf is used in the United States as a new car
refrigerant in MVAC systems, refrigeration, and stationary AC systems.
Similar to scenario 1, by 2020, HFO-1234yf is used in all new MVAC
systems. For refrigeration and stationary AC systems, HFO-1234yf enters
the market in 2010, reaches 30 percent penetration of the market in
2015, and 100 percent by 2020.

The market penetration scenarios are summarized in   REF _Ref215975477
\h  Table 1  below.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 : Summary of Assumed Penetration of
HFO1234yf in Scenarios Used in Analysis*

Sectors	2010	2015	2020

Scenario 1

MVACs	0%	0%	100%

Scenario 2

MVACs	0%	0%	100%

Refrigeration	6%	30%	100%

Stationary Air Conditioning	6%	30%	100%

*The dates of introduction of HFO-1234yf are consistent with the earlier
analysis, conducted in 2009.

The specific dates of introduction are used as a demonstration of how
HFO-1234yf might be phased in; actual dates may differ by several years.
 Examining the period from initial introduction of the refrigerant to
market saturation allows the analysis to consider potential impacts of
HFO-1234yf in the near-term (i.e., 10 - 15 years), during which time
there are already specific State goals for ground-level ozone impacts.
In addition, the analysis considers the potential longer term impacts of
HFO-1234yf after the refrigerant has saturated the market, assuming
continued growth in use.

HFO-1234yf Emission Assumptions

For the sensitivity analysis, emission assumptions were based on the
findings of Papasavva et al. (2009) regarding the emission projections
of HFO-1234yf from the MVAC sector.  In contrast, ICF assumed that
emissions of HFO-1234yf will be equivalent to emissions of HFC-134a for
the baseline analysis.  Emission assumptions for both the baseline
analysis and the sensitivity analysis are summarized below in   REF
_Ref258934555 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 2 .

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  2 : Refrigerant Loss Assumptions for
Baseline and Sensitivity Analysis

Assumption	Baseline Analysisa	Sensitivity Analysis

Leak Rate	8%	5.6%

Servicing Leaks (annualized)	10%	3.2%

End-of-life Loss Rate	42.5%	42.5%

a HFC-134a MVAC assumptions from the U.S. EPA Vintaging Model, Version
VM IO File v4.4_12-16-09.

For both analyses, emissions of refrigerant due to servicing motor
vehicle air conditioning systems were expected to be higher during the
spring and summer, with up to 80% of emissions due to repairs occurring
from April through August.  Furthermore, refrigerant emissions from
servicing motor vehicle air conditioning systems were estimated at 47%
of annual refrigerant emissions from motor vehicles.  As a result, the
analysis assumes that 59.5% of annual emissions of HFO-1234yf would
occur from April through August, with 11.9% of annual emissions
occurring during each of those five months.  The remaining 40.5% of
annual emissions was modeled to occur from September through March, with
5.8% of annual emissions occurring during each of those seven months.
This assumption was also applied to stationary AC end uses based on the
assumption that similar patterns of seasonal emissions would be
attributable to this end-use.

Estimated Emissions of HFO-1234yf

Using EPA’s Vintaging Model, ICF estimated emissions of HFO-1234yf for
both scenarios using both sets of emission assumptions.  These estimates
are summarized in   REF _Ref215975548 \h  Table 3  while estimated
monthly emission estimates of HFO-1234yf for the year 2050 are provided
in   REF _Ref258940654 \h  Table 4 .  Complete tables with estimated
annual emissions can be found in Annex A and Annex B.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  3 : Summary of Estimated Emissions of
HFO-1234yf (MT)*

Scenarios	2020	2030	2040	2050

Baseline Analysis

Scenario 1 (MVAC)	6,244	28,327	33,093	35,851

Scenario 2 (All Ref and AC)	10,501	43,296	55,070	60,616

Sensitivity Analysis

Scenario 1 (MVAC)	3,053	15,349	18,841	20,411

Scenario 2 (All Ref and AC)	7,309	30,318	40,817	45,175

* ICF projected emissions of HFO-1234yf using special scenarios designed
specifically for this analysis and run on the U.S. EPA Vintaging Model,
Version VM IO File v4.4_12-16-09.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  4 : Summary of Estimated Monthly Emissions
of HFO-1234yf in 2050 (MT)

Scenarios	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

Baseline Analysis

Scenario 1 (MVAC)	2,074	2,074	2,074	4,266	4,266	4,266	4,266	4,266	2,074
2,074	2,074	2,074

Scenario 2 (All Ref and AC)	4,025	4,025	4,025	6,489	6,489	6,489	6,489
6,489	4,025	4,025	4,025	4,025

Sensitivity Analysis

Scenario 1 (MVAC)	1,181	1,181	1,181	2,429	2,429	2,429	2,429	2,429	1,181
1,181	1,181	1,181

Scenario 2 (All Ref and AC)	3,131	3,131	3,131	4,651	4,651	4,651	4,651
4,651	3,131	3,131	3,131	3,131

Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 graphically depict the estimated annual
HFO-1234yf emissions for each scenario.  Figure 4 graphically depicts
the estimated 2050 monthly HFO-1234yf emissions for each scenario.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  1 : Estimated Emissions of HFO-1234yf by
End-Use Sector under the Baseline Analysis  (MT)

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  2 : Estimated Emissions of HFO-1234yf by
End-Use Sector under the Sensitivity Analysis (MT)

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  3 : Estimated Annual Emissions of
HFO-1234yf under All Scenarios (MT)

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  4 : Estimated Monthly Emissions of
HFO-1234yf under All Scenarios in Year 2050 (MT)

Results of the Sensitivity Analysis

Using EPA’s CMAQ model version 4.7, a one-year simulation was
performed using 2001 meteorological data to project maximum monthly TFA
rainwater concentrations, monthly maximum dry deposition of TFA, and
maximum 8-hr ozone concentrations for the Los Angeles and Houston
regions resulting from emissions of HFO-1234yf from those regions only.
These regions were chosen based on the potential presence of vernal
pools, their susceptibility to high TFA deposition concentrations, and
their continuing and chronic problem with high levels of ground level
ozone.  The model used the extended version of the carbon bond five
chemical mechanism as developed by Luecken et al. (2010), which
incorporates the gaseous and aqueous chemistry of HFO-1234yf and its
products.  In ICF’s Assessment of the Potential Impacts of HFO-1234yf
and the Associated Production of TFA on Aquatic Communities, Soil and
Plants, and Local Air Quality (2010) results from the baseline analysis
are presented.  The results for the sensitivity analysis are summarized
below.

TFA Rainwater Concentrations

Monthly maximum average TFA rainwater concentrations for each region
under each scenario are summarized in   REF _Ref260304976 \h  Table 5 .

