[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28220-28221]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 8015-005]

Notice of Application for Temporary Amendment and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests; North Eastern Wisconsin
Hydro, LLC.

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Temporary Amendment.
    b. Project No.: 8015-005.
    c. Date Filed: June 11, 2018.
    d. Applicant: North Eastern Wisconsin Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Shawano Paper Mills Dam Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Wolf River in Shawano
County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Melissa Rondou, Eagle Creek Renewable
Energy, 116 N State St., P.O. Box 167, Neshkoro, WI 54960; telephone:
(920) 293-4628 ext. 347.
    i. FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
email address: [email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 15 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail a copy to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Please include
the project number (P-8015-005) on any comments or motions filed.
    k. Description of Request: The exemptee is seeking a temporary
amendment to operate the project at a target elevation of 802.9 feet
mean sea level (msl), or 0.4 foot above the authorized target elevation
of 802.5 feet msl. The exemptee would continue to operate within the
authorized elevation range of 801.83 feet msl and 803.17 feet msl. The
exemptee states the amendment is necessary to address recreation and
possible public safety concerns when operating the project at the
authorized target elevation. The proposed temporary amendment would end
no later than November 15, 2018.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO
INTERVENE as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and

the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions
to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests should relate to project works which
are the subject of the amendment application. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an
intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: June 12, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12949 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 88)]
[Notices]
[Page 24968]
[DOCID:fr06my08-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RM05-25-000; RM05-17-000]

Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission
Service; Notice of Extension of Time

April 29, 2008.
    On April 17, 2008, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) submitted an additional request for an extension of time for
public utilities to modify reliability standards related to the
calculation of Available Transfer Capability (ATC) in compliance with
Order No. 890 and Order No. 693, currently required by May 9, 2008.\1\
NERC states that five of the ATC-related reliability standards (MOD-
001, MOD-008, MOD-028, MOD-029 and MOD-030) will be completed by August
29, 2008 and expects that work on the sixth reliability standard
related to Capacity Benefit Margin (MOD-004) will be competed by
November 21, 2008. NERC explains that this additional time is needed to
adequately address the concerns raised by the industry regarding the
need to fully vet and vote for these reliability standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Extension of Time, Docket Nos. RM05-17-000, et
al. (Dec. 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that public utilities
are granted an extension of time to modify, working through NERC, the
reliability standards related to the calculation of ATC as follows:
MOD-001, MOD-008, MOD-028, MOD-029, and MOD-030 shall be submitted on
or before August 29, 2008 and MOD-004 shall be submitted on or before
November 21, 2008. Public utilities are also granted an extension of
time to and including November 27, 2008, to develop, through the North
American Energy Standards Board (NAESB), business practices that
support the revisions to the NERC reliability standards MOD-001, MOD-
008, MOD-028, MOD-029, and MOD-030 and an extension of time to and
including February 19, 2009, to develop, through NAESB, business
practices that complement the revisions to the NERC reliability
standard MOD-004.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-9905 Filed 5-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10582-10584]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03974]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71575; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-054]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to a Capacity Management Plan

February 19, 2014.

I. Introduction

    On December 24, 2013, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt a Capacity Management
Plan (``Plan'') for the Alternative Display Facility (``ADF'') and to
amend the ADF Certification Record (``Certification''). The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
January 8, 2014.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the proposed
rule change. This order grants approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71224 (Jan. 2,
2014), 79 FR 1414 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The ADF is a quotation collection and trade reporting facility that
provides ADF Market Participants the ability to post quotations,
display orders and report transactions in NMS stocks \4\ for submission
to the Securities Information Processors (``SIPs'') for consolidation
and dissemination to vendors and other market participants. In
addition, the ADF delivers real-time data to FINRA for regulatory
purposes, including enforcement of requirements imposed by Regulation
NMS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).
    \5\ See 17 CFR 242.600 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that the ADF has sufficient capacity to handle the volume
of quote, order and trade data submitted to the ADF without maintaining
unused data capacity, FINRA proposes to adopt the Plan for those FINRA
members that opt to utilize the ADF for quoting and trade reporting.
According to FINRA, the proposed Plan is similar to the approach of
other data plans, notably the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (``CTA
Plan'') and the Consolidated Quotation Plan (``CQ Plan''; together,
``CTA/CQ Plans''),\6\ which serve as the consolidated data plans for
securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange, BATS, NYSE Arca, NYSE
MKT and other regional exchange-listed securities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The CTA/CQ Plans and the Unlisted Trading Privileges Plan
are collectively referred to as the ``NMS data plans.''
    \7\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 1414.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Plan, each ADF Trading Center would complete an
initial ADF Trading Center Capacity Certification process,\8\ including
testing its connectivity to the ADF. In addition, each ADF Trading
Center would submit volume projections for current and future peak data
reporting levels on a quarterly basis, and on demand from FINRA.\9\
Specifically, the Plan would provide a timeframe by which ADF Trading
Centers submit initial and final volume projections for the next two
calendar quarters, with final volume projections tested and certified
by FINRA in the event of a capacity upgrade. The Plan also would
provide ADF Trading Centers with the ability to increase and decrease
their capacity projections for the second quarter, subject to certain
limitations, in the event that their actual capacity usage deviates
from their projected capacity usage. In addition, under the Plan, FINRA
would honor an ADF Trading Center's capacity requests and build out to
support the ADF Trading Center's

