[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75104-75105]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25938]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No 2020-0260]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Verification
of Authenticity of Foreign License, Rating, and Medical Certification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on 4/15/2020. The collection involves information used to
identify foreign airmen in order to allow the agency to verify their
foreign license when used to qualify for a U.S. certificate.
Respondents are holders of foreign licenses wishing to obtain U.S.
Certificates.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by December 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A Hawkins by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone: 1-405-954-7045.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0724.
    Title: Verification of Foreign License, Rating and Medical
Certification.
    Form Numbers: Form 8060-71.

    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on 04/15/2020 (85 FR 21061). The information collected is
used to properly identify airmen to allow the agency to verify their
foreign license being used to qualify for a U.S. certificate. The
respondents are holders of a foreign license wishing to obtain a U.S.
certificate. A person who is applying for a U.S. pilot certificate or
rating on the basis of a foreign pilot license must apply for
verification of that license at least 90 days before arriving at the
designated FAA FSDO where the applicant intends to receive the U.S.
pilot certificate.
    Respondents: Approximately 8,700 foreign applicants for U.S.
certificates annually.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,450 Hours.

    Issued in Oklahoma City, OK, on November 19, 2020.
Margaret A. Hawkins,
Compliance Specialist, Forms Manager, Airmen Certification Branch, AFB-
720.
[FR Doc. 2020-25938 Filed 11-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 247)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68526-68529]
[DOCID:fr28de09-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 366 and 367

[Docket No. RM09-21-000; Order No. 731]

Revised Filing Requirements for Centralized Service Companies
Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, the Federal Power
Act, and the Natural Gas Act

Issued December 17, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is revising its
regulations to require every centralized service company that provides
non-power services to any public utility, natural gas company, or both,
to file Form No. 60 (Annual Report of Centralized Service Companies)
annually and abide by the Uniform System of Accounts, unless exempted
or granted a waiver. This rule provides greater transparency and will
aid the Commission in fulfilling its regulatory obligations under the
Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act to ensure that rates are just
and reasonable.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective January 27,
2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Russo (Technical Information), Division of Financial Regulation,
Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Lawrence Greenfield (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel--Energy Markets,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Gary D. Cohen (legal issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Suedeen G. Kelly, Marc
Spitzer, and Philip D. Moeller.

Order No. 731

Final Rule

Issued December 17, 2009.

Table of Contents

                                                               Paragraph
                                                                 Nos.

I. Introduction.............................................           1
II. Background..............................................           3
III. Discussion.............................................           7
    A. Comments.............................................           8
    B. Analysis.............................................           9
    C. Filing Date..........................................          13
IV. Information Collection Statement........................          14
V. Environmental Analysis...................................          24
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification................          25
VII. Document Availability..................................          26

I. Introduction

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
revising its regulations at 18 CFR 366.1, 366.23, 367.1 and 367.2 to
require every centralized service company that provides non-power
services to any public utility, natural gas company, or both, to file
Form No. 60 (Annual Report of Centralized Service Companies) annually
and abide by the Uniform System of Accounts, unless exempted or granted
a waiver pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3 or 366.4.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We are not adopting any revisions to the regulatory text of
18 CFR part 368 or 18 CFR 369.1, because the current text of those
regulations already is consistent with this Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission believes that these revisions promote
transparency and are consistent with the Commission's regulatory
obligation to regulate public utilities under the Federal Power Act
(FPA) \2\ and natural gas companies under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) \3\
to ensure that rates are just and reasonable. The revisions also better
track the Commission's intent in prior orders directing the filing of
Form No. 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    3. On September 17, 2009, the Commission issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking proposing to revise 18 CFR 366.1 and 18 CFR 367.1
to clarify that ``service companies'' includes entities providing non-
power goods or services to any public utility or any natural gas
company, or both, in the same holding company system, and to revise 18
CFR 366.23 and 18 CFR 367.2 to clarify that every centralized service
company that provides non-power services to a public utility, a natural
gas company, or both, in the same holding company system, must file
FERC Form No. 60 (Annual Report of Centralized Service Companies)
annually and must abide by the Uniform System of Accounts, unless the
holding company is exempted or granted a waiver pursuant to 18 CFR
366.3 or 366.4.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Revised Filing Requirements for Centralized Service
Companies Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, the
Federal Power Act, and the Natural Gas Act, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 74 FR 48884 (Sep. 25, 2009), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
32,647 (2009) (Form 60 Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In the Form 60 Notice, the Commission explained that the
Commission intended in Order Nos. 667, 667-A, and 684,\5\ to require
every centralized service company that provides non-power services to a
public utility, a natural gas company, or both, to file Form No. 60
(Annual Report of Centralized Service Companies) annually, unless the
holding company is exempted or granted a waiver pursuant to 18 CFR
366.3 or 366.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and
Enactment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, Order
No. 667, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,197 (2005), order on reh'g, Order
No. 667-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,213 (2006), order on reh'g,
Order No. 667-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,224 (2006), order on
reh'g, Order No. 667-C, 118 FERC ] 61,133 (2007); Financial
Accounting, Reporting and Records Retention Requirements Under the
Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005, Order No. 684, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,229 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. However, as explained in the Form 60 Notice, the codification of
this requirement in the regulatory text did not make this requirement
clear. Thus, in the Form 60 Notice, the Commission proposed new
language that would more clearly express this requirement.