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  5 : Summary of Estimated Monthly Average
TFA Rainwater Concentrations in 2050 (ng/L)

Region	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

Sensitivity Analysis, Scenario 1

Los Angeles	59	21	109	108	497	572	363	484	107	78	128	61

Houston	12	14	21	17	26	38	54	30	28	12	10	17

 Sensitivity Analysis, Scenario 2

Los Angeles	130	47	240	240	1099	1267	803	1072	237	173	283	136

Houston	26	30	46	38	57	85	120	67	63	27	23	38

Under scenario 1 for the sensitivity analysis, the results indicate that
the maximum monthly average TFA rainwater concentration in the Los
Angeles region in 2050 is 572 ng/L, while the maximum monthly average
TFA rainwater concentration in the Houston region in 2050 is 54 ng/L.
Under scenario 2 for the sensitivity analysis, the results indicate that
the maximum monthly average TFA rainwater concentration in the Los
Angeles region in 2050 is 1,267 ng/L, while the maximum monthly average
TFA rainwater concentration in the Houston region in 2050 is 120 ng/L.

Similar to the baseline analysis, for Los Angeles, June represents the
month with the highest projected monthly average TFA rainwater
concentration, while for Houston, July represents the month with the
highest projected monthly average TFA rainwater concentration.  The
monthly average maximum TFA rainwater concentrations for these two peak
months are geographically depicted below in   REF _Ref260395334 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  Figure 5  and   REF _Ref260395338 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT
Figure 6 , for both scenarios, for Los Angeles and Houston,
respectively.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  5 : June 2050 Los Angeles Sensitivity
Analysis Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Results

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  6 : July 2050 Houston Sensitivity
Analysis Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Results

TFA Dry Deposition

  REF _Ref260387062 \h  Table 6  presents the results of both the
maximum annual and monthly maximum TFA deposition expressed on an annual
basis.

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  6 : Summary of Estimated TFA Dry Deposition
in 2050

	TFA Maximum Monthly Averagea 	TFA Maximum Annual Average

	nmole/m2-yr	(g/m2-yr	nmole/m2-yr	(g/m2-yr

Sensitivity Analysis, Scenario 1

Los Angeles	8,698	323	2,188	81

Houston	1,455	54	534	20

Sensitivity Analysis, Scenario 2

Los Angeles	16,686	619	4,745	176

Houston	2,813	104	1,148	43

Notes:  Formula weight of TFA is 114 g/mole.

a Maximum concentration occurred in May for Los Angeles and in July for
Houston.  Results are expressed on annual basis using the peak monthly
deposition rate times 12.

Ground Level Ozone Concentrations

Under scenario 1 for the sensitivity analysis, results for the Los
Angeles and Houston regions show a maximum increase in the 8-hr ozone
concentration of 0.030 ppb and 0.009 ppb, respectively.  Under scenario
2 for the sensitivity analysis, results for the Los Angeles and Houston
regions show a maximum increase in the 8-hr ozone concentration of 0.057
ppb and 0.016 ppb, respectively.  Assuming an 8-hr ozone standard of 75
ppb, HFO-1234yf is projected to contribute to a maximum of roughly 0.04
– 0.076% of total ground-level ozone in Los Angeles and 0.012 –
0.021% and of total ground-level ozone in Houston.  Maximum increases in
8-hr ozone concentrations are geographically depicted in  REF
_Ref260308122 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT   Figure 7 ,   REF _Ref260309321 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  Figure 8 , and   REF _Ref261261039 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT
Figure 9 .

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  7 : LA May 22, 2050 Sensitivity Analysis
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Results

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  8 : Houston June 11, 2050 Sensitivity
Analysis Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Results

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  9 : Houston August 29, 2050 Sensitivity
Analysis Scenario 1 Results

Comparison of Results

For comparison purposes, the following table summarizes results of the
baseline analysis, the sensitivity analysis, and Luecken et al. (2010).

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  7 : Comparison of Results for Southern
California

Analysis	Maximum Projected TFA Rainwater Concentration (ng/L)	Maximum
Estimated TFA Dry Deposition ((g/m2)*	Maximum Increase in 8-hr Ozone
Formation

Baseline, Scenario 1 	1,116	143	0.07%

Baseline, Scenario 2 	1,700	237	0.11%

Sensitivity, Scenario 1 	572	81	0.04%

Sensitivity, Scenario 2 	1,267	176	0.08%

Luecken et al. (2010)	1,264	240	0.1%

*ICF results represent the annual average maximum for Southern
California, while Luecken’s results represent the 2.5 month spatial
average.  For Southern California, Luecken’s results show TFA dry
deposition to be about 150 (g/m2.

The relationship between HFO-1234yf emissions and projected maximum TFA
rainwater concentrations for both regions are also displayed below in
REF _Ref261284717 \h  Figure 10  and   REF _Ref261631193 \h  Figure 11 .

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  10 : Relationship between HFO-1234yf
emissions and maximum TFA rainwater concentrations in LA

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  11 : Relationship between HFO-1234yf
emissions and maximum TFA rainwater concentrations in Houston

As shown above, the relationship between HFO-1234yf emissions and TFA
rainwater concentrations appears to be relatively linear.  To support
this relationship, the data for each region were fitted to a linear
regression model.  The equations for each regression model are as
follows:

Los Angeles TFA Rainwater Concentration = 51.55 + (HFO-1234yf Emissions
* 0.027)

Houston TFA Rainwater Concentration = 4.64 + (HFO-1234yf Emissions *
0.0026)

The equations above can be used to estimate TFA rainwater concentration
projections for other HFO-1234yf emission scenarios.  However, it must
be noted that the equations assume that the current chemical mechanism
of gas-phase and aqueous chemistry of HFO-1234yf and its products
remains substantially the same in future analyses.  Also, it is possible
that results may differ if other meteorological datasets (e.g., 2005) or
higher spatial resolutions (e.g., 12-km) were used in the original
analysis.  Finally, due to localized variability in meteorology and
emission distributions, these results cannot be applied to other regions
of the U.S.  Annex A: Annual HFO-1234yf Emissions Estimated under Each
Scenario for the Baseline Analysis for Years 2010 through 2050 (MT)*