peak projected capacity requirements. Each ADF Trading Center, however,
would still partake in quarterly volume tests before it is certified to
a specific volume level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Each ADF Trading Center would also be required to complete
an annual recertification.
    \9\ ADF Trading Centers would submit separate volume projections
for CTA securities and UTP securities, and project their volume for
quotations, media trade reports, total trade reports, and order
reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan would also set forth fees for excess and shortfall
capacity usage, and provides that FINRA would pass through any
penalties incurred under the NMS data plans among the ADF Trading
Centers that exceed their projected message traffic.\10\ However, FINRA
would not assess the excess or shortfall capacity usage fees for the
first quarter during which an ADF Trading Center begins operating on
the ADF. If an ADF Trading Center begins operations mid-quarter, FINRA
would waive these fees only for the remainder of that quarter.
Similarly, FINRA would not assess any SIP penalties for the first
quarter during which an ADF Trading Center begins operating on the ADF
if it exceeds its projected message traffic during this time. If an ADF
Trading Center begins operations mid-quarter, FINRA would waive any SIP
capacity penalties only for the remainder of that quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FINRA is proposing to codify the excess fees set forth in
the Plan as new FINRA Rule 7581, and the shortfall fees as new FINRA
Rule 7582. FINRA also proposes to codify the provision in the Plan
providing for the pass-through of any SIP penalties as new FINRA
Rule 7583.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under the Plan, FINRA would be able to make mid-
quarter extraordinary system upgrades to accommodate higher message
volume or higher message per second throughput, and assess ADF Trading
Centers that exceed their certified capacity for those costs
accordingly. Moreover, to the extent that an ADF Trading Center's data
usage, in the sole discretion of FINRA staff, materially exceeds the
ADF Trading Center's certified capacity, the Plan would allow FINRA to
incrementally reduce the ADF Trading Center's data port sessions to
ensure that data levels stay at or below reasonable levels. Such
termination may occur on an intra-day basis and would be proportionate
to the extent to which the data overage threatens the ADF system's
stability and/or the ability of FINRA to meet its regulatory
obligations with respect to the operation of the ADF. Further, the Plan
specifies that infrastructure costs associated with building and
implementing the capacity and environments (including, but not limited
to, labor, hardware, software, installation, testing, etc., as well as
associated on-going operational costs) would be borne by FINRA except
for extraordinary upgrades.
    Finally, in addition to adopting the Plan, FINRA also proposes to
amend the Certification to (i) require ADF Trading Centers to comply
with the Plan, and (ii) make other minor or non-substantive changes,
such as revising the means by which an ADF Trading Center may provide
information and replacing references to NASD with FINRA.

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 15A of the Act
\11\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities association.\12\ In particular, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the
Act,\13\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities association be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Commission also finds that the proposal is
consistent with Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ which requires that
FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons
using any facility or system that FINRA operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6)
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that FINRA's proposed Plan should help to
ensure that FINRA is able to maintain a high level of operability for
the ADF, as well as enhance FINRA's ability to submit accurate volume
projections to the NMS data plans. The Commission notes that under the
proposed Plan, each ADF Trading Center would be required to submit its
projected capacity needs and that FINRA would honor those requests
subject to quarterly volume tests. ADF Trading Centers, however, would
still have the ability to increase and decrease their capacity
projections for their second quarter, subject to certain limitations,
in the event that their actual capacity usage deviates from their
projected capacity usage.\15\ In addition, FINRA would have the ability
to make mid-quarter extraordinary upgrades and to incrementally reduce
an ADF Trading Center's data port sessions in the event that the ADF
Trading Center's data usage threatens the ADF system's stability or the
ability of FINRA to meet its regulatory obligations with respect to the
operation of the ADF.\16\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that
FINRA's proposed Plan should help to ensure that the ADF has sufficient
capacity to handle the volume of quote, order, and trade data submitted
to the ADF, while also avoiding the need for FINRA to expend
unnecessary resources to maintain unused data capacity and providing
flexibility to ADF Trading Centers in projecting their capacity needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 1418.
    \16\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 1419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that FINRA's proposed fees and the
pass-through of any SIP penalties are consistent with the Act. The
Commission believes that the fees should help to ensure that ADF
Trading Centers provide meaningful volume projections to ensure
adequate, without unnecessary, capacity. The Commission notes that the
fees and SIP penalties would not be assessed during an ADF Trading
Center's first quarter of operations on the ADF or a portion thereof.
In this regard, the Commission believes that the proposal should allow
a new ADF Trading Center the opportunity to acquire data on its quote,
order, and trade reporting activity on the ADF prior to making capacity
projections to which the fees and SIP penalties would apply.
    The Commission believes that FINRA's proposed changes to the
Certification are also consistent with Act. The Commission believes
that requiring an ADF Trading Center to certify that it will comply
with the terms of the Plan should help facilitate FINRA's ability to
administer the ADF. Moreover, the change to the Certification relating
to the manner in which an ADF Trading Center would provide public
notice of certain information should increase the means through which
such notice may be provided. The other remaining changes to the
Certification, such as changes references from NASD to FINRA and TRACS
to ADF, should make the Certification more accurate and up-to-date.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(5) and (b)(6) of the Act
\17\ and the rules and regulations thereunder

applicable to a national securities association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5) and (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2013-054) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03974 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 12174]
[DOCID:fr15mr07-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Membership of Performance Review Board for Senior
Executives (PRB)

March 9, 2007.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby provides notice of
the membership of its Performance Review Board (PRB) for the
Commission's Senior Executive Service (SES) members. The function of
this board is to make recommendations relating to the performance of
senior executives in the Commission. This action is undertaken in
accordance with Title 5, U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The Commission's PRB will
remove the following member: Daniel L. Larcamp.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4715 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 152 (Thursday, August 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47801-47803]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-2021]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Channels of Trade
Policy for Commodities With Residues of Pesticide Chemicals, for Which
Tolerances Have Been Revoked, Suspended, or Modified by the
Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to Dietary Risk Considerations