    6. In response to the Form 60 Notice, comments were filed by the
American Public Gas Association (APGA). These comments, more
specifically addressed below, support the Commission's proposals in the
Form 60 Notice.

III. Discussion

    7. It was our intention in Order Nos. 667, 667-A and 684 that every
centralized service company providing non-power services either to any
public utility or to any natural gas company (or to both) in the same
holding company system file Form No. 60 and comply with the Uniform
System of Accounts, unless the holding company is exempted or granted a
waiver. However, as explained in the Form 60 Notice, it has recently
come to our attention that, as currently written, the regulatory text
of 18 CFR 366.1, 366.23, 367.1 and 367.2 could be read to reach a
different, unintended conclusion. Namely, that centralized service
companies providing non-power services to natural gas companies would
be excluded from the requirement to file Form No. 60 if the companies
that were part of the holding company system did not include a public
utility. The proposed revisions to 18 CFR 366.1, 18 CFR 366.23, 18 CFR
367.1 and 18 CFR 367.2 described in the Form 60 Notice were all
designed to close this inadvertent loophole.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Form 60 Notice, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,647 at P 12-17;
accord id. P 4-11. We note, however, that, irrespective of the
revisions we are adopting in this Final Rule, under 18 CFR
366.23(a)(2), any service company in a holding company system that
does not file Form No. 60 is required to file a narrative
description of the company's functions during the prior calendar
year (Form No. 61) absent an exemption or waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Comments

    8. APGA supports the Commission's proposals in the Form 60 Notice.
APGA argues both that the proposed regulations are consistent with the
Commission's expressed intention as to the scope of the filing
requirement and that ``centralized service companies that provide
services to natural gas companies or both natural gas companies and
public utilities warrant the same treatment as centralized service
companies that provide services to just public utilities. In APGA's
view, this is because the same concerns regarding transparency (and
effective rate regulation) persist among both natural gas companies and
public utilities.'' \7\ Thus, APGA supports revisions to the
Commission's regulations to make the requirement to file Form No. 60
clearer and adds that the ``Commission's proposal is consistent with
its obligation to ensure just and reasonable rates for public utilities
under the FPA and for natural gas companies under the NGA.'' \8\
Finally, APGA states that the Commission possesses the authority to
require centralized service companies to file FERC Form No. 60,
pursuant to the FPA and NGA, respectively, in addition to its authority
under PUHCA 2005.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ APGA Comments at 2-3.
    \8\ Id. at 3.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Analysis