Year	Baseline Scenario 1	Baseline Scenario 2

	MVACs	MVACs	Refrigeration	Stationary AC	TOTAL

2010	-	-	39	7	46

2011	-	-	111	20	132

2012	-	-	218	40	258

2013	-	-	361	66	426

2014	-	-	541	98	640

2015	-	-	762	138	900

2016	407	407	1,093	196	1,696

2017	1,229	1,229	1,541	273	3,043

2018	2,472	2,472	2,110	369	4,951

2019	4,143	4,143	2,807	485	7,435

2020	6,244	6,244	3,636	620	10,501

2021	8,332	8,332	4,487	766	13,585

2022	10,413	10,413	5,389	916	16,718

2023	12,513	12,513	6,278	1,066	19,857

2024	14,644	14,644	7,209	1,216	23,069

2025	16,812	16,812	8,128	1,367	26,307

2026	19,003	19,003	9,043	1,516	29,561

2027	21,203	21,203	9,953	1,678	32,834

2028	23,962	23,962	10,914	1,848	36,724

2029	26,335	26,335	11,817	2,017	40,170

2030	28,327	28,327	12,748	2,221	43,296

2031	29,926	29,926	13,591	2,412	45,929

2032	31,118	31,118	14,348	2,577	48,043

2033	31,295	31,295	14,918	2,720	48,932

2034	31,514	31,514	15,479	2,861	49,854

2035	31,791	31,791	15,924	3,010	50,725

2036	32,084	32,084	16,382	3,213	51,678

2037	32,374	32,374	16,824	3,408	52,606

2038	32,627	32,627	17,249	3,592	53,468

2039	32,857	32,857	17,656	3,767	54,280

2040	33,093	33,093	18,046	3,931	55,070

2041	33,345	33,345	18,371	4,008	55,724

2042	33,637	33,637	18,668	4,080	56,385

2043	33,906	33,906	18,921	4,151	56,977

2044	34,177	34,177	19,156	4,217	57,549

2045	34,450	34,450	19,374	4,278	58,102

2046	34,726	34,726	19,566	4,315	58,606

2047	35,004	35,004	19,756	4,351	59,110

2048	35,284	35,284	19,944	4,383	59,611

2049	35,566	35,566	20,132	4,415	60,112

2050	35,851	35,851	20,318	4,447	60,616

* ICF projected emissions of HFO-1234yf using special scenarios designed
specifically for this analysis and run on the U.S. EPA Vintaging Model,
Version VM IO file v4.4_12-16-09.

Annex B: Annual HFO-1234yf Emissions Estimated under Each Scenario for
the Sensitivity Analysis for Years 2010 through 2050 (MT)*

Year	Sensitivity Scenario 1	Sensitivity Scenario 2

	MVACs	MVACs	Refrigeration	Stationary AC	TOTAL

2010	-	-	39	7	46

2011	-	-	111	20	132

2012	-	-	218	40	258

2013	-	-	361	66	426

2014	-	-	541	98	640

2015	-	-	762	138	900

2016	199	199	1,093	196	1,488

2017	601	601	1,541	273	2,415

2018	1,209	1,209	2,110	369	3,688

2019	2,026	2,026	2,807	485	5,317

2020	3,053	3,053	3,636	620	7,309

2021	4,073	4,073	4,487	766	9,326

2022	5,091	5,091	5,389	916	11,396

2023	6,118	6,118	6,278	1,066	13,461

2024	7,159	7,159	7,209	1,216	15,584

2025	8,219	8,219	8,128	1,367	17,714

2026	9,290	9,290	9,043	1,516	19,849

2027	10,366	10,366	9,953	1,678	21,997

2028	12,206	12,206	10,914	1,848	24,968

2029	13,868	13,868	11,817	2,017	27,702

2030	15,349	15,349	12,748	2,221	30,318

2031	16,647	16,647	13,591	2,412	32,650

2032	17,749	17,749	14,348	2,577	34,674

2033	17,819	17,819	14,918	2,720	35,456

2034	17,918	17,918	15,479	2,861	36,259

2035	18,077	18,077	15,924	3,010	37,011

2036	18,257	18,257	16,382	3,213	37,851

2037	18,444	18,444	16,824	3,408	38,675

2038	18,595	18,595	17,249	3,592	39,436

2039	18,718	18,718	17,656	3,767	40,141

2040	18,841	18,841	18,046	3,931	40,817

2041	18,973	18,973	18,371	4,008	41,352

2042	19,150	19,150	18,668	4,080	41,898

2043	19,303	19,303	18,921	4,151	42,375

2044	19,458	19,458	19,156	4,217	42,830

2045	19,613	19,613	19,374	4,278	43,265

2046	19,770	19,770	19,566	4,315	43,651

2047	19,928	19,928	19,756	4,351	44,035

2048	20,088	20,088	19,944	4,383	44,415

2049	20,249	20,249	20,132	4,415	44,795

2050	20,411	20,411	20,318	4,447	45,175

* ICF projected emissions of HFO-1234yf using special scenarios designed
specifically for this analysis and run on the U.S. EPA Vintaging Model,
Version VM IO file v4.4_12-16-09.

 In all scenarios, HFO-1234yf replaces only pure HFC-134a, not any
blends with HFC-134a as a component.

.

 Hoffpauir, Elvis.  2009.  Email to Karen Thundiyil, 10 March.

 U.S. EPA Vintaging Model, Version VM IO File v4.2 10-07-08

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  8


INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY AND THE PAPERGRADE SULFITE SUBCATEGORY OF THE PULP, PAPER AND PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE CATEGORY ( 40 CFR PART 430)

EPA ICR Number 1829.03 OMB Control Number 2040 0207 June 2005 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Engineering and Analysis Division 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20460 Best Management Practices ICR i i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( a) Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( a) Nonduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4( a) Respondents and Sic Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4( c) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5( a) Agency Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5( d) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6( b) Estimating Agency Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6( c) Bottom Line Burden and Costs Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6( d) Reasons for Change of Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6( e) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Best Management Practices ICR ii ii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Mill Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 2. Mill Labor for Amendment and Review of BMP Plan, Reporting, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 3. Mill Costs for Amendment and Review of BMP Plan, Reporting, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 4. Recurring Respondent Burden and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 5. Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 6. Bottom Line Initial Burden and Costs Based in 2000 Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Table 7. Bottom Line Recurring Burden and Costs Based in 2000 Dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Best Management Practices ICR 1 1 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection ICR: Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category ( Renewal) ( EPA ICR No. 1829.03).

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract This Information Collection Request ( ICR) presents estimates of the burden and costs to the regulated community ( approximately 94 bleached papergrade kraft, soda and sulfite mills) and NPDES permit and pretreatment control authorities for data collection and recordkeeping associated with implementation of the Best Management Practices requirements of the Pulp and Paper Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards ( 40 CFR Part 430.03). This is a renewal ICR.

The Clean Water Act ( CWA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to include Best Management Practices ( BMPs) in effluent limitations guidelines and standards regulations. EPA's legal authority to promulgate BMPs is found in Section 304( e), Section 307( b) and ( c), Section 308( a), Section 402( a)( 1)( B) and Section 501( a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1251, et. seq. EPA also relies on 40 CFR 122.44( k). The BMP regulation is consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U. S. C. § 13101, et. seq.

The objectives of the BMPs are to prevent leaks and spills of spent pulping liquors, soap and turpentine for mills in bleached papergrade kraft and soda ( Subpart B) and papergrade sulfite ( Subpart E) subcategories; and, to contain, collect and recover at the immediate process area, or otherwise control, those leaks, spills and intentional diversions of spent pulping liquor that do occur. EPA has emphasized control of spent pulping liquors, intentional liquor diversions, soap and turpentine for the following reasons: ( 1) losses of spent pulping liquor contribute significant portions of untreated wastewater loadings and discharge loadings of color, oxygen demanding substances, and non chlorinated toxic compounds from chemical pulp mills; ( 2) spent pulping liquor spills and intentional liquor diversions are a principal cause of upsets and loss of efficiency of biological treatment systems that are used for treatment of Subpart B and E mill wastewaters, thus contributing to increased effluent discharges of toxic, conventional and nonconventional pollutants; ( 3) soap and turpentine are substances that are highly toxic to biological treatment systems; and ( 4) control of spent pulping liquors is a form of pollution prevention that can result in cost savings, less demand for make up pulping chemicals, increased energy efficiency, more effective wastewater treatment and incidental reductions in atmospheric emissions of total reduced sulfur ( TRS) compounds from kraft mills and volatile hazardous air pollutants from Subpart B and E mills.