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the
collection of information by September 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. The OMB control number for
this information collection is 0910-0562. Also include the FDA docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Channels of Trade Policy for Commodities With Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals, for Which Tolerances Have Been Revoked, Suspended, or
Modified by the Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to Dietary
Risk Considerations

OMB Control Number 0910-0562--Extension

    The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, which amended the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), established a new safety
standard for pesticide residues in food, with an emphasis on protecting
the health of infants and children. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is responsible for regulating the use of pesticides (under FIFRA)
and for establishing tolerances or exemptions from the requirement for
tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in food commodities
(under the FD&C Act). EPA may, for various reasons, e.g., as part of a
systematic review or in response to new information concerning the
safety of a specific pesticide, reassess whether a tolerance for a
pesticide residue continues to meet the safety standard in section 408
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 346a). When EPA determines that a
pesticide's tolerance level does not meet that safety standard, the
registration for the pesticide may be canceled under FIFRA for all or
certain uses. In addition, the tolerances for that pesticide may be
lowered or revoked for the corresponding food commodities.
    Under section 408(l)(2) of the FD&C Act, when the registration for
a pesticide is canceled or modified due to, in whole or in part,
dietary risks to humans posed by residues of that pesticide chemical on
food, the effective date for the revocation of such tolerance (or
exemption in some cases) must be no later than 180 days after the date
such cancellation becomes effective or 180

days after the date on which the use of the canceled pesticide becomes
unlawful under the terms of the cancellation, whichever is later.
    When EPA takes such actions, food derived from a commodity that was
lawfully treated with the pesticide may not have cleared the channels
of trade by the time the revocation or new tolerance level takes
effect. The food could be found by FDA, the Agency that is responsible
for monitoring pesticide residue levels and enforcing the pesticide
tolerances in most foods (the U.S. Department of Agriculture has
responsibility for monitoring residue levels and enforcing pesticide
tolerances in meat, poultry, catfish, and certain egg products), to
contain a residue of that pesticide that does not comply with the
revoked or lowered tolerance. We would normally deem such food to be in
violation of the law by virtue of it bearing an illegal pesticide
residue. The food would be subject to FDA enforcement action as an
``adulterated'' food. However, the channels of trade provision of the
FD&C Act addresses the circumstances under which a food is not unsafe
solely due to the presence of a residue from a pesticide chemical for
which the tolerance has been revoked, suspended, or modified by EPA.
The channels of trade provision (section 408(l)(5) of the FD&C Act)
states that food containing a residue of such a pesticide shall not be
deemed ``adulterated'' by virtue of the residue, if the residue is
within the former tolerance, and the responsible party can demonstrate
to FDA's satisfaction that the residue is present as the result of an
application of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that were lawful
under FIFRA.
    In the Federal Register of May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28544), we announced
the availability of a final guidance document entitled ``Channels of
Trade Policy for Commodities With Residues of Pesticide Chemicals, for
Which Tolerances Have Been Revoked, Suspended, or Modified by the
Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to Dietary Risk
Considerations.'' The guidance represents FDA's current thinking on its
planned enforcement approach to the channels of trade provision of the
FD&C Act and how that provision relates to FDA-regulated products with
residues of pesticide chemicals for which tolerances have been revoked,
suspended, or modified by EPA under dietary risk considerations. The
guidance can be found at the following link: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-channels-trade-policy-commodities-residues-pesticide-chemicals.
    We anticipate that food bearing lawfully applied residues of
pesticide chemicals that are the subject of future EPA action to
revoke, suspend, or modify their tolerances, will remain in the
channels of trade after the applicable tolerance is revoked, suspended,
or modified. If we encounter food bearing a residue of a pesticide
chemical for which the tolerance has been revoked, suspended, or
modified, we intend to address the situation in accordance with
provisions of the guidance. In general, we anticipate that the party
responsible for food found to contain pesticide chemical residues
(within the former tolerance) after the tolerance for the pesticide
chemical has been revoked, suspended, or modified will be able to
demonstrate that such food was handled, e.g., packed or processed,
during the acceptable timeframes cited in the guidance by providing
appropriate documentation to FDA as discussed in the guidance. We are
not suggesting that firms maintain an inflexible set of documents where
anything less or different would likely be considered unacceptable.
Rather, we are leaving it to each firm's discretion to maintain
appropriate documentation to demonstrate that the food was so handled
during the acceptable timeframes.
    Examples of documentation that we anticipate will serve this
purpose consist of documentation associated with packing codes, batch
records, and inventory records. These are types of documents that many
food processors routinely generate as part of their basic food-
production operations. Accordingly, under the PRA, we are requesting
the extension of OMB approval for the information collection provisions
in the guidance.
    Description of Respondents: The likely respondents to this
collection of information are firms in the produce and food processing
industries that handle food products that may contain residues of
pesticide chemicals after the tolerances for the pesticide chemicals
have been revoked, suspended, or modified.
    In the Federal Register of May 13, 2020 (85 FR 28639), we published
a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of
information. Four comments were received. Three comments offering
general support for the information collection and one comment was non
responsive to the information collection topics solicited. None of the
comments suggested that we revise our burden estimate.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                              Activity                                  Number of      responses per     Total annual   Average  burden    Total hours
                                                                       respondents       respondent       responses      per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of Documentation........................................               1                1                1                3                3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden
estimate.
    We expect the total number of pesticide tolerances that are
revoked, suspended, or modified by EPA under dietary risk
considerations in the next 3 years to remain at a low level, as there
have been no changes to the safety standard for pesticide residues in
food since 1996. Thus, we expect the number of submissions we receive
under the guidance document to also remain at a low level. However, to
avoid counting this burden as zero, we have estimated the burden at one
respondent making one submission a year for a total of one annual
submission.
    We based our estimate of the hours per response on the assumption
that the information requested in the guidance is readily available to
the submitter. We expect that the submitter will need to gather
information from appropriate persons in the submitter's company and to
prepare this information for submission to FDA. The submitter will
almost always merely need to copy existing documentation. We believe
that this effort should take no longer than 3 hours per submission.