    9. Based on the analysis contained in the Form 60 Notice and after
consideration of the comments filed in response to the Form 60 Notice,
we are revising our regulations to clarify that the FERC Form No. 60
annual filing requirement, as well as the requirement to abide by the
Uniform System of Accounts, extends to any centralized service company
that provides non-power services to any public utility or any natural
gas company, or both, in the same holding company system, so that the
filing requirements will now expressly apply to all the entities that
the Commission envisioned covering in its earlier orders, (i.e., the
centralized service companies that serve public utilities and natural
gas companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under the FPA
and NGA).
    10. Therefore, in this Final Rule, the Commission is revising 18
CFR 366.1 and 18 CFR 367.1 to clarify that ``service companies''
include entities providing non-power goods or services to any public
utility or any natural gas company, or both, in the same holding
company system, and to revise 18 CFR 366.23 and 18 CFR 367.2 to clarify
that every centralized service company that provides non-power services
to a public utility, a natural gas company, or both, in the same
holding company system, must file FERC Form No. 60 (Annual Report of
Centralized Service Companies) annually and must abide by the Uniform
System of Accounts, unless the holding company is exempted or granted a
waiver pursuant to 18 CFR 366.3 or 366.4.
    11. The Commission finds that these revisions will promote
transparency and are consistent with the Commission's regulatory
obligation to regulate public utilities under the FPA and natural gas
companies under the NGA to ensure just and reasonable rates. The
revisions also better track the Commission's intent in prior orders
directing the filing of FERC Form No. 60.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Form 60 Notice, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,647 at P 12-
17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In contrast to Order Nos. 667, 667-A and 684, in this
rulemaking the Commission is relying explicitly on the Commission's
authority under the FPA and NGA, in addition to its authority under
PUHCA 2005. Accordingly, in this Final Rule, we are also revising the
name of subchapter U, and of parts 366 and 367, title 18, CFR, to
better reflect the Commission's reliance on its statutory authority
under the FPA and NGA, in addition to its authority under PUHCA 2005.

C. Filing Date

    13. As this Final Rule merely clarifies existing filing obligations
that are already in place, we will require centralized service
companies that are subject to this Final Rule to file Form No. 60 by
May 1, 2010.

IV. Information Collection Statement

    14. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB
to review and approve certain information collection requirements
imposed by agency rule.\11\ The Commission is submitting notification
of the information collection requirements contained in this Final Rule
to OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
    \12\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations in 5
CFR 1320.11 require that it approve certain reporting and recordkeeping
requirements (collections of information) imposed by an agency. Upon
approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control
number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing
requirements of this Final Rule will not be penalized for failing to
respond to these collections of information unless the collections of
information display a valid OMB control number.
    16. This Final Rule clarifies that the requirement to file FERC
Form No. 60 as it currently exists applies to centralized service
companies in holding company systems that include a natural gas company
(where there is not also a public utility); in holding company systems
that include a public utility, these requirements already apply.
Likewise, this Final Rule clarifies that the Uniform System of Accounts
as it currently exists applies to centralized service companies in
holding company systems that include a natural gas company (where there
is not also a public utility); in holding company systems that include
a public utility, these requirements already apply. Finally, this Final
Rule revises the