The regulation requires that owners or operators of Subpart B and E mills prepare and implement site specific BMPs for management of spent pulping liquors and prevent and control losses of soap and turpentine. In addition, the regulation requires mills to monitor the effectiveness of BMP implementation on a continuing basis by tracking the influent to treatment wastewater loading. EPA has structured the BMP regulation to provide maximum flexibility to Best Management Practices ICR 2 2 the regulated community and to minimize administrative burdens on NPDES permit and pretreatment control authorities that regulate Subpart B and E mills. In fact, the final BMP regulation provides flexibility for mill owners or operators to select any reasonable measure of organic loading and/ or spent pulping liquor losses to monitor the effectiveness of BMPs. Also, the final regulation is less prescriptive than the proposed rule with regard to inspection, repair and log keeping requirements. EPA determined that the final rule language allows mills to use existing maintenance and repair tracking systems to fulfill the aforementioned requirements thereby reducing burden to the industry. By promulgating a national regulation for BMPs, EPA has effectively removed substantial administrative and technical burdens on NPDES and pretreatment control authorities to devise and implement these requirements on a case by case basis through their permit programs.

In summary, implementation of effective BMPs has been shown to provide a potential significant payback to a mill. In one incident at an indirect discharging kraft mill in the southeastern U. S. in July 1993, a process upset caused a release of excess spent pulping liquor to the POTW, which then caused a fish kill. The resulting costs for cleanup and mill shutdown were approximately equal to the cost of full implementation of BMPs at the mill.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection In the BMP regulation, EPA is requiring mills with pulp production Subpart B and E Subcategories to develop and implement BMPs to prevent or otherwise contain leaks and spills and to control intentional diversions of spent pulping liquor, soap and turpentine. These BMPs apply to direct and indirect discharging mills within these subcategories and are intended to reduce wastewater loadings of color, oxygen demanding substances, and non chlorinated toxic compounds and hazardous substances in mill wastewater, with incidental reductions in conventional water pollutants and certain air pollutants.

EPA's legal authority to promulgate this BMP regulation is found in Section 304( e), Section 307( b) and ( c), Section 308( a), Section 402( a)( 1)( B), Section 402( a)( 2) and Section 501( a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1251, et seq. EPA also relies on 40 CFR § 122.44( k). This BMP regulation is also consistent with the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U. S. C. § 13101, et seq. For further discussion of EPA's legal authority to require mills to develop and implement BMPs, including the information collection requirements discussed in this document, see the BMP Technical Support Document ( BMP TSD, DCN 14489).

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The primary users of the information generated through BMP Plans will be the owners and operators of the Subpart B and E pulp and paper mills. EPA intends that the data collected ( in the form of BMP monitoring reports) will be used by mill operators to track the effectiveness and progress of BMP implementation through comparisons with action levels established by the mill. Under the regulation, whenever monitoring results exceed action levels for particular periods, the mill must complete an investigation or corrective action, as appropriate. Best Management Practices ICR 3 3 EPA also expects that the monitoring reports required by the BMP regulations will be used by NPDES and pretreatment control authorities to determine compliance with the regulation. EPA anticipates that State and local control authorities will conduct detailed technical reviews of BMP Plans only in the event the monitoring reports indicate noncompliance with BMP conditions contained in the mill's NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication EPA has examined all other reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 501, and 503. The Agency also has consulted the following sources of information to determine if similar or duplicative information is available elsewhere:

° the EPA Information Systems Inventory, ° the Government Information Locator System ( GILS), and ° the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory.

Examination of these databases revealed no duplicative reporting requirements.

EPA has examined a similar reporting requirement for notice of spills under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) for duplication of the requirements of this regulation. The requirements for reporting of pollutant releases under RCRA is different than reporting of spills or losses of spent pulping liquor, soap or turpentine outside the immediate process areas under this regulation. EPA has concluded that there is no other way to obtain the compliance assessment information addressed in this ICR.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission EPA solicited comments on this ICR prior to formal submission to OMB. EPA published a formal notice in the Federal Register on August 30, 2004 ( 69 FR 52883 52888). EPA received no comments.

3( c) Consultations EPA had extensive discussions with the regulated community and selected federal and State NPDES permitting authorities regarding development of this regulation and the attendant recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Data Collection The regulation requires collection of daily influent to treatment data. Most mill operators collect such data independent of this requirement for purposes of monitoring and optimizing wastewater treatment plant operations. Because spill, leaks and losses of spent pulping liquors can and do occur frequently and at any time, less frequent monitoring would not provide the timely information to mill operators to identify and respond to a spill, leak or loss event. Best Management Practices ICR 4 4 3( e) General Guidelines This information collection is consistent with OMB guidelines contained in 5 CFR 1320.6 and 1320.12.

3( f) Confidentiality EPA does not expect that confidential business information or trade secrets will be required from mill operators as part of this ICR. In the event that the information submitted in conjunction with this ICR is claimed to be confidential business information ( CBI) by the mill owner or operator, the information would then be handled pursuant to 40 CFR Part 2 when EPA is the permitting authority and applicable State and local government rules and regulations governing CBI when States or local governments are the permitting or pretreatment control authorities. Any mills that may consider asserting CBI claims should do so carefully as they may be asked to support any such claims at a later date.

3( g) Sensitive Questions The reporting requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents and SIC Codes The respondents for this ICR will be approximately 94 direct and indirect discharging Subpart B and E pulp mills in the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing Category ( SIC 2611, 2631) ( NAICS 32211,322121, 322122, 32213). Government respondents are estimated to be 34 State and local authorities ( 24 NPDES and pretreatment approval authorized States and 10 local pretreatment control authorities) for preparation of new NPDES permits and pretreatment conditions for implementing the BMP regulation and conducting detailed technical reviews of BMP Plans in the event the monitoring reports indicate noncompliance with BMP conditions contained in the mill's NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism.

4( b) Information Requested The BMP regulations at 40 CFR 430.03 include the following major components: ( 1) development, review and certification of a BMP plan; ( 2) amendment and periodic review of the BMP plan; ( 3) reporting of spills; ( 4) additional monitoring and reporting; and ( 5) additional recordkeeping. See 40 CFR 430.03( c) through ( i) and the BMP TSD for more detailed information on the requirements. The development, review, and certification of a BMP plan is an initial one time component of the BMP regulations, and the associated burden was already accounted for in the original ICR ( No. 1829.01). Therefore, that burden is not included in this renewal ICR.

