TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

TO:	Bill Schrock, U.S. EPA/OAQPS/SPPD

FROM:	Eastern Research Group, Inc.

DATE:	August 27, 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Residual Risk Modeling File Documentation for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Introduction

      The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), promulgated maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards under a national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category on April 21, 2002 (40 CFR subpart 63, subpart GGGG). Under section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, the EPA must conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to MACT standards and determine if additional standards are needed to reduce residual risks.

      This memorandum describes the background and methodology used to develop the risk modeling file for the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, including the identification of facilities and emission sources and the development of emission estimates. This memorandum is organized as follows:

      1.0	Introduction
      2.0	Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Process
      3.0 	Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP
      4.0	Residual Risk Modeling File Background
      5.0	Facility Identification
      6.0	Facility Configuration
      7.0	Facility Emission Release Points
      8.0	Estimation of Emissions
      Appendix A -  Vegetable Oil Production Facilities Subject to the NESHAP
 Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production Process

      Vegetable oil production processes include the production of vegetable oil and meal products using direct contact between oilseeds and an organic solvent to extract oil. There are eight types of oilseeds processed using solvent extraction, including soybean, cottonseed, canola, corn germ, sunflower, safflower, peanuts, and flax; the extraction process is the same for each.  In each case, the oilseeds are crushed and mixed with a hexane-based solvent in an extractor, where the oil is dissolved in the solvent. Next, the solution is separated from the seeds and heated to evaporate the solvent in a "desolventizing" process. The evaporated solvent is then condensed, recovered, and reused in the process. The seed meal is also dried and cooled as a separate product.

      All vegetable oil extraction facilities operate some type of solvent collection and recovery system for the recovery of solvent. The solvent recovery system collects process gas streams from key process units including extractors, desolventizer-toasters, meal dryers and coolers, process evaporators, and oil/solvent distillation columns. The solvent collection and recovery system then routes the gathered process gas streams to a recovery device that generally consists of a packed-bed mineral oil scrubber and may include condensers, solvent distillation systems, and solvent storage tanks. The primary hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emitted from solvent extraction of vegetable oils is n-hexane. Emission points in vegetable oil production facilities generally include the main vent of the mineral oil recovery system, meal dryer and meal cooler vents, residual emissions from crude meal and crude oil, equipment leaks, and evaporation from equipment and storage tanks.
 Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category NESHAP

      The NESHAP for solvent extraction for vegetable oil production was proposed on May 26, 2000 (65 FR 34252), promulgated on April 21, 2001 (66 FR 19006), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart GGGG. The NESHAP regulates facilities that are major sources of HAP and that produce crude vegetable oil and meal products by removing oil from the eight listed oilseeds through direct contact with an organic solvent. The affected sources at a facility utilizing solvent extraction for vegetable oil production are the emission points associated with the continuous process equipment used for producing crude vegetable oil and meal products which may potentially release n-hexane, which is utilized as a solvent for the extraction. . The NESHAP defines the affected source in 40 CFR 63.2832 and the definition of vegetable oil production process in 40 CFR 63.2872, which describes the applicable emission units/processes as follows:

      "Vegetable oil production process means the equipment comprising a continuous process for producing crude vegetable oil and meal products, including specialty soybean products, in which oil is removed from listed oilseeds through direct contact with an organic solvent. Process equipment typically includes the following components: oilseed preparation operations (including conditioning, drying, dehulling, and cracking), solvent extractors, desolventizer-toasters, meal dryers, meal coolers, meal conveyor systems, oil distillation units, solvent evaporators and condensers, solvent recovery system (also referred to as a mineral oil absorption system), vessels storing solvent-laden materials, and crude meal packaging and storage vessels. A vegetable oil production process does not include vegetable oil refining operations (including operations such as bleaching, hydrogenation, and deodorizing) and operations that engage in additional chemical treatment of crude soybean meals produced in specialty desolventizer units (including operations such as soybean isolate production)."

      Vegetable oil production that does not use an organic solvent or that does not use any of the listed oilseeds is not subject to the NESHAP. As noted above, facilities or emissions units associated with processes that refine extracted vegetable oil, process existing (received) vegetable oil, or include additional chemical treatment are also not subject to the NESHAP.

      Because of the variability in process and solvent recovery equipment, the current NESHAP restricts plant-wide hexane emissions from each affected facility rather than requiring individual controls at each emission point.  The NESHAP includes emission limitations based on the number of gallons of HAP lost per ton of oilseeds processed. Compliance is demonstrated monthly by calculating a compliance ratio comparing the actual HAP loss to the allowable HAP loss for the previous 12 operating months. Allowable HAP loss is based on acceptable oilseed solvent loss ratios provided in the rule in gallons per ton for new and existing sources. If the facility's calculated compliance ratio is less than one (i.e., the actual HAP loss is less than the calculated allowable HAP loss), then the facility is in compliance. Determination of compliance with the requirements of subpart GGGG requires the facility to keep records of production-related parameters, including the amount of hexane purchased, used, and recovered from the oilseed extraction process, the amount of oilseed processed, and the volume fraction of each HAP exceeding one percent in the extraction solvent used.

      The rule was amended on September 1, 2004 (69 FR 53338) to acknowledge that a new low-HAP extraction solvent was introduced and in use by some facilities in the affected industry. Due to the low HAP level in the extraction solvents, facilities using this solvent would always be in compliance due to having a compliance ratio of zero. These facilities are only required to complete record keeping and reporting requirements to assure that the solvent used meets the low-HAP criteria.
 Residual Risk Modeling File Background

      For a residual risk review, section 112(f)(2) of the CAA requires the EPA to assess the health and environmental risks that remain after sources achieve compliance with MACT standards. If additional risk reductions are necessary to protect public health with an ample margin of safety or to prevent adverse environmental effects, the EPA must develop standards to address these remaining risks.