                                                   Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of                       Average burden
                              Activity                                  Number of       records per      Total annual         per          Total hours
                                                                      recordkeepers     recordkeeper       records       recordkeeping
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop documentation Process......................................               1                1                1               16               16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    In determining the estimated annual recordkeeping burden, we
estimated that at least 90 percent of firms maintain documentation,
such as packing codes, batch records, and inventory records, as part of
their basic food production or import operations. Therefore, the
recordkeeping burden was calculated as the time required for the 10
percent of firms that may not be currently maintaining this
documentation to develop and maintain documentation, such as batch
records and inventory records. In previous information collection
requests, this recordkeeping burden was estimated to be 16 hours per
record. We have retained our prior estimate of 16 hours per record for
the recordkeeping burden. As shown in table 1, we estimate that one
respondent will make one submission per year. Although we estimate that
only 1 of 10 firms will not be currently maintaining the necessary
documentation, to avoid counting the recordkeeping burden for the 1
submission per year as 1/10th of a recordkeeper, we estimate that 1
recordkeeper will take 16 hours to develop and maintain documentation
recommended by the guidance.

    Dated: July 30, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-17174 Filed 8-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1651-1656]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31921]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[EPA-HQ-TRI-2016-0390; FRL-9953-68]
RIN 2070-AK16

Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to add natural gas processing (NGP)
facilities (also known as natural gas liquid extraction facilities) to
the scope of the industrial sectors covered by the reporting
requirements of section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), commonly known as the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA).
Adding these facilities would meaningfully increase the information
available to the public on releases and other waste management of
listed chemicals from the natural gas processing sector and further the
purposes of EPCRA section 313. EPA estimates that at least 282 NGP
facilities in the U.S. would meet the TRI employee threshold (10 full-
time employees or equivalent) and manufacture, process, or otherwise
use (threshold activities) at least one TRI-listed chemical in excess
of applicable threshold quantities. NGP facilities in the U.S.
manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than 21 different TRI-
listed chemicals, including n-hexane, hydrogen sulfide, toluene,
benzene, xylene, and methanol. EPA expects that TRI reporting by U.S.
NGP facilities would provide significant release and waste management
data on these chemicals to the public.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
TRI-2016-0390, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods (e.g., mail or hand
delivery), the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The docket contains supporting information used in
developing the proposed rule, comments on the proposed rule, and
additional supporting information. A public version of the docket is
available for inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center Reading Room, WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20004. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
David Turk, Regulatory Development Branch, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (7410M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for specific information on this notice.
    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Hotline; telephone numbers: toll
free at<PHONE_NUMBER> (select menu option 3) or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC Area and International; or toll free, TDD (800) 553-
7672; or go to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/contacts/infocenter.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially regulated by this proposed action are those
facilities that primarily engage in the recovery of liquid hydrocarbons
from oil and gas field gases, including facilities that engage in
sulfur recovery from natural gas, and which manufacture, process, or
otherwise use chemicals listed at 40 CFR 372.65 and meet the reporting
requirements of EPCRA section 313, 42 U.S.C. 11023, and PPA section
6607, 42 U.S.C. 13106. These facilities are categorized under Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code 1321 and North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code 211112. Note that the TRI
regulations currently use the 2012 set of NAICS codes, as discussed
further in Units II.D. and IV.C.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Introduction

A. What is the statutory authority for this proposed rule?

    This action is taken under EPCRA sections 313(b) and 328, 42 U.S.C.
11023(b) and 11048.
    Specifically, EPCRA section 313(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 11023(b)(1)(B),
states that the Agency may ``add or

delete Standard Industrial Codes for purposes of subparagraph (A), but
only to the extent necessary to provide that each Standard Industrial
Code is relevant to the purposes of this section.'' In addition,
Congress granted EPA broad rulemaking authority under EPCRA section
328, 28 U.S.C. 11048, which provides that the ``Administrator may
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this
chapter.''

B. What are the toxics release inventory reporting requirements and
whom do they affect?

    EPCRA section 313, 42 U.S.C. 11023, requires certain facilities
that manufacture, process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in
amounts above reporting threshold levels to report their environmental
releases and other waste management quantities of such chemicals
annually. These facilities must also report pollution prevention and
recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to PPA section 6607, 42
U.S.C. 13106. Congress established the original scope of TRI sectors
subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting, requiring reporting by
facilities in the manufacturing sectors covered by SIC codes 20 through
39. In 1997, EPA exercised its statutory authority under EPCRA to add
SIC Codes to the scope of TRI, adding (with some limitations) metal
mining, coal mining, electric utilities, commercial hazardous waste
treatment, chemicals and allied products-wholesale, petroleum bulk
plants and terminals-wholesale, and solvent recovery services. (62 FR
23834, May 1, 1997).
    Regulations at 40 CFR part 372, subpart B, require facilities that
meet all of the following criteria to report:
     The facility has 10 or more full-time employee equivalents
(i.e., a total of 20,000 hours worked per year or greater; see 40 CFR
372.3); and
     The facility is included in a NAICS Code listed at 40 CFR
372.23, or under Executive Order 13148, Federal facilities regardless
of their industry classification; and
     The facility manufactures (defined by statute to include
importing), processes, or otherwise uses any EPCRA section 313 (TRI)
chemical in quantities greater than the established thresholds for the
specific chemical in the course of a calendar year.
    Facilities that meet the criteria must file a Form R report or, in
some cases, may submit a Form A Certification Statement, for each
listed toxic chemical for which the criteria are met. As specified in
EPCRA section 313(a), the report for any calendar year must be
submitted on or before July 1 of the following year. For example,
reporting year 2015 data should have been postmarked on or before July
1, 2016.
    The list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI reporting can be found
at 40 CFR 372.65. This list is also published every year as Table II in
the current version of the Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Forms and
Instructions. The current TRI chemical list contains 594 individually
listed chemicals and 31 chemical categories.