( 1) Development, review and certification of a BMP plan [ § 430.03( d) and ( f)]:

Central to the BMP regulation is the development of a BMP plan. This plan is intended to Best Management Practices ICR 5 5 be the initial and ongoing BMP planning and implementation tool for mills. The BMP plan must, at a minimum, include programs: ( a) to identify and repair leaking equipment; ( b) to track equipment repairs; ( c) to train personnel; ( d) to report and evaluate spills; ( e) to review planned mill modifications; and ( f) to establish wastewater treatment system influent action levels ( including an initial six month monitoring program).

Also, as part of the BMP plan development, each mill must conduct a detailed engineering review of the pulping and chemical recovery areas to determine the magnitude and routing of potential leaks, spills, and intentional diversions of spent pulping liquors, soap and turpentine and to determine the adequacy of containment and collection facilities ( see 40 CFR 430.03 ( d) ( 3) for additional details). The BMP plan and any amendments require review by the senior technical manager and certification by the mill manager.

( 2) Amendment and periodic review of a BMP Plan [ § 430.03( e)]:

Owners or operators must amend their BMP Plans whenever there is a change in mill design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the potential for leaks or spills of spent pulping liquor, soap or turpentine from the immediate process areas. Notwithstanding this requirement, owners or operators must complete a review and evaluation of their BMP Plans at least once every five years and amend the plan within three months of such review, if warranted. As mentioned above, any BMP plan amendments require review by the senior technical manager and certification by the mill manager.

( 3) Reporting of spills [ § 430.03( c)( 5)]:

Owners or operators are required to prepare brief reports of spills of spent pulping liquor, soap or turpentine not contained in the immediate process area ( e. g., a failure of the management practices and control systems identified by the owner or operator in the BMP Plan). The report must list the equipment items involved, the circumstances leading to the incident, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken and plans to implement future changes. These reports must be maintained by the mill owner or operator for three years and they need only be submitted to the NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority upon request.

( 4) Additional monitoring and reporting [ § 430.03 ( c)( 3), ( g), ( h) and ( i)]:

Mills are required to operate continuous, automatic monitoring systems that the mill determines are necessary to detect and control leaks, spills, and intentional diversions of spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine. See 40 CFR 430.03( c)( 3). As part of this requirement, all mills ( with the exception of new sources) are required to perform two six month monitoring programs in order to determine the characteristics ( or action levels) of their wastewater treatment system influent. See 40 CFR 430.03( h). ( New sources are required to perform only one six month monitoring program for this purpose. See 40 CFR 430.03( h)( 5).) All mills are also required to perform additional monitoring to revise those action levels after any change in mill design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the potential for leaks or spills or spent pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine from the immediate process area. See 40 CFR 430.03( h)( 6). The regulation also requires all mills to conduct daily monitoring of wastewater treatment system influent for the purpose of detecting leaks and spills, tracking the effectiveness Best Management Practices ICR 6 6 of the BMPs, and detecting trends in spent pulping liquor losses. See 40 CFR 430.03( i).

Mill operators are required to provide their NPDES permit or pretreatment control authorities reports of the monitoring required by the BMP regulation. See 40 CFR 430.03( i)( 4). The reports must include a summary of the monitoring results, the number and dates of exceedances of the applicable action levels, and brief descriptions of any corrective actions taken to respond to such exceedances. Submission of such reports shall be at the frequency established by the NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority, but in no case less than once per year.

( 5) Recordkeeping requirements [ § 430.03( g)]:

The regulation requires that certain equipment repair records, records of employee training, reports of spills outside the immediate process area, and records of monitoring conducted as part of the BMP program be maintained for three years.

4( c) Respondent Activities Mill respondent activities include the following:

Preparing basic information. This includes reviewing regulatory and permit requirements; conducting initial and refresher employee training; developing and certifying the BMP Plan; tracking equipment repair; conducting influent to treatment monitoring; preparing reports of spill incidents outside the immediate process area; and, making reports to the NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority.

Maintaining records. All mills in Subparts B and E must keep records of monitoring information, equipment repair, employee training, and spill reports as required by the regulation.

State permitting and local pretreatment control authority activities include the following:

Preparing NPDES permit and pretreatment conditions. This includes reviewing the development of each mill's BMP plans in accordance with 40 CFR 430.03. State permitting and local pretreatment control authority respondents are responsible for the incorporation of BMP provisions in NPDES permits and pretreatment conditions.

Periodic Review. State and local respondents are authorized to conduct periodic review of monitoring reports submitted by each mill and perform compliance reviews. Detailed technical reviews of BMP Plans may be performed in the event the monitoring reports indicate noncompliance with BMP conditions contained in the mill's NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism.

The initial one time burden associated with mill respondents conducting initial employee training and developing and certifying the BMP plan and State permitting and local pretreatment control authority activities in preparing NPDES permit and pretreatment conditions was already accounted for in the original ICR ( No. 1829.01) and, therefore, is not included in this renewal ICR. Best Management Practices ICR 7 7 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities Upon approval of this renewal ICR, permittees must continue to maintain records as described above in Section 4( c) and at least annually, must submit to the NPDES or pretreatment control authority a report summarizing the results of daily monitoring, the number and dates of any exceedances of action levels and corrective actions taken when action levels are exceeded. The permitting authority can be either an approved NPDES State or one of EPA's regional offices. The permitting authority or pretreatment control authority is authorized to conduct compliance audits of facility records, review the data, and where necessary, conduct follow up actions. Follow up activities may include informal contact with the permittee ( by telephone or letter) to discuss the cause of any exceedances of action levels and responses taken to correct the exceedences. Because the requirements to implement the BMPs and maintain records will be incorporated in a mill's NPDES permit or pretreatment control mechanism as enforeceable conditions, the permitting authority will be responsible for assessing whether the mill is properly maintaining records ( including the BMP Plan) and thus, performing equipment repairs, employee training and responding to any exceedance events in a timely manner. Review of monitoring records may also be helpful to the permit writers in the development of future NPDES permit conditions.

The extent to which EPA reviews data will depend on available resources and the specific reviewing procedures of the permitting authority ( State or EPA region). In NPDES States, State environmental agencies generally review permittee data. EPA regions may also review data from major permittees in NPDES States while performing program oversight functions, particularly since the assessment of compliance is subjective.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management As with the minimum effluent monitoring requirements associated with the Cluster Rule, mill owners and operators are required to maintain information for in mill use to assess BMP effectiveness and for preparation of the summary report of daily monitoring. The regulation provides a framework for compliance, but mill owner and operators can develop the necessary data collection and management protocols to achieve an effective BMP program. EPA expects that mill owners and operators will most likely use existing in mill and effluent monitoring capabilities to perform the daily monitoring and existing computer capabilities to develop and maintain records.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility EPA has already certified that the Cluster Rules, including the BMP requirements will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as that term is used in the RFA ( see Section X. C. of the Preamble to the final Cluster Rules published in the Federal Register on April 15,1998 ( see 63 FR 18611) Best Management Practices ICR 8 1Estimates for operator and engineer labor costs were prepared using industry specific labor rates identical to those used for the EPA ICR Number 1878.01, included overhead and fringe benefits, and adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index. To verify the validity of the adjusted rates EPA obtained national industry specific wage estimates for the pulp, paper, and paperboard mills from the Labor Department. Noting that the Labor Department wages were lower, EPA decided to apply the more conservative estimates from the previous ICR.