      To perform the risk analyses required by section 112(f)(2) of the CAA, the EPA identifies affected sources and conducts inhalation and multipathway modeling using emissions information available for each known source. To support the modeling analysis, the EPA collects, reviews, and compiles the emissions information into a risk modeling file that contains the following information for each affected source:

          Facility identification information: This information includes the facility name and associated identification numbers (e.g., EPA Emissions Inventory System ID), parent company or owner name, physical address and coordinates of the facility, facility operating status, and brief descriptions of the facility such as North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes.
          Facility configuration information: This information consists of emission units and emission processes. For each emission unit, the risk modeling file contains a unit identification number, description, design capacity, applicable regulatory code, and operating status. Each emission process has an assigned identification number, description, and applicable standard classification code (SCC).
          Emission release point information: This information includes the emission release points assigned to each emission unit and emission process combination. Depending on the facility configuration, multiple emission release points may be assigned to a single emission process, or multiple emission processes may be assigned to a single emission release point. Each emission release point has an assigned type (i.e., stack or fugitive) and appropriate parameters (e.g., stack height, diameter, temperature, and velocity or flow rate), in addition to latitude and longitude coordinates.
          Emissions by pollutant: Emissions by pollutant are assigned to each emission release point. Emissions are calculated as "actual", "allowable", and "acute" on an annual basis. Actual emissions represent the mass emissions that were released from the facility for a period of interest. MACT allowable emissions represent the maximum amount of emissions that the facility is permitted to release for the period of interest at the MACT emission limit. Acute emissions represent the highest emissions that could be released during the facility operating period.
          Control information: Includes information on control measures in use by the facilities. Control measures include the air pollution control devices identified for each emissions release point and are assigned to each pollutant emitted that is controlled by the device.
      The remainder of this memorandum describes the sources of data and the steps taken to identify facilities, collect and compile facility configuration information, identify emission release points, and estimate emission rates for the risk modeling file.
 Facility Identification

      To prepare the risk modeling file, multiple sources of information were reviewed to identify active facilities using solvent extraction for vegetable oil production that are subject to the NESHAP. Affected facilities were first identified through review of EPA databases, including the Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database and the National Emission Inventory (NEI) database.  To identify potentially affected facilities, the ECHO and NEI databases were queried by MACT subpart code and SIC code. The relevant search criteria are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Search Criteria for Identification of Vegetable Oil Extraction Facilities
                                Search Criteria
                          Search Criteria Description
                               Databases Queried
                                                                      MACT Code
MACT Subpart Code GGGG
ECHO, NEI
                                                                       SIC Code
2046 - Wet corn milling
2074-Cottonseed oil mills
2075-Soybean oil mills
2076-Other vegetable oil mills, excluding soybeans and cottonseed mills
2869-Dry corn milling
ECHO, NEI

      Facilities were also identified from a facility list included in the initial 2000 rulemaking effort, additional industry trade materials, online searches of state operating permit databases, and consultation with EPA regional offices. Air operating and construction permits were requested from state and regional agencies and reviewed to confirm whether facilities are subject to the NESHAP. Additional web searches (online news articles, company websites, and review of Google Earth(R) satellite and street view imagery) were conducted to verify facility acquisition or closure. Through this process, 88 vegetable oil production facilities were identified as major sources of HAP subject to Subpart GGGG. Appendix A presents a list of these vegetable oil production facilities.
 Facility Configuration

      Emission units, emission processes, stack parameters, and emissions release points to be included in the risk modeling file were identified for each facility subject to the NESHAP. Generally, emission units are meant to identify the specific equipment used within a facility process and emission processes describe the specific processes or operations within a facility. A facility may have multiple emission units as part of a single process or a single emission unit used for multiple processes.

 Identification of Emission Units, Emission Processes, and Assignment of Emission Process Groups

      For each facility, a list of the emission units and emission processes associated with vegetable oil production operations was identified using available data. The starting point used was 2014 NEI v1 Data. The NEI contains emissions data, emissions unit descriptions, process descriptions, stack parameters, stack coordinates, and other identifiers and descriptions. The NEI data was reviewed to identify affected units and processes in the source category, supplemented with additional permit and other available data (e.g., 2011 NEI Data or TRI Data), as explained in section 6.2.

      The modeling file contains only those emission records for equipment and processes identified as part of the source category, such as oilseed preparation operations (including conditioning, drying, dehulling, and cracking), solvent extractors, desolventizer-toasters, meal dryers, meal coolers, meal conveyor systems, oil distillation units, solvent evaporators and condensers, solvent recovery system (also referred to as a mineral oil absorption system), vessels storing solvent-laden materials, and crude meal packaging and storage vessels. Therefore, emissions from refining operations or additional chemical treatment, combustion emissions from process meal dryers/coolers, or other on-site activities were not included; however, emissions from these sources are accounted for in the facility-wide assessment of risk. For a very small number of facilities (five), emissions of additional HAP from collocated ethanol processing facilities or vegetable oil refining or chemical treatment operations (such as bleaching, hydrogenation, or deodorizing processes), including acrolein and acetaldehyde, may exhaust from similar stacks; although these emissions are not a result of solvent extraction and are not considered a part of the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category, they could not be easily separated from the source category emissions for modeling purposes, and therefore were included in the modeling file for a conservative estimate of risk.

      Facilities tended to report emissions data to the NEI in one of the following ways:

 Facilities reported HAP separately for each point or fugitive emission source in the vegetable oil production process (i.e., meal dryers, coolers, extractors, mineral oil stripper/solvent recovery, and solvent storage tanks);
 Facilities reported the facility's complete process solvent loss as hexane or VOC as a single emission release point (either as a stack or fugitive point). These single emission release points were representative of the facility's combined emissions and were described accordingly (e.g, "complete process solvent loss average", "extraction including solvent storage" "imitation stack" "all hexane emissions are collectively accounted for in the total hexane losses");
 In some cases, facilities provided emission unit and process data for each point or fugitive emission source emitting HAP, but entered zero emission values for this data; instead, they provided the total facility "roll up" (complete solvent loss) HAP emissions as a separate line.