C. How does EPA decide to propose adding industry sectors to the
coverage of TRI?

    As described in Units II.A. and II.B., Congress provided EPA with
explicit statutory authority to expand the categories of facilities
required to report under EPCRA section 313, and EPA exercised that
authority to add sectors in 1997. (62 FR 23834, May 1, 1997). When
adding these seven sectors, EPA considered three factors:
     Chemical Factor--Whether one or more toxic
chemicals are reasonably anticipated to be present at facilities within
the candidate industry group.
     Activity Factor--Whether facilities within the
candidate industry group ``manufacture,'' ``process,'' or ``otherwise
use'' these toxic chemicals.
     Information Factor--Whether facilities within
the candidate industry group can reasonably be anticipated to increase
the information made available pursuant to EPCRA section 313, or
otherwise further the purposes of EPCRA section 313. This factor may
include consideration of: (1) Whether the addition of the candidate
industry group would lead to reporting by facilities within that
candidate industry group (e.g., whether facilities within the candidate
industry group would conduct activities that exceed the reporting
thresholds in EPCRA section 313(f)); (2) whether facilities within the
candidate industry group are likely to be subject to an existing
statutory or regulatory exemption from the requirement to file a Form
R; (3) whether submitted Form R reports from that industry group could
be expected to contain release and waste management data; or (4)
whether a significant portion of the facilities in the industry group
would be expected to file a Form A. (See 61 FR 33588, 33594, June 27,
1996).
    As explained in Units II.D. and III.A. of the 1997 Final Rule, EPA
identified these three factors in determining whether the statutory
standard in EPCRA section 313(b)(1)(B) would be met by addition of the
candidate facilities.

D. What are North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes?

    On April 9, 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
published in the Federal Register a final decision to adopt the NAICS
for the U.S. (62 FR 17288.) The NAICS industry classification system
replaced the SIC system that government agencies had used for
collecting statistical data and for other administrative and regulatory
purposes. EPA transitioned to NAICS codes for TRI reporting purposes
when it amended its regulations on June 6, 2006, to include NAICS codes
in addition to SIC codes. (71 FR 32464.) The list of TRI NAICS codes
that appeared in the final rule was developed from the OMB 2002 NAICS
revision. OMB revises NAICS Codes every 5 years. Accordingly, EPA
updated the list of TRI NAICS codes in 2008 (73 FR 32466, June 9, 2008)
(FRL-8577-1) to incorporate changes to the TRI NAICS codes resulting
from the OMB 2007 NAICS revision. In 2013, EPA updated the list of TRI
NAICS codes to conform to the OMB 2012 NAICS revision (78 FR 42875,
July 18, 2013) (FRL-9825-8). On August 8, 2016, OMB published a notice
to adopt, with one minor exception, the recommended NAICS revisions for
2017 (81 FR 52584). EPA anticipates promulgating a separate rule to
align the list of NAICS codes TRI uses to the OMB NAICS revisions for
2017. An alignment of the NAICS codes used by TRI would not alter the
scope of this proposed addition of NGP facilities. Because TRI
currently uses the set of NAICS codes for 2012, this action refers to
the set of NAICS codes for 2012 unless otherwise stated, as further
discussed in Unit IV.C.

E. Why do some natural gas processing facilities already submit TRI
reporting forms to EPA?

    Some NGP facilities are already subject to TRI reporting
requirements because NGP facilities that primarily recover sulfur from
natural gas are part of a manufacturing sector that was originally
subjected to reporting by Congress.
    Specifically, the scope of TRI sectors subject to reporting
includes SIC code 2819 (Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere
Classified), which was one of the manufacturing sectors in SIC 20-39
originally required to report to TRI by Congress. SIC code 2819
crosswalks to several manufacturing sector NAICS codes, including
211112 (Natural Gas Liquid Extraction), but only to the extent that it
includes facilities that primarily engage in sulfur recovery from
natural gas.

    Thus, when EPA began to use NAICS codes for TRI reporting purposes,
the Agency listed NAICS 211112 with a qualifier to limit TRI coverage
of the sector to facilities that fit SIC code 2819. See 40 CFR
372.23(b) (211112--Natural Gas Liquid Extraction): ``Limited to
facilities that recover sulfur from natural gas (previously classified
under SIC 2819, Industrial Inorganic chemicals, NEC (recovering sulfur
from natural gas)).''

III. Background

    By a letter dated October 24, 2012, the Environmental Integrity
Project (EIP), together with 16 other organizations, and later joined
by two additional organizations (collectively, Petitioners), submitted
a Petition to EPA pursuant to section 553(e) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) to add the Oil and Gas Extraction industrial sector
(SIC code 13) to the scope of industrial sectors covered by the
reporting requirements of the TRI. The Petition and related documents
can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281 at http://www.regulations.gov.