2Estimates for management labor rate from the May 2003 National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS 322100  Pulp. Paper, and Paperboard Mills. The mean hourly wage for General and Operation Managers ( SOC Code 11 1021), including 50 percent for overhead and fringe benefits and adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, is 88.49.

8 5( d) Collection Schedule The majority of information collection activities included in this ICR are anticipated to coincide with existing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements ( e. g., Discharge Monitoring Reports), although some recordkeeping may be non routine, such as spill reporting.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs Burden and costs will vary based upon mill complexity, see Table 1. Tables 2 presents estimates of the recurring mill respondent burdens for labor hours and costs associated with this ICR. The assumptions made are listed in each Table. A summary of the mill respondents' burden hours and costs is presented in Table 3. A brief description of the basis for the burden estimates is presented below.

( 1) Development, review and certification of a BMP plan:

Development of a site specific BMP plan is a one time initial burden. As part of the BMP plan development, mills must also establish a training program for technical personnel. This training program must include both an initial training effort and refresher training, which at a minimum, must be performed annually. The burden associated with the development of the BMP plan and initial training were already accounted for in the original ICR ( No. 1829.01) and are, therefore, not included in the burden estimates of this renewal ICR. The refresher training is based on bi annual effort of four hours each, including nine operators and one consultant acting as trainer. The total burden for refresher training per mill is estimated to be 72 hours of operator effort ( at $ 32.81 per hour) and eight hours of consultant engineering effort ( at $ 64.58 per hour). 1 ( 2) Amendment and periodic review of a BMP Plan:

EPA anticipates less than 50 hours of mill labor per amendment and has based the ICR burden on an assumption that each mill would need to amend its BMP plan twice every five years for an annual burden of 20 hours, estimating 18 hours of mill engineer effort ( at $ 64.58 per hour) and two hours of management effort ( at $ 88.49 per hour), which is included in the annual estimates presented in Tables 2 and 3.2 Best Management Practices ICR 9 9 ( 3) Reporting of spills:

EPA anticipates that the burden of preparing a spill report is approximately four hours and can be conducted by a mill engineer ( at $ 64.58 per hour). ICR burden is calculated on an annual basis using an assumption of one spill per mill per month and is included in the annual estimates presented in Table 2 and 3.

( 4) Additional monitoring and reporting:

Mills are required to operate continuous, automatic monitoring systems that the mills determine are necessary to detect and control leaks, spills, and intentional diversions of spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine. The burden for designing, testing, and operating the monitoring system, expressed in the form of costs, is included in the compliance cost estimates developed for the regulation ( see Table 9.2 of the BMP TSD, DCN 14489).

In addition, all mills with the exception of new sources are required to perform two six month monitoring programs in order to determine the characteristics ( or action levels) of their wastewater treatment system effluent. See 40 CFR 430.03( h). ( New sources are required to perform only one six month monitoring program for this purpose.) All mills are also required to perform additional monitoring to revise those action levels after any change in mill design, construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the potential for leaks or spills or spent pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine from the immediate process area. The effort required to implement the initial monitoring program and perform the associated statistical analysis to establish the action levels is included in the compliance cost estimates developed for the regulation, and the burden to perform monitoring to revise those action levels is included in the incremental monitoring burden discussed below.

The regulation also requires all mills to conduct daily monitoring of wastewater treatment system influent for the purpose of detecting leaks and spills, tracking the effectiveness of the BMPs, and detecting trends in spent pulping liquor losses. EPA estimates the burden associated with this monitoring to be an increment of one additional hour per day of operator time over existing burden imposed by minimum monitoring; this increment is included in the annual estimates shown in Tables 2 and 3. Costs for monitoring equipment were included as initial capital costs in the original ICR ( No. 1829.01). Therefore, these one time costs are not included in the burden estimates of this renewal ICR.

Mill operators are required to provide their NPDES permit or pretreatment control authorities reports of the monitoring required by the BMP regulation. Submission of such reports shall be at the frequency established by the NPDES permit or pretreatment control authority, but in no case less than once per year. EPA has based the burden estimates on a semi annual reporting frequency and estimates that each report will take 16 hours to complete, based on 14 hours of mill engineer effort and two hours of management effort ( also included in estimates presented in Tables 2 and 3). Best Management Practices ICR 10 3Estimates for clerical labor rate from the May 2003 National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS 322100  Pulp. Paper, and Paperboard Mills. The mean hourly wage for File Clerks ( SOC Code 43 4071), including 50 percent for overhead and fringe benefits and adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, is $ 18.42.

10 ( 5) Recordkeeping requirements:

Burden estimates for recordkeeping are based on an incremental level of effort to comply with BMP requirements consisting of two to four hours per month for the operators/ shift supervisors over current shift log recordkeeping ( at $ 32.81per hour), two to four hours per months for mill engineers ( at $ 64.58 per hour), and two hours per month for clerical support ( at $ 18.42 per hour). These burden estimates are also included in the annual estimates presented in Tables 2 and 3 .3 ( 6) NPDES permit provisions, pretreatment conditions and periodic review The initial burden to State NPDES permitting and pretreatment control authorities for preparation of NPDES permit provisions and pretreatment conditions for implementing the BMP regulation was already accounted for in the new ICR. Therefore, this burden is not included in this renewal ICR. For the 82 facilities located in states with NPDES authority and the 10 facilities located in pretreatment control authorities EPA estimates an incremental ten hours per year per facility for reviewing periodic ( e. g., annual or semi annual) monitoring reports and conducting compliance reviews.

Estimates for Federal and State labor rates were based on the 2003 US Labor department figures adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index, whereby the average annual salary for Federal and State employees is $ 47,112; this is equivalent to the salary of a GS 9, Step 10 Federal employee. At 2,080 available labor hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 22.65. Overhead costs for Federal and State employees are estimated by EPA to be 60 percent ( EPA ICR Handbook), or $ 13.59 per hour, which results in a total hourly rate of $ 36.24 ($ 22.65 + $ 13.59).

Estimates for local pretreatment control authority employees ( i. e., POTW employees) were based on the 2002 US Labor department figures for the wages and salaries value for State and local government workers adjusted to January 2004 dollars with the Employment Cost Index plus a 50 percent overhead burden; this is equivalent to an hourly rate of $ 33.36 ($ 22.24 + $ 11.12).