      The affected emission units and processes were identified for each facility based on a review of the emission unit description, process description, SCC code, regulatory codes, and additional data provided in the 2014 NEI. The 2014 NEI data was cross-referenced against air permits for each facility to verify the emission units, processes, and stack parameters. The emissions from each identified unit and process were then assigned to an emission process group. Due to the variance in emissions reporting described above, emission process groups were developed for both emissions reported as complete process solvent loss (i.e., "facility roll-up") and individual facility processes as follows:

                            EMISSION_PROCESS_GROUP
                                  DESCRIPTION
Complete Process Solvent Loss (Facility Roll-up)
Complete Process Solvent Loss - Fugitives
Used where all hexane emissions were reported as a single facility total and assigned to a single fugitive point. Additional records may be present for separate emission units at the facility where hexane emissions are reported as 0.
Complete Process Solvent Loss - Stack
Used where all hexane emissions are reported as a single facility total and assigned to a single stack point. Additional records may be present for separate emission units at the facility where hexane emissions are reported as 0.
Additional Processes Reported (No Facility Roll-up)
Grain/Germ Dryers
Includes dryers that are used to prepare oilseed for extraction.
Cracking & Milling
Includes cracking, dehulling, and milling processes used to prepare germ or oilseeds for extraction.
Flaking & Conditioning
Includes flaking or conditioning processes used to prepare oilseeds for extraction.
Solvent Extraction
Includes emissions from solvent extraction or solvent wash operations. Applied where these emissions are reported separately from other emission processes.
Desolventizer Toaster/Dryer Cooler
Includes desolventizers and DTDC units used to remove solvent from the oilseed/flakes. Used where these emissions are reported separately from other emission processes.
Meal Dryer/Cooler
Includes meal dryers and coolers that are used following solvent extraction.
Expellers
Includes expellers from wet corn milling operations.
Mineral Oil Scrubber
Includes emissions from the mineral oil stripper vent. Used where emissions are reported separately from solvent stripping or other emission processes.
Hexane Storage Tanks
Includes solvent storage tanks that are reported separately from the extraction process.
Crude Oil Storage
Includes finished crude vegetable oil storage tanks.
Solvent Loss Fugitives
Used where fugitive emissions from solvent loss from all facility operations are reported separately from other emission units.

      Emissions from other equipment or operations outside Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production source category (e.g., boilers, tanks) that are not regulated by the NESHAP and that do not fit into these emission process groups were not included in the category risk modeling file. However, emissions from these sources are accounted for in the facility-wide assessment of risk.

 Additional Emissions Data Relied on For the Modeling File

      For a limited number of facilities, the 2014 NEI data was supplemented with additional emissions data from the 2011 NEI, TRI Data, and data from state emission inventories. The 2014 NEI data was supplemented in the following situations:

      Identification of Facility Emissions Not Reported to the 2014 NEI. Nine facilities did not appear to report HAP emissions to the 2014 NEI. Two of these facilities were able to be identified in 2011 NEI Data. The facility operating status flags were assessed and emissions from the 2011 NEI were included in the modeling file where appropriate (e.g., were the facility and process status flags indicated that the shutdown was temporary) and assigned to emission process groups following the methodology above. These records are included in the modeling file to provide a more conservative sample of the emissions. These facilities may be identified by their facility IDs (8120911 and 5612711) and the assigned "Start Date" of "20110101". For six facilities, data for hexane emissions was supplemented based on 2014 TRI data for facilities included on the facility lists. These facilities may be identified by the assigned "Data Source" of "TRI". The TRI emissions were reported by NAICS code and were assigned to either the "complete process solvent loss  -  stack" or the "complete process solvent loss  - fugitive" emission process groups, based on whether the emissions reported to TRI were identified as stack or fugitive. For one facility (Cargill  -  Blair, NE), the emission units and processes to which the emissions data reported to the NEI were assigned were unclear. For this facility, we developed inputs for the modeling file by identifying individual emission units, emission release points, and assigned emissions by pollutant based on a 2015 Emission Inventory prepared for the State of Nebraska and additional information provided by the facility. This facility may be identified by the Facility ID 10701611 and the assigned "Start Date" of "20150101".

      Identification of Facilities Only Reporting VOC emissions. The primary HAP emitted by vegetable oil production facilities is hexane, and hexane is the only HAP reported for the majority of facilities. However, nine facilities did not report hexane emissions in the NEI but instead reported solvent loss as VOC. The reporting of criteria air pollutants to NEI is required from all state, local, and tribal agencies, while the reporting of HAP is voluntary. All emission records where hexane is reported as VOC were reviewed and included in the modeling file with the pollutant code and HAP category fields updated to reflect hexane emissions, accordingly, based on the assumption that all VOC emitted is HAP. The solvent used in vegetable oil production facilities is 100 percent volatile organic compounds and may range from less than 1 percent to 88 percent hexane. Because the actual hexane content for the solvents used by these facilities is unknown, assuming that all solvent loss reported as VOC is hexane provides the most conservative estimate of risk. Additionally, we reviewed 2011 NEI data to determine if hexane was reported in lieu of VOC in an earlier data year and compared these emissions to determine the most conservative representation of emissions.

      In these cases, we used the information provided in the NEI and additional permit and inventory data to assign the appropriate emission unit ids, process ids, emission release points, SCCs, and stack parameters to create records for the modeling file (see sections 6.3 and 6.4 for additional information). .