A. What did the petition request?

    The Petitioners requested that EPA exercise its discretionary TRI
sector addition authority to add the Oil and Gas Extraction sector, as
defined by SIC code 13. SIC 13 is broad in scope, comprising the
following subsectors:
     Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas (SIC 1311);
     Natural Gas Liquids (SIC 1321);
     Drilling Oil and Gas Wells (SIC 1381);
     Oil and Gas Field Exploration Services (SIC 1382); and
     Oil and Gas Field Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC
1389).
    These SIC-defined subsectors correspond to the following NAICS
sectors, in whole or in part:
     Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 211111);
     Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 211112);
     Drilling Oil and Gas Wells (NAICS 213111);
     Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations (NAICS
213112);
     Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction
(NAICS 237120);
     Site Preparation Contractors (NAICS 238910); and
     Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services (NAICS 541360).
    By requesting that EPA extend the TRI reporting requirements to SIC
13, the Petition requested that EPA add to TRI the SIC codes 1311,
1321, 1381, 1382, and 1389, along with the relevant portion of each
corresponding NAICS code.

B. How did EPA respond?

    On October 22, 2015, EPA granted, in part, the Petition insofar as
it requested that EPA commence the rulemaking process to propose adding
NGP facilities to the scope of TRI. EPA denied the remainder of the
Petition. EPA's response to the Petition, including a full explanation
of the Agency's rationale, can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-
2013-0281 and as a reference in the docket for this proposal in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2016-0390 (Reference (Ref.) 1).

IV. Proposed Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the
Toxics Release Inventory

A. Why is EPA proposing to add NGP facilities to the scope of TRI?

    According to a triennial survey of NGP facilities by the U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA-757 survey), described further
in an economic analysis EPA prepared for this rulemaking, there were
517 NGP facilities in the lower 48 states as of 2012 (Ref. 2). As
explained more fully later in this document, EPA estimates that over
half of these facilities would annually meet TRI reporting thresholds
for at least one of more than 21 different TRI-listed chemicals and, if
covered by the reporting requirements of TRI, would be required to
submit TRI information to EPA (Ref. 2). The information likely to be
obtained from these facilities is not readily available elsewhere.
    As discussed previously, EPA generally considers three factors when
deciding whether to add an industrial sector to the scope of the
industrial sectors covered by TRI:
    1. Chemical Factor--Whether one or more toxic chemicals are
reasonably anticipated to be present at facilities within the candidate
industry group.
    2. Activity Factor--Whether facilities within the candidate
industry group ``manufacture,'' ``process,'' or ``otherwise use'' these
toxic chemicals.
    3. Information Factor--Whether facilities within the candidate
industry group can reasonably be anticipated to increase the
information made available pursuant to EPCRA section 313, or otherwise
further the purposes of EPCRA section 313.
    NGP facilities meet these three factors:
     Chemical and Activity factors: TRI-listed chemicals are
present at NGP facilities (Ref. 2). Using information from Canada's
National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), a program analogous to TRI
that already covers NGP facilities, EPA estimates that NGP facilities
in the U.S. manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than 21
different TRI-listed chemicals (Ref. 2). These chemicals include n-
hexane, hydrogen sulfide, toluene, benzene, xylene, and methanol (Ref.
2).
     Information factor: EPA estimates that between 282 and 444
NGP facilities in the U.S. would meet the TRI employee threshold (10
full-time employees or equivalent) and manufacture, process, or
otherwise use at least one TRI-listed chemical in excess of applicable
threshold quantities (Ref. 2). Furthermore, based upon information
submitted to Canada's NPRI and the 2012 EIA-757 survey of NGP
facilities, EPA expects that TRI reporting by U.S. NGP facilities would
provide significant release and waste management data (Ref. 2).
Therefore, the addition of NGP facilities to TRI would meaningfully
increase the information available to the public and further the
purposes of EPCRA section 313.

B. Scope of Proposed Addition

    NGP facilities are stationary surface facilities that receive gas
from a gathering system that supplies raw natural gas from many nearby
wells. These facilities prepare natural gas (composed primarily of
methane) to industrial or pipeline specifications and extract heavier
liquid hydrocarbons from the raw or field natural gas. During this
process, natural gas liquids (NGLs) (i.e., heavier hydrocarbons than
methane) and contaminants (e.g., hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and
nitrogen) are separated from the natural gas stream, resulting in
processed pipeline quality natural gas. NGLs are fractionated on-site
into isolated streams (e.g., ethane, propane, butanes, natural
gasoline) or shipped off-site for subsequent fractionation or other
processing. Hydrogen sulfide is often either disposed through
underground injection or reacted into sulfuric acid or elemental
sulfur, while carbon dioxide and nitrogen may be emitted to the
atmosphere. The processed pipeline-quality natural gas is then
transferred to consumers via intra- and inter-state pipeline networks.
NGLs are primarily used as feedstocks by petrochemical manufacturers or
refineries.
    SIC 1321 (Natural Gas Liquids) and NAICS 211112 (Natural Gas Liquid
Extraction) comprise establishments that recover liquid hydrocarbons
from oil and gas field gases (see discussion in Unit II.E.). NAICS
211112 includes facilities that primarily recover sulfur from natural
gas--such facilities already