Table 1. Summary of Mill Status CATEGORY Simple Moderately Complex Complex Total Kraft & Soda 41 30 13 84 Sulfite 10 0 0 10 Total Mills 51 30 13 94 Best Management Practices ICR 11 11 Table 2. Mill Labor for Amendment and Review of BMP Plan, Reporting, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Training ( hours)

Item Kraft & Soda Sulfite TOTAL HOURS Simple Moderately Complex Complex Total Simple Total Amendment and Review of BMP Plan 820 600 260 1,680 200 200 1880 Reporting of Spills 1,968 1,440 624 4,032 480 480 4512 Additional Monitoring and Reporting 16,277 11,910 5,161 33,348 3,970 3,970 37318 Recordkeeping 2,952 2,880 1,560 7,392 720 720 8112 Refresher Training 3,280 2,400 1,040 6,720 800 800 7520 TOTAL 25,297 19,230 8,645 53,172 6,170 6,170 59,342 Table 3. Mill Costs for Amendment and Review of BMP Plan, Reporting, Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Training Item Kraft & Soda Sulfite TOTAL COSTS Simple Moderately Complex Complex Total Simple Total Amendment and Review of BMP Plan $ 54,916 $ 40,183 $ 17,412 $ 112,511 $ 13,394 $ 13,394 $ 125,905 Reporting of Spills $ 127,093 $ 92,995 $ 40,298 $ 260,387 $ 30,998 $ 30,998 $ 291,385 Additional Monitoring and Reporting $ 579,652 $ 424,136 $ 183,792 $ 1,187,579 $ 141,379 $ 141,379 $ 1,328,958 Recordkeeping $ 113,957 $ 118,444 $ 66,518 $ 298,919 $ 27,794 $ 27,794 $ 326,713 Refresher Training $ 118,037 $ 86,369 $ 37,426 $ 241,833 $ 28,790 $ 28,790 $ 270,623 TOTAL $ 993,655 $ 762,127 $ 345,446 $ 2,101,229 $ 242,355 $ 242,355 $ 2,343,584 Table 4. Recurring Mill Respondent Burden and Costs Status Total Labor Hours Total Recurring Costs Kraft & Soda Simple 25,297 $ 993,655 Moderately Complex 19,230 $ 762,127 Complex 8,645 $ 345,446 Total Kraft & Soda 53,172 $ 2,101,229 Sulfite Simple 6,170 $ 242,355 Total Sulfite 6,170 $ 242,355 TOTAL MILLS 59,342 $ 2,343,584 6( b) Estimating Agency Burden The initial burden to EPA from non authorized State NPDES permitting and pretreatment control authorities for preparation of NPDES permit provisions and pretreatment conditions for implementing the BMP regulation was already accounted for in the new ICR. Therefore, this Best Management Practices ICR 12 12 burden is not included in this renewal ICR. For the 2 facilities located in states without NPDES authority EPA estimates an incremental ten hours per year per facility for reviewing periodic ( e. g., annual or semi annual) monitoring reports and conducting compliance reviews, for a total of 20 hours annually.

EPA estimates an incremental labor burden of approximately eight hours per facility for a total of 752 hours annually. This burden accounts for anticipated support of State and local authority efforts described in Section 6( a). The estimated incremental labor burden for the BMP regulation is 772 ( 752 + 20) hours. Using the hourly labor rate of $ 36.24 ( see Section 6( a)( 6)), recurring Agency costs are estimated at $ 27,977. A summary of the Agency burden hours and costs is presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Summary of Burden and Costs to Respondents and EPA Category Total Labor Hours Total Costs Respondents  Annual Burden Kraft & Soda Mills Sulfite Mills Total 53,172 6,170 59,342 $ 2,101,229 $ 242,355 $ 2,343,584 States & Local Governments Annual Burden States Local Governments ( pretreatment) 820 100 $ 29,717 $ 3,336 EPA Annual Burden 772 $ 27,977 6( c) Bottom Line Burden and Costs Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for respondents are the summaries of all the hours and costs incurred for all activities. There are no Operating and Maintenance costs associated with this Information Collection Request.

( 1) Respondent Tally The bottom line respondent ( mills, State permitting and local pretreatment authorities) tally is presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary ( 2004 Dollars)

Category Number of Respondents Total Hours Per Year Total Labor Cost Per Year Respondents  Subpart B and E mills 94 59,342 $ 2,343,584 Respondents  State Athorities 24 820 $ 29,717 Respondents  Local authorities 10 100 $ 3,336 Total Respondents 128 60,262 $ 2,376,637 Best Management Practices ICR 13 13 ( 2) Agency Tally The bottom line Agency tally is presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Total Estimated Agency Burden and Cost Summary ( 2000 Dollars)

Category Total Hours Per Year Total Labor Cost Per Year Agency 772 $ 27,977 6( d) Reasons for Changes in Burden As this is a renewal information collection, the change in burden for this collection includes adjusting from 2000 to 2004 dollars and account for new NPDES authorized states.

6( e) Burden Statement The recurring burden for a mill to periodically review and amend the BMP plan, prepare spill reports, perform additional monitoring, hold refresher training, and conduct recordkeeping and reporting is estimated to be 617, 641 and 665 hours annually per mill for simple, moderately complex and complex mills, respectively. The total recurring cost for mills associated with the BMP requirements is estimated at $ 2,343,811 The recurring burden to State NPDES and pretreatment control authorities is estimated at ten hours per year per facility for reviewing periodic ( e. g., annual or semi annual) monitoring reports and conducting compliance reviews. The total recurring costs for State NPDES and pretreatment control authorities is estimated at $ 29,716 and $ 3,336 respectively.

The recurring burden to EPA is estimated at ten hours per year per facility in non NPDES authorized states and eight hours per year per facility for support of State and local authority efforts in reviewing periodic ( e. g., annual or semi annual) monitoring reports and conducting compliance reviews. The total recurring costs for EPA is estimated at $ 27,977.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Best Management Practices ICR 14 14 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW 2004 0023, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OW 2004 0023) and OMB control number ( 2040 0207) in any correspondence.


[Federal Register: June 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 105)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30742-30745]
[DOCID:fr02jn10-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 65

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0567; Notice No. 10-09]
RIN 2120-AJ66

Modification of the Process for Requesting a Waiver of the
Mandatory Separation Age of 56 for Air Traffic Control Specialists

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to amend
its regulations concerning the process for requesting a waiver of the
mandatory separation age for Air Traffic Control Specialists in flight
service stations, enroute or terminal facilities, and the David J.
Hurley Air Traffic Control System Command Center. Under the proposal,
Air Traffic Control Specialists would no longer be required to certify
they have not been involved in an operational error (OE), operational
deviation (OD), or runway incursion in the past 5 years. The proposed
change

reflects FAA Order JO 7210.56C, Change 2, effective July 20, 2009,
which removed any references to employee identification, training
record entries, performance management, and return-to-duty actions that
have been historically tied to reported events. The proposal would
streamline the waiver process and bring it into conformance with
current FAA OE and OD reporting policy.