 Development of Emission Release Point Coordinates

      Following identification and assignment of emission units, emission processes, and emissions process groups, specific exhaust locations for emissions units and processes (i.e., emission release points) for each facility were added to the risk modeling file. Emission release points are assigned to each emission unit and emission process combination, depending on a facility's configuration (e.g., a single emission process could have multiple emission release points, or multiple emission processes could have a single emission release point). For example, if an emission unit for a process exhausts to multiple stacks, the emission unit was assigned an emission release point for each stack. In the risk modeling file, the emission release point type (e.g., stack or fugitive) was assigned to each record based on review of the available data from the 2014 NEI, air permits, and facility inventories.

      For each emission release point, emission release point coordinates were developed from 2014 NEI Data, ECHO, and Google Earth(R). The NEI Data provides latitude and longitude coordinates, which were confirmed in ECHO and Google Earth(R). For each stack emission release point, the risk modeling file must have stack parameters including the height, diameter, temperature, exit gas velocity (or flow rate), and latitude and longitude coordinates. The source of the stack parameters are discussed in section 6.4 of this document.

 Development of Stack Parameters

      Stack parameters (stack height, diameter, exit gas temp, exit gas flow rate, and exit gas velocity) were developed using NEI data and available permit data. The 2014 NEI data was used as a starting point. Parameters were confirmed or updated based on permit and other inventory records where incomplete. Permit data was used in place of the 2014 NEI data where the permit was newer (issued post-2014) or the data available in the permit was more complete than the 2014 NEI data.

      For many facilities, stack point parameters were missing or incomplete in the NEI data. Where stack point parameters were missing or incomplete, EPA populated the stack parameters using available permit or inventory data, calculated parameters such as velocity and flow rate based on the data available, calculated industry average values for missing stack parameters such as temperature, stack height, or stack diameter, or assigned modeling defaults. The following hierarchy was used to assign stack parameters for each emission unit and process id:

 NEI Data
 Other state inventory data
 Air permits
 Calculated stack parameters
 Calculated industry average values
 RTR Modeling Defaults (SCC or National Defaults).

   Calculated parameters or modeling defaults were used as follows:

 Where only partial stack parameters (e.g., stack diameter and exit gas velocity) were available, additional stack parameters (e.g., exit gas flow rate) were calculated as needed.

 If a permit identified a stack as present but no stack parameters were available, industry average values were developed for stack height, diameter, exit gas temp, and exit gas velocity based on non-zero values for similar emission process groups. The exit gas flow rate was then calculated based on the industry average values. Industry average values were developed for the "complete process solvent loss  -  stack" and "meal dryer/cooler" emission process groups and were applied to 8 of 88 facilities.

 Where insufficient data existed to calculate an industry average value, RTR modeling SCC defaults were used. This applies to one conventional soybean processing facility that reported non-zero emissions of HAP from flaking and bean conditioning operations to the NEI (SCC code 30200787) without associated stack parameters. The remaining facilities reporting non-zero emissions from flaking and bean conditioning operations with available stack parameters were wet corn milling operations. Due to variations in conditioning operations at soybean and wet-corn milling operations, we determined that the RTR modeling SCC default would likely be more representative of stack conditions for the soybean facility rather than a calculated industry average value.

      For facilities only reporting emissions as "complete process solvent loss", emissions were assigned to either a stack (if a stack was identified in the 2014 NEI data or a permit) or a fugitive vent. Due to the nature of vegetable oil solvent recovery processes and presence of a solvent recovery system and scrubber, its assumed that these emissions would largely emit from a single stack or vent. Complete solvent loss emissions that were identified as stack emissions were assigned stack parameters following the hierarchy above. Complete solvent loss emissions that were identified as fugitive emissions source were treated as fugitive vent sources and the stack parameters were assigned modeling defaults for fugitive height and exit gas temperature if no parameters were present.

      Stack default flag codes were assigned to each emission release point in the modeling file to indicate where stack parameters were updated and identify which methods were used to update the records. The stack default flag codes were updated following the QA checks discussed in section 8 of this memorandum.
 Estimation of Emissions

      To model individual pollutants for affected facilities, the mass emission rates of pollutants emitted from each emission unit and process at the affected facilities were assigned to each emission release point. The mass emission rates for each emissions release point must include annual actual emissions in tons per year, allowable emissions in tons per year, and acute emissions in tons per hour. Actual annual emissions are the emissions estimated to be released by the facility assuming the facility's standard operating hours and levels of control. Allowable emissions are the emissions that each facility is capable of releasing based on the emissions reduction standards in the Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Production NESHAP or permit limitations. Acute emissions reflect the highest emissions that may be released by a facility and are used to estimate acute risks. Sections 7.1 through 7.3 of this document describe the methodology for estimating the actual, allowable, and acute emissions from the drying and curing processes and binder application processes.
 Estimated Actual Emissions

      Actual emission estimates for each affected facility were based on the 2014 and 2011 NEI data, TRI data, and the inventories provided by individual facilities, as described in section 6.0 of this memorandum.  Emission rates were provided separately for one facility (Cargill  -  Blair, NE), due to discrepancies in the data reported to the NEI. For this facility, all entries in the modeling file were created with individual emission units, emission release points, and assigned emissions by pollutant based on a 2015 Nebraska Emission Inventory and additional information provided by the source.
 Estimated Allowable Emissions
      Annual allowable emissions were determined by estimating an average emissions multiplier for the industry. Permits for a subset (approximately 20 percent) of facilities in the source category were reviewed to determine annual allowable emissions based on individual permit limits that demonstrated compliance with the standards (in some cases, where permit limits are more stringent than the MACT). The annual allowable emissions from each facility permit were then compared to the actual emissions reported to the NEI from the facility to develop an allowance ratio. The calculated ratio of allowable (permitted) emissions to actual emissions is 3.139:1. The ratio was subsequently applied to the actual emissions of the remaining facilities to estimate the allowable emissions (Actual Emissions (tpy) x 3.139).
 Estimated Acute Emissions
      Annual acute emissions were calculated using a conservative default multiplier of 10 (Actual Emissions (tpy) x 10).
 Quality Assurance