report TRI data to EPA because they are in SIC 2819 (Industrial
Inorganic Chemicals, Not Otherwise Classified), which is a
manufacturing sector already covered by TRI.
    Current regulations only require NAICS 211112 facilities that
recover sulfur from natural gas to report TRI data (i.e., facilities in
SIC 2819). Specifically, 40 CFR 372.23(b), which covers NAICS codes
that correspond to SIC codes 20 through 39, lists NAICS 211112, but
states: ``Limited to facilities that recover sulfur from natural gas
(previously classified under SIC 2819, Industrial Inorganic chemicals,
NEC (recovering sulfur from natural gas)).'' Removing that limitation
and adding SIC 1321 to the scope of industry sectors covered by TRI
would expand TRI coverage to include all NGP facilities that meet TRI-
reporting thresholds.
    To add the facilities contemplated by this proposed rule to the
scope of industrial sectors that TRI covers, EPA is proposing to:
     Add SIC code 1321 to 40 CFR 372.23(a);
     Remove the ``Exceptions and/or limitations'' language from
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) text for NAICS code 211112 for
NAICs codes that correspond to SIC codes 20 through 39 in 40 CFR
372.23(b); and
     Add NAICS code 211112 to the CFR text for NAICS codes that
correspond to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39 in 40 CFR
372.23(c).
    It would be necessary to list NAICS 211112 in both subsections (b)
and (c) of 40 CFR 372.23 for two reasons: (1) 40 CFR 372.23(b) lists
NAICS codes that crosswalk to SIC codes within the original scope of
TRI sectors subject to Section 313 reporting (SIC Codes 20-39), and (2)
40 CFR 372.23(c) lists NAICS codes that crosswalk to SIC codes not
within the original scope of TRI sectors. Because NAICS 211112 includes
a SIC code in the original scope of TRI sectors (SIC 2819) and a SIC
code not in the original scope of TRI sectors (SIC 1321), EPA proposes
that NAICS 211112 be listed under both subsections to provide
additional clarity for the crosswalk.
    This proposal does not seek to add to TRI coverage natural gas
field facilities that only recover condensate from a stream of natural
gas, lease separation facilities that separate condensate from natural
gas, or natural gas pipeline compressor stations that supply energy to
move gas through transmission or distribution lines into storage.
Additional examples of operations that this proposal does not intend to
add to TRI coverage include Joule-Thompson valves, dew point depression
valves, and isolated or standalone Joule-Thompson skids. The industrial
operations described in this paragraph often occur at or close to
extraction sites and are typically classified under NAICS codes other
than 211112 (e.g., NAICS 211111 (Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas
Extraction)), and thus are not within the scope of the proposed NAICS
code addition.
    However, the term ``facility'' is defined by EPCRA section 329(4)
as ``all buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items
which are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites
and which are owned or operated by the same person (or by any person
which controls, is controlled by, or under common control with, such
person).'' 42 U.S.C. 11049(4). Accordingly, operations described in the
previous paragraph could be part of a single ``facility'' with TRI
reporting and recordkeeping requirements if they are contiguous or
adjacent to ``buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary
items'' with a common owner or operator that are in a covered TRI
industrial sector.

C. How do recent updates to NAICS codes impact this proposal?

    Every 5 years the OMB updates the NAICS codes to ``clarify existing
industry definitions and content, recognize new and emerging
industries, and correct errors and omissions.'' (80 FR 46480, August 4,
2015). EPA updates its TRI regulations to align with OMB revisions to
the NAICS codes (see, e.g., 78 FR 42875, July 18, 2013). OMB published
a ``Notice of Solicitation of Comments on the Economic Classification
Policy Committee's Recommendations for the 2017 Revision of the North
American Industry Classification System'' on August 4, 2015 (80 FR
46480), and published a Notice of Final Decision revising the NAICS
codes ``for reference years beginning on or after January 1, 2017'' on
August 8, 2016 (81 FR 52584). As noted in Unit II.D., EPA anticipates
promulgating a separate rule to align the list of NAICS codes TRI uses
to the OMB NAICS revisions for 2017.
    In OMB's revisions for the 2017 NAICS codes, facilities performing
activities involving natural gas that currently classify under NAICS
211111 (Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction) and NAICS 211112
(Natural Gas Liquid Extraction) will classify under a new NAICS code:
211130 (Natural Gas Extraction).
    This proposed rule to add NGP facilities to the scope of the TRI
proposes to add facilities that primarily engage in the recovery of
liquid hydrocarbons from oil and gas field gases (and to retain
facilities that primarily engage in sulfur recovery from natural gas,
which are already covered facilities), as described in Unit IV.A. This
proposed rule would accomplish this, based on the 2012 NAICS codes
currently used by the TRI regulations, by adding SIC code 1321 to 40
CFR 372.23(a), removing the ``exceptions and/or limitations'' from
NAICS code 211112 currently found in 40 CFR 372.23(b), and adding NAICS
code 211112 to 40 CFR 372.23(c). If EPA updates the NAICS codes used
for TRI reporting purposes to align with the OMB revisions for 2017
before EPA issues a final rule adding NGP facilities to TRI, then if
EPA issues a final rule adding NGP facilities to TRI, that final rule
will reflect the appropriate new NAICS code (i.e., NAICS 211130),
qualified by any appropriate ``exceptions and/or limitations,'' to add
NGP facilities, as described in Unit IV.A., and would incorporate
changes, if any, to the proposed scope of the addition, as appropriate
in light of comments received on the proposal. That is, the actual
scope of the addition to TRI here being proposed would not be affected
by the 2017 OMB NAICS revision, or by any EPA update of its TRI
regulations to align with the 2017 OMB revision.

V. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. For assistance in locating reference
documents, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    1. USEPA. Formal Response to October, 24, 2012, Petition to Add the
Oil and Gas Extraction Industry, Standard Industrial Classification
Code 13, to the List of Facilities Required to Report under Section 313
of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. October 22,
2015.
    2. USEPA, OPPT. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of
Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics Release Inventory.
August 11, 2016.
    3. USEPA, OPPT. Supporting Statement for an Information Collection
Request (ICR) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Proposed Rule
ICR; Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI). EPA ICR No. 2560.01; OMB Control No. 2070-
[NEW]. November 2016.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). EPA prepared an economic
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this
action, which is available in the docket (Ref. 2).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2560.01; OMB Control No. 2070-
[NEW] (Ref. 3). You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    This action would impose an incremental information collection
burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information
collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has
assigned OMB control numbers 2025-0009 and 2050-0078. This proposal
would not alter the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
facilities that currently have regulatory requirements related to TRI
reporting. However, this proposal would require all facilities that
classify under NAICS 211112 to consider TRI reporting requirements
regardless of whether or not they primarily recover sulfur from natural
gas. Accordingly, if EPA adds this industrial sector to the scope of
industries covered by TRI, these facilities would need to adhere to
reporting and recordkeeping requirements should they trigger TRI
reporting.
    Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting requirements
under EPCRA 313 and PPA 6607 may use either the EPA Toxic Chemicals
Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350- 1), or the EPA Toxic
Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350- 2). The Form R
must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise
uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain
other criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an alternative
threshold for facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed
toxic chemical. A facility that meets the appropriate reporting
thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable amount of
the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of
an alternative manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1
million pounds per year of the chemical, provided that certain
conditions are met, and submit the Form A instead of the Form R. In
addition, respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a
substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322, 42 U.S.C.
11042, 40 CFR part 350.
    OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
related to Forms A and R, supplier notification, and petitions under
OMB Control number 2025-0009 (EPA Information Collection Request (ICR)
No. 1363) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB
Control number 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428). As provided in 5 CFR
1320.5(b) and 1320.6(a), 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 relevant to EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part
9, and displayed on the information collection instruments (e.g.,
forms, instructions).
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR include facilities primarily engaged in natural gas
processing.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Respondents are obligated to
respond or report to EPA (42 U.S.C. 11023).
    Estimated number of respondents: 282-444.
    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Total estimated burden: Up to 250,034 hours in the first year and
up to 119,064 hours every subsequent year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: Up to $13,584,347 in the first year and up to
$6,468,747 every subsequent year, includes $0 annualized capital or
operation & maintenance costs.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the docket identified at the
beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than February 6,
2017.
    EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small entities subject to the requirements of
this action are natural gas processing facilities. The Agency has
linked the 282-444 facilities estimated to be impacted by this action
to 76-90 parent entities, 32-41 of which qualify as small businesses as
defined by the RFA (Ref. 2). No small governments or small
organizations are expected to be affected by this action. All 32-41
small businesses that would be affected by this action are estimated to
incur annualized cost impacts of less than 1%. EPA's detailed analysis
of the impacts on small entities is located in the EPA economic
analysis (Ref. 2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million
or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA's economic
analysis indicates that the total industry reporting and recordkeeping
burden for collecting this information would be between $8,624,018 and
$13,584,347 in the first year (Ref. 2). In subsequent years, the total
industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for collecting this
information is estimated to be between $4,106,642 and $6,468,747 (Ref.
2). The total annualized cost of the proposed rule to industry and EPA
is estimated to be approximately $4,634,000 to $7,300,000 with a 3%
discount rate and approximately $4,721,000 to $7,437,000 with a 7%
discount rate (Ref. 2). EPA's analysis shows that no small government
owns or operates an NGP facility that would report under EPCRA section
313.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because this
action relates to toxic chemical reporting under EPCRA section 313,
which primarily affects private sector facilities. No facilities owned
or operated by tribal governments are expected to classify under SIC
1321 or NAICS 211112.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental
health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered
regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution
or use of energy. NGP facilities would be subject to the requirements
of this proposal; however, this proposal would not impact how these
facilities operate but rather would require facilities that trigger TRI
reporting requirements to submit annual reports on chemicals for which
they trigger reporting requirements. Moreover, the impact this action
could cause is minor. EPA's economic analysis for this action indicates
that all entities that would be impacted are estimated to incur
annualized cost impacts of less than 1% (Ref. 2).

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve any technical standards, and is
therefore not subject to considerations under NTTAA section 12(d), 15
U.S.C. 272 note.

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

    This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income
populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not address any
human health or environmental risks and does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. This action
adds an industry sector to the EPCRA section 313 reporting
requirements. By adding an industry to the list of industry sectors
subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313, EPA would be providing
communities across the U.S. (including minority populations and low
income populations) with access to data which they may use to seek
lower exposures and consequently reductions in chemical risks for
themselves and their children. This information can also be used by
government agencies and others to identify potential problems, set
priorities, and take appropriate steps to reduce any potential risks to
human health and the environment. Therefore, the informational benefits
of the action will have a positive impact on the human health and
environmental impacts of minority populations, low-income populations,
and indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.

    Dated: December 27, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 372, be amended as
follows:

PART 372--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.
0
2. Amend Sec.  372.23 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a) adding alphabetically an entry for ``1321'';
0
b. In paragraph (b) removing ``211112--Natural Gas Liquid Extraction''
from the table;
0
c. In paragraph (c) adding alphabetically an entry for ``211112-
Natural Gas Liquid Extraction''.
    The additions to read as follows:

Sec.  372.23   SIC and NAICS codes to which this Part applies.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Major group or industry code        Exceptions and/or limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
1321...................................

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsector code or industry code       Exceptions and/or limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
211112--Natural Gas Liquid Extraction..

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-31921 Filed 1-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P