DATES: Send your comments on or before July 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0567 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment
(or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you
may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket, or, the Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule contact Kelly J. Neubecker, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, AJR-33, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this proposed
rule contact Anne Moore, Office of Chief Counsel, AGC-240, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106,
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator to issue, rescind, and
revise regulations. Under this authority, we are proposing to amend
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 103 in 14 CFR part 65 (SFAR
103) by removing paragraph 5.b.vii. The proposed change is within the
scope of our authority and is a reasonable and necessary exercise of
our statutory obligations.

Background

    On January 23, 2004, H.R. 2673, Consolidated Appropriations 2004,
became Public Law 108-199. Within the appropriations bill, there was a
mandate that ``not later than March 1, 2004, the Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration, shall issue final regulations, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 8335, establishing an exemption process allowing individual Air
Traffic Controllers to delay mandatory retirement until the employee
reaches no later than 61 years of age.'' On January 7, 2005, the
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
published the final rule in the Federal Register, 14 CFR part 65
(Docket No. FAA-2004-17334; SFAR No. 103, 70 FR 1634).
    The process for an Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS) to request
a waiver from the mandatory separation age of 56 is currently contained
in SFAR 103 and reflected in the Human Resources Policy Bulletin
35, Waiver Process to Mandatory Separation at Age 56. This
policy applies to all ATCSs and their first-level supervisors in flight
service, enroute and terminal facilities, and at the David J. Hurley
Air Traffic Control System Command Center covered under the mandatory
separation provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8335(a) and 8425(a).
    The regulation, as written, contains information contrary to air
traffic policy under amended FAA Order JO 7210.56C, Change 2, effective
July 20, 2009. Specifically, paragraph 5.b.vii. of SFAR 103 requires a
controller to provide a statement that they have not been involved in
an operational error (OE), operational deviation (OD), or runway
incursion in the last 5 years while in a control position. This
requirement is inconsistent with current air traffic orders developed
specifically to foster a safety culture that encourages full and open
reporting of safety information and focuses on determining why events
occur, rather than placing blame. In support of this safety culture,
FAA Order JO 7210.56C, Change 2 removed all references to employee
identification, training record entries, performance management, and
return-to-duty actions that were historically tied to reported OE or OD
events. Due to this change in policy, the reporting requirements of
SFAR 103 5.b.vii. are now unverifiable. Continuing to require the
statement in the waiver process serves no useful purpose. Therefore,
the FAA is proposing to remove this reporting requirement.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
is no new information collection requirement associated with this
proposed rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule.
    This proposed rule would moderately streamline the process for ATCs
who are requesting a waiver of mandatory separation at age 56 by
eliminating a paperwork obstacle. Currently, ATCSs need to provide a
statement to certify that they have not been involved with an
operational error (OE), operational deviation (OD), or runway incursion
within the previous 5 years when submitting a request for a waiver of
the mandatory separation at age 56. This proposed rule would eliminate
this certification requirement by reducing the written information
ATCSs must provide, resulting in a cost saving.
    We estimate ATCSs submit an average of 54 statements per year.
ATCSs need approximately 5 minutes to prepare each statement, whereas
air traffic managers need approximately 15 minutes to review them. The
ATCS's salary including benefits expressed as an hourly wage rate is
assumed to be $125 per hour; \1\ and an air traffic manager's hourly
rate with benefits is assumed to be $155 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This wage rate is based on 1657.7 hours. 2,080 hours (52
weeks times 40 hours per week) minus 422.3 hours (the number of
hours a typical controller is not available to work) equals 1,657.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the preceding information, the FAA estimates that the total
cost savings of this proposed rule would be about $26,000 or $18,000
present value, as shown in table 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JN10.309

    FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the

factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    This proposed rule would help extend the careers of experienced air
traffic controllers and thus have no impact on private sector entities.
Consequently, the FAA certifies that the proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
it would have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on
international trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312(d) and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' under the executive order because
while it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in
paragraph (1).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 65

    Air Traffic Controllers, Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 65--CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS

    1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g). 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

SFAR 103 [Amended]

    2. Amend SFAR 103 by removing and reserving paragraph 5.b.vii.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 2010.
Edie Parish,
Acting Director, System Operations Airspace & Aeronautical Information
Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-13221 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review, 61 Fed. Reg. 38249, 38282-38295 (July 23, 1996).  This proposed
rule has proposed a guideline of 100 kilometers (62 miles) to inform
notification to federal land managers.  This regulation has not been
adopted by EPA.

 See Letter from David Ullrich (signed by Robert Springer) to Philip
Shopodock, February 26, 1998; and Letter from David Kee (signed by Steve
Rothblatt) to Herbert Nelson, Acting Area Director, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Minneapolis Area Office, March 19, 1998.

 Letter from Christine Hansen to Barbara Wester, February 24, 1998.

 Revival of Tribal Constitutions and Bylaws, Pub.L. No. 100-581, 102
Stat. 2938 at 2945-46 (1988).

 Letter from Robert Jaeger to David Kee, April 16, 1998.

 Letter from Russell J. Harding, MDEQ, to Carlton Nash, EPA, September
15, 1997 (Comment 45); see also Brian Brady, MDEQ, “DEQ Presentation
Before EPA Regarding Forest County Potawatomi Redesignation,”written
comments, August 8, 1997.

 A PSD increment is the maximum allowable increase in concentration that
is allowed to occur above the baseline concentration of a pollutant
after the date that the PSD increment regulations become effective (the
baseline date).  Unacceptable deterioration is said to occur when the
amount of new pollution would exceed the PSD increments.

 Additionally, EPA is in receipt of a December 15, 2000, letter from
the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service to USEPA, which
states, “From a historical perspective (from 1978 through 2000), the
NPS and FWS have reviewed a combined total of 677 PSD permits (815 total
NSR permits).  Of these 677 PSD permits, we essentially agreed with the
state permitting authorities on 221 of them and submitted no formal
comments, other than to say we agreed.  We recommended permit denial on
20 due to either unacceptable impacts on Class I areas (e.g., no
proposed mitigation of predicted adverse impacts) or lack of any Class I
area impact analyses provided with the permit application.  Of these, we
subsequently formally appealed seven.  For each of the seven appealed
permits, we ultimately reach a negotiated settlement, withdrew our
objection, and the project went forward.  Therefore, over the last 23
years of reviewing PSD permits, we are not aware of any project that was
not built solely because of NPS or FWS AQRV concerns.”

 PAGE

 PAGE   41

This language is duplicated in the comment below that I recommend
deleting.


[Federal Register: October 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 66077]
[DOCID:fr25oc11-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4030-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Pennsylvania; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-4030-DR), dated September
12, 2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 7, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby amended to include the
Public Assistance program for the following areas among those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 12,
2011.

    Juniata County for Public Assistance.
    Berks, Bradford, Columbia, Dauphin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Luzerne,
Lycoming, Montour, Schuylkill, Snyder, Sullivan, Susquehanna, and
Wyoming Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for
Individual Assistance.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-27617 Filed 10-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P