The following quality assurance activities were also performed for each modeling file record:

 Records were reviewed for potential duplicates and to assess status flags for process ids, emission release points, and emission units to ascertain whether the unit, process, and release point remain in operation. Emission records were retained where it was not clear that the emission unit, process, or release point is permanently closed, or where industry has identified a more recent closure, as a conservative estimate of emissions.
 Coordinates for each emission release point were reviewed against facility addresses in Google Earth to determine whether they are situated on facility property over the expected stacks, fugitive vents, fugitive area, and fugitive volume sources. In several instances the coordinates were revised to align with specific stack locations identified using Google Earth.
 Stack parameters were reviewed to ensure they complied with certain consistency checks. For example, the relationship between stack velocity, stack flow rate, and stack diameter is: flow rate = velocity * surface area. In instances where this check did not pass, either the flow rate or velocity was revised.

     Appendix A: Vegetable Oil Production Facilities Subject to the NESHAP
                                   Facility
                                     State
                              Oilseeds Processed
                             Number of VOPP Lines
Bunge North America - Decatur
                                      AL
Soybean
1
Cargill, Inc. - Guntersville
                                      AL
Soybean
1
Sessions Company, Inc
                                      AL
Peanut
1
Planters Cotton Oil
                                      AR
Cottonseed
1
Riceland Foods, Inc.
                                      AR
Soybean (conventional)
1
Adams Specialty Oils
                                      CA
Soybean, canola, safflower, sunflower (specialty)
1
J.G. Boswell Company
                                      CA
Cottonseed, safflower
1
ADM - Valdosta
                                      GA
Soybean, Large Cottonseed
2
Cargill - Gainesville
                                      GA
Soybean (conventional)
1
Golden Peanut - Dawson
                                      GA
Peanut
1
ADM Bioprocessing - Clinton
                                      IA
Wet corn milling
1
ADM Soybean Processing  -  Des Moines
                                      IA
Soybean (conventional)
1
Ag Processing, Inc - Eagle Grove
                                      IA
Soybean
1
Ag Processing, Inc - Emmetsburg
                                      IA
Soybean (conventional, specialty, and combination)
1
Ag Processing, Inc - Sergeant Bluff
                                      IA
Soybean (conventional)
1
Ag Processing, Inc - Mason City
                                      IA
Soybean (conventional)
1
Ag Processing, Inc - Manning
                                      IA
Soybean (conventional)
1
Ag Processing, Inc - Sheldon
                                      IA
Soybean
1
Bunge North America, Inc
                                      IA
Soybean (conventional)
1
Cargill, Inc.  -  Des Moines
                                      IA
Soybean (Closed)
1
Cargill, Inc. - Eddyville
                                      IA
Wet corn milling
1
Cargill, Inc. - Cedar Rapids (East)
                                      IA
Soybean (specialty)
1
Cargill, Inc. - Cedar Rapids (West)
                                      IA
Soybean (conventional)
1
Cargill, Inc. - Sioux City
                                      IA
Soybean
1
Cargill, Inc. - Iowa Falls
                                      IA
Soybean
1
CHS Oilseed Processing
                                      IA
Soybean (specialty)
1
ADM - Quincy
                                      IL
Soybean, Wet corn milling
2
Archer Daniels Midland Co  -  Decatur (East Plant)
                                      IL
Corn germ, Soybean
1
Archer Daniels Midland Co  -  Decatur (West Plant)
                                      IL
Corn germ, Soybean (specialty)
2
Bunge Milling - Danville
                                      IL
Corn germ, Soybean
2
Bunge North America, Inc. - Cairo
                                      IL
Soybean
1
Cargill, Inc. - Bloomington
                                      IL
Soybean (conventional and specialty)
1
Solae  -  Gibson City
                                      IL
Soybean (conventional and specialty)
1
Incobrasa Industries Ltd
                                      IL
Soybean
1
Ingredion Inc. - Argo Plant
                                      IL
Wet corn milling
1
Viobin USA
                                      IL
Soybean (conventional and specialty)
1
Archer Daniels Midland - Frankfort
                                      IN
Soybean (conventional)
1
Bunge Ltd - Morristown
                                      IN
Soybean (conventional) (Closed)
1
Bunge North America (East), Ltd
                                      IN
Soybean (conventional)
1
Cargill, Inc. - LaFayette
                                      IN
Soybean - conventional and specialty
1
Consolidated Barge and Grain Co
                                      IN
Soybean, Dry corn milling
1
Louis Dreyfus Agricultural Industries LLC
                                      IN
Soybean (conventional, specialty, and combination)
1
Rose Acre Farms, Inc.
                                      IN
Soybean
1
Bunge Oilseed Processing Plant -Emporia
                                      KS
Soybean
1
Cargill, Inc. - Wichita
                                      KS
Soybean
1
Northern Sun - Goodland
                                      KS
Sunflower, Canola (combination)
1
Owensboro Grain
                                      KY
Soybean (conventional)
1
Bunge Corporation - Destrehan
                                      LA
Soybean
1
Perdue Salisbury Feed and Grain - Salisbury
                                      MD
Soybean (conventional, specialty, and combination)
1
Zeeland Farm Soya
                                      MI
Soybean (conventional)
1
ADM - Mankato
                                      MN
Soybean (conventional)
1
ADM  -  Red Wing
                                      MN
Soybean (conventional)
1
Ag Processing Inc - Dawson
                                      MN
Soybean (conventional)
1
CHS Fairmont
                                      MN
Soybean
1
CHS Hallock - Kennedy
                                      MN
Canola/rapeseed
1
CHS Oilseed Processing - Mankato
                                      MN
Soybean (conventional, specialty, and combination)
1
Minnesota Soybean Processors
                                      MN
Soybean, rapeseed (conventional)
1
ADM Soybean Processing - Mexico
                                      MO
Soybean (conventional)
1
Ag Processing Inc. - Saint Joseph
                                      MO
Soybean (conventional, specialty, and combination)
1
Cargill, Inc.  -  Kansas City
                                      MO
Soybean
1
Prairie Pride, Inc.
                                      MO
Soybean
1
Delta Oil Mill
                                      MS
Cottonseed (Closed)
1
Express Grain Terminals LLC
                                      MS
Soybean, Corn, and other grains
1
Cargill, Inc. - Fayetteville
                                      NC
Soybean (conventional)
1
Cargill, Inc. - Raleigh
                                      NC
Soybean (Closed)
1
Perdue Farms Inc.  -  Cofield
                                      NC
Soybean (conventional)
1
ADM Northern Sun Division - Enderlin
                                      ND
Soybean, sunflower
1
ADM Processing - Velva
                                      ND
Canola/rapeseed
1
Cargill, Inc.  -  West Fargo
                                      ND
Soybean
1
ADM - Fremont
                                      NE
Soybean
1
ADM Soybean Processing - Lincoln
                                      NE
Soybean
1
AGP Ag Processing, Inc. - Hastings
                                      NE
Soybean
1
Cargill Corn Milling NA - Blair
                                      NE
Wet corn milling.
1
Archer Daniels Midland - Fostoria
                                      OH
Soybean (conventional)
1
Bunge North America - Bellevue
                                      OH
Soybean - conventional, soybean - specialty, ethanol soybean extraction
1
Bunge Oilseed Processing - Delphos
                                      OH
Soybean - conventional and specialty
1
Cargill Soy Processing - Sidney
                                      OH
Soybean (conventional)
1
Producers Cooperative Oil Mill
                                      OK
Canola, sunflower, peanut, corn germ (Closed)
1
Archer Daniels Midland Soybean Div - Kershaw
                                      SC
Soybean (conventional)
1
Hartsville Oil Mill - Darlington
                                      SC
Cottonseed, peanut
1
South Dakota Soybean Processors
                                      SD
Soybean (combination)
1
Archer Daniels Midland Company - Memphis
                                      TN
Large Cottonseed
1
Cargill, Inc. - Memphis
                                      TN
Wet corn milling
1
ADM/Southern Cotton Oil Co - Lubbock
                                      TX
Cottonseed
1
ADM/Southern Cotton Oil Co - Richmond
                                      TX
Large Cottonseed, Corn Germ
1
Pyco Industries Inc.  -  Avenue A
                                      TX
Cottonseed
1
Pyco Industries Inc.  -  East 50[th]
                                      TX
Cottonseed (Closed)
1
Valley Co-op Oil Mill
                                      TX
Cottonseed
1
Perdue Farms Incorporated  -  Chesapeake Grain
                                      VA
Soybean (conventional)
1


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66715-66717]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27809]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0748; FRL-9483-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Monthly Progress Reports; Submission of Invoices, and
Related Information (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on April 30, 2012. Before submitting the ICR to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-

OARM-2011-0748, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0748, OEI Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of three (3) copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center-Attention OEI Docket, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington DC 20004 Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-
2011-0748 EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Valentino, PTOD, OAM (3802R),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0748, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OEI Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the 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 in this document.

What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0748
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
businesses and organizations performing contracts for the EPA where
submission of monthly progress reports, invoices and related
information is required.
    Title: Monthly Progress Reports. Submission of Invoices, and
Related Information (Renewal)
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1039.13, OMB Control No. 2030-0005.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on April 30,
2012. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Appropriate Government surveillance of contractor
performance is required to give reasonable assurance that efficient
methods and effective cost controls are being used for various cost
reimbursable and fixed rate contracts. On a monthly basis, the Agency
requires contractors to provide the project officer

with a report detailing (a) what was accomplished on the contract
during that period, (b) what remains to be done, and (c) expenditures
for the same period of time. Responses to the information collection
are mandatory for contractors and are required for the contractors to
receive monthly payments.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; 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.
    EPA estimates that each contractor monthly response will take
approximately 25 hours. EPA anticipates approximately 203 total active
contracts will be affected, multiplied by 12 submissions per year
equals 2,436 submissions per year. Each collection is estimated to cost
$2,213 based on contractor personnel performing individual tasks
required for information gathering and submission. The anticipated
2,436 submissions per year are estimated at 60,900 total hours and
$5,391,258 annual cost.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a decrease of 4,872 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by, due mainly to improved tracking software and increasing
familiarity with EPA reporting requirements.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: October 19, 2011.
John R. Bashista,
Director, Office of Acquisition Management.
[FR Doc. 2011-27809 Filed 10-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                     EPA Meeting with Airlines for America
                               January 26, 2012

Attendees:
EPA OUST:
Mark Barolo, Liz McDermott, Linda Gerber, Paul Miller, Tim Roberts, Erin Knighton, Cho Yi Kwan, Dave Hamnett

Airlines for America:
Grant Smith, Burns and McDonnell Engineering
Steve Barker, Airlines for America
Tom Richichi, Beveridge and Diamond
Bethany French, Beveridge and Diamond
Tim Pohle, Airlines for America

At this meeting EPA and the Airlines for America discussed the proposed changes to the UST regulations.  The discussion focused on the proposed changes to previously deferred airport hydrant systems and the universe of commercial airports that would fall under the proposed regulations.


(i) Ensure that the rated load capacity of the cage is at least 250
pounds for each occupant hoisted, or actual weight if the person
exceeds 250 pounds; and
    (ii) Hoist at any one time no more than the number of occupants for
which the cage is designed.
    (f) Worker notification. The employer must post a sign on each
personnel cage notifying workers of the following conditions:
    (i) The standard rated load (in pounds), as determined by the
initial static drop-test specified by Condition 11(g) (``Static drop-
tests'');
    (ii) The designated number of occupants for which the cage is
designed; and
    (iii) Any reduction in rated load capacity (in pounds) if
applicable (e.g., due to a change in conditions of the specific job).
    (g) Static drop-tests. The employer must:
    (i) Conduct static drop tests of each personnel cage that comply
with the static drop-test procedures provided in Section 13
(``Inspections and Tests'') of American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) standard A10.22-2007 (``Safety Requirements for Rope-Guided and
Non-Guided Workers' Hoists'');
    (ii) Perform the initial and subsequent static drop-tests at the
rated load of the personnel cage; and
    (iii) Use a personnel cage for raising or lowering workers only
when no damage occurred to the components of the cage as a result of
the static drop-tests.
    (h) Platform guides. The employer must provide:
    (i) Adequate guards, beveled or cone-shaped attachments, or
equivalent devices at the underside of the working platform or on the
cage to prevent catching when the cage passes through the platform at
the top landing; and
    (ii) Sufficient clearance or adequate guarding to prevent catching
or snagging when the cage passes through intermediate landings.

12. Safety Clamps

    (a) Fit to the guide ropes. The employer must:
    (i) Fit appropriately designed and constructed safety clamps to the
guide ropes; and
    (ii) Ensure that the safety clamps do not damage the guide ropes
when the cage is in motion.
    (b) Attach to the personnel cage. The employer must attach safety
clamps to each personnel cage for gripping the guide ropes.
    (c) Operation. The employer must ensure that the safety clamps
attached to the personnel cage:
    (i) Operate on the ``broken rope principle'';
    (ii) Be capable of stopping and holding a personnel cage that is
carrying 100 percent of its maximum rated load and traveling at its
maximum allowable speed if the hoist rope breaks at the footblock; and

    (iii) Use a pre-determined and pre-set clamping force (i.e., the
``spring compression force'') for each hoist system.
    (d) Maintenance. The employer must keep the safety-clamp assemblies
clean and functional at all times.

13. Overhead Protection

    The employer must provide overhead protection for workers to access
the bottom landing of the hoist system.

14. Emergency-Escape Device

    (a) Location. For workers using a personnel cage, the employer must
provide an emergency-escape device, adequate to allow each worker being
hoisted to escape, in at least one of the following locations:
    (i) In the personnel cage, provided that the device is long enough
to reach the bottom landing from the highest possible escape point; or
    (ii) At the bottom landing, provided that a means is available in
the personnel cage for an occupant to raise the device to the highest
possible escape point.
    (b) Operating instructions. The employer must ensure that written
instructions for operating the emergency-escape device are attached to
the device.
    (c) Training. The employer must provide effective and documented
training, as specified by Condition 6(a)(iii) above, to each worker who
uses a personnel cage for transportation on how to operate the
emergency-escape device so as to effect a safe descent in case of an
emergency.

15. Personnel Platforms and Boatswain's Chairs

    The employer must:
    (a) Comply with the applicable requirements specified by paragraphs
(b) through (r) of 29 CFR 1926.1431, Hoisting personnel, when electing
to replace the personnel cage with a personnel platform in accordance
with Condition 2(g)(i);
    (b) Comply with the applicable requirements specified by 29 CFR
1926.1431(s) and 1926.452(o)(3) when electing to replace the personnel
platform with a boatswain's chair in accordance with Condition
2(g)(ii).

16. Protecting Workers From Fall and Shearing Hazards

    The employer must:
    (a) Ensure that the hoist areas meet the requirements of 29 CFR
1926.501(b)(3) for hoist areas;
    (b) Protect each worker in a hoist-way area from falling six (6)
feet or more to lower levels by using guardrail systems that meet the
requirements of 29 CFR 1926.502(b) or personal fall-arrest systems that
meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.502(d);
    (c) Ensure that workers using personnel cages secure their fall-
arrest systems to attachment points located inside the cage if the door
of the personnel cage needs to be opened for emergency escape; and
    (d) Provide safe access to and from personnel cages.
    (e) Shearing hazards. The employer must:
    (i) Provide workers who use personnel platforms or boatswain's
chairs with instruction on the shearing hazards posed by the hoist
system (e.g., work platforms, scaffolds), and the need to keep their
limbs or other body parts clear of these hazards during hoisting
operations;
    (ii) Provide the instruction on shearing and struck-by hazards:
    (A) Before a worker uses a personnel platform or boatswain's chair
at the worksite; and
    (B) Periodically, and as necessary, thereafter, including whenever
a worker demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the hazards or how to
avoid the hazards, a modification occurs to an existing shearing or
struck-by hazard, or a new shearing or struck-by hazard develops at the
worksite; and
    (iii) Attach a readily visible warning to each personnel platform
and boatswain's chair notifying workers in a language they understand
of potential shearing hazards they may encounter during hoisting
operations, and that uses the following (or equivalent) wording:
    (A) For personnel platforms: ``Warning--To avoid serious injury,
keep your hands, arms, feet, legs, and other parts of your body inside
this platform while it is in motion''; and
    (B) For boatswain's chairs: ``Warning--To avoid serious injury, do
not extend your hands, arms, feet, legs, or other parts your body from
the side or to the front of this chair while it is in motion.''

17. Exclusion Zone

    The employer must:
    (a) Establish a clearly designated exclusion zone around the bottom
landing of the hoist system designed to restrict the zone to authorized
persons only;
    (b) The periphery of the exclusion zone must be:
    (i) Designed to keep unauthorized persons out of the zone;
    (ii) Well defined by visible boundary demarcation;
    (iii) Established with entry and exit points; and
    (iv) Posted with readily visible warning signs limiting access.
    (c) During personnel hoisting, prohibit any worker from entering
the exclusion zone except authorized persons involved in accessing a
personnel cage, and then only when the device is at the bottom landing
and not in operation (i.e., when the drive components of the hoist
machine are disengaged and the braking mechanism is properly applied);
and
    (d) When hoisting material with the personnel hoist system,
prohibit any worker from entering the exclusion zone except to access a
material-transport device, and then only when the device is near the
bottom landing for the purpose of loading, attaching, landing, or
tagging the load.

18. Inspections, Tests, and Accident Prevention

    (a) The employer must initiate and maintain a program of frequent
and regular inspections of the hoist system and associated work areas
as required by 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2) by:
    (i) Ensuring that a competent person conducts daily visual checks
and weekly inspections of the hoist system, and an inspection before
reuse of the system following periods of idleness exceeding one week;
    (ii) Ensuring that the competent person conducts tests and
inspections of the hoist system in accordance with 29 CFR
1926.552(c)(15); and
    (iii) Ensuring that a competent person conducts weekly inspections
of the work areas associated with the use of the hoist system.
    (b) If the competent person determines that the equipment
constitutes a safety hazard, the employer must remove the equipment
from service and not return the equipment to service until the employer
corrects the hazardous condition and has the correction approved by a
qualified person.
    (c) The employer must maintain at the jobsite, for the duration of
the job, records of all tests and inspections of the hoist system, as
well as associated corrective actions and repairs.

19. Welding

    (a) The employer must ensure that only welders qualified in
accordance with the requirements of the American Welding Society weld
components of the hoist system. Accordingly, these welders must meet
the qualification requirements of American Welding Society (AWS) D1.1
Structural Welding Code--Steel, or AWS D1.2 Structural Welding Code--
Aluminum, as applicable.

    (b) The employer must ensure that these welders:
    (i) Are familiar with the weld grades, types, and materials
specified in the design of the system; and
    (ii) Perform the welding tasks in accordance with 29 CFR part 1926,
subpart J (``Welding and Cutting'').

20. OSHA Notification

    (a) To assist OSHA in administering the conditions of this
variance, the employer must exercise due diligence in notifying the
Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities (OTPCA) at
OSHA's national headquarters, or the appropriate State-Plan Office, of:
    (i) Any chimney-related construction operation using the conditions
specified herein, including the location of the operation and the date
the operation will commence, at least 15 calendar days prior to
commencing the operation;
    (ii) Any emergency operation or short-notice project using the
conditions specified herein, and when 15 days are not available before
start of work, as soon as possible after the employer knows when the
operation will commence. This information must include the location and
date of the operation;
    (b) The employer can notify OTPCA at OSHA's national headquarters
of pending chimney-related construction operations by:
    (i) Telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>;
    (ii) Facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
    (iii) Email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (c) To assist OSHA in administering the conditions of this
variance, the employer must exercise due diligence by informing OTPCA
at OSHA's national headquarters as soon as possible after it has
knowledge that it will:
    (i) Cease to do business;
    (ii) Change the location and address of the main office for
managing the activities covered by this variance; or
    (iii) Transfer the activities covered by this variance to a
successor company.
    (d) OSHA must approve the transfer of this variance to a successor
company.

VII. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, authorized the preparation of
this notice. OSHA is issuing this notice under the authority specified
by 29 U.S.C. 655, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (76 FR 3912;
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part 1905.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 24, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2013-23625 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41611-41612]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-2191-000]

Apollo Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Apollo Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket

authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities
and assumptions of liability, is July 11, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: June 21, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13612 Filed 6-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38411-38412]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0536]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Charles River, Boston, MA,
Public Event

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Craigie Bridge across the Charles River, mile 1.0, at Boston,
Massachusetts. The deviation is necessary to facilitate public safety
during the Boston Pops Fireworks Spectacular, by allowing the bridge to
remain in the closed position

to evacuate pedestrian traffic after the conclusion of the public
event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 11 p.m. on July 4, 2010,
through 1 a.m. on July 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0536 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0536 in the
``Keyword'' and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. John W. McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Craigie Bridge, across the Charles River
at mile 1.0, at Boston, Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the
closed position of 13.5 feet at normal pool elevation above the Charles
River Dam. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at
33 CFR 117.591(e).
    The waterway is predominantly a recreational waterway supporting
various size vessels. This yearly holiday event and the annual short
term bridge closure necessary to facilitate the evacuation of the large
number of pedestrians viewing the fireworks display are well known to
local boating interests and no objections have been received in past
years.
    The owner of the bridge, the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation (Mass DOT), requested a temporary deviation to
facilitate public safety during this public event, the 2010 Boston Pops
Fireworks Spectacular.
    Under this temporary deviation, in effect from 11 p.m. on July 4,
2010 through 1 a.m. on July 5, 2010, the Craigie Bridge at mile 1.0,
across the Charles River at Boston, Massachusetts, may remain in the
closed position.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may
do so at all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 22, 2010.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-16117 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37950]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0360]

Special Local Regulation; Eleventh Coast Guard District Annual
Marine Events

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Enforcement of Regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the San Diego Maritime Museum
Tall Ship Festival of Sail special local regulations during this year's
event on August 29, 2014 through September 1, 2014. This event occurs
on the navigable waters of the San Diego Bay in San Diego, CA. These
special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of
the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels of the boat parade,
and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period,
persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on August 29, 2014
through September 1, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Petty Officer Giacomo Terrizzi, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33
CFR 100.1101 in support of San Diego Maritime Museum Tall Ship Festival
of Sail (Item 15 on Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.1101), held on a weekend in
September. The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations
on the San Diego Bay in San Diego, CA on Friday August 29, 2014 through
Monday September 1, 2014 from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through or anchoring within
this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or
his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other
Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in the patrol and
notification of the regulation.
    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33
CFR 100.1101. In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.
    If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated
representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced
for the full duration stated on this notice, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with
the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated
area.

    Dated: June 5, 2014.
J.A. Janszen,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2014-15543 Filed 7-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P