definitions in 18 CFR parts 366 and 367 to match the requirements we
are implementing in this Final Rule.
    17. Since most holding companies include only public utilities or
include both public utilities and natural gas companies and so would
already be subject to these requirements, we expect that this
clarification will have an impact on only a relatively small number of
companies. Implementation of this Final Rule is necessary to provide
greater transparency and will aid the Commission in fulfilling its
regulatory obligation under the FPA and the NGA to ensure that rates
are just and reasonable.
    18. In the Form 60 Notice, the Commission explained that, when the
Commission issued Order Nos. 667, 667-A and 684, it did not intend to
exclude centralized service companies providing non-power services to
holding companies that included natural gas companies (but no public
utilities) from the requirement to file Form No. 60 or to abide by the
Uniform System of Accounts. Thus, the Commission continues to rely on
the estimate made in Order No. 684 of the burden associated with the
annual filing of Form No. 60 (2,850 hours and $342,000).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Order No. 684, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,229, at P 226;
see also Form 60 Notice, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,647 at P 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Moreover, in response to the Form 60 Notice, the sole comment
filed supported the Form 60 Notice proposals and did not raise any
concerns as to the reporting burden. Therefore, the Commission will use
the same estimate in this Final Rule.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of
                 Data collection                     Number of     responses per     Hours per     Total No. of
                                                    respondents     respondent       response          hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC Form No. 60................................              38               1              75           2,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information Collection Costs: 2,850 hours at $120/hour = $342,000.
    Title: FERC Form No. 60, Annual Report of Centralized Service
Companies.
    Action: Proposed collections.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0215.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit, Interstate natural gas
pipelines and public utilities (not applicable to small businesses).
    Frequency of Responses: Annually.
    20. Necessity of Information: This Final Rule explicitly requires,
absent an exemption or waiver, any centralized service company
providing non-power services to any natural gas company or any public
utility, or both, to file FERC Form No. 60 annually and to comply with
the Uniform System of Accounts. This information is needed to promote
transparency and to allow the Commission to determine whether rates of
natural gas pipelines and public utilities are just and reasonable.
    21. Implementation of these requirements will help the Commission
carry out its responsibilities under the FPA, NGA, and PUHCA 2005 to
ensure that public utilities and natural gas companies do not engage in
improper pricing and undue discrimination. The information collection
requirements of this Final Rule will be reported to the Commission and
posted on the Commission's Web site.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the reporting and
accounting requirements proposed in this Final Rule. These requirements
conform to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the natural gas pipeline and
electric power industries, and are necessary to meet the Commission's
obligations under PUHCA, the FPA, and the NGA. The Commission has
assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is
specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information collection requirements.
    22. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, [Attention:
Michael Miller, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Phone: (202)
502-8415, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    23. Comments concerning the collection of information and the
associated burden estimate, should be sent to the contact listed above
and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer for
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:
(202) 395-7285].

V. Environmental Analysis

    24. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\14\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\15\ The actions proposed here fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination, for accounting-related matters, and for
rate-related matters.\16\ Therefore, no environmental assessment is
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 (1987).
    \15\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \16\ See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5), 380.4(a)(15),
380.4(a)(16), 380.4(a)(25); accord id. 380.4(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    25. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \17\ generally
requires a description and analysis of rulemakings that will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The regulations adopted here impose requirements only on holding
companies of public utilities and natural gas pipelines, the majority
of which are not small businesses, and thus the regulations proposed
here will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. These requirements are, in fact, designed to
benefit all customers, including small businesses. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby certifies that the regulations proposed here will not
have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 5 U.S.C. 601-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Document Availability

    26. 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) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during
normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First
Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    27. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available in eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available in eLibrary both in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in
eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of
this document in the docket number field.
    28. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during the Commission's normal business hours. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>) or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

List of Subjects

18 CFR Part 366

    Electric power, Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

18 CFR Part 367

    Electric power, Natural gas, Uniform System of Accounts, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 366
and 367, subchapter U, Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

0
1. The title of Subchapter U is revised to read as follows:

SUBCHAPTER U--REGULATIONS UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING COMPANY ACT
OF 2005, FEDERAL POWER ACT AND NATURAL GAS ACT

0
2. The title of part 366 is revised to read as follows:

PART 366--BOOKS AND RECORDS

0
3. The authority citation for part 366 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq., and 42
U.S.C. 16451-16463.

0
4. The heading of Subpart A is revised to read as follows:

Subpart A--Definitions and Provisions Under PUHCA 2005, the Federal
Power Act and the Natural Gas Act

0
5. In Sec.  366.1, the definition of ``service company'' is revised to
read as follows:

Sec.  366.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Service company. The term ``service company'' means any associate
company within a holding company system organized specifically for the
purpose of providing non-power goods or services or the sale of goods
or construction work to any public utility or any natural gas company,
or both, in the same holding company system.
* * * * *

0
6. The heading of Subpart B is revised to read as follows:

Subpart B--Accounting and Recordkeeping Under PUHCA 2005, the
Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act

0
7. In Sec.  366.23, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  366.23  FERC Form No. 60, Annual reports of centralized service
companies, and FERC-61, Narrative description of service company
functions.

    (a) General. (1) FERC Form No. 60. Unless otherwise exempted or
granted a waiver by Commission rule or order pursuant to Sec. Sec.
366.3 and 366.4, every centralized service company (see Sec.  367.2 of
this chapter) in a holding company system, regardless of whether that
service company is providing services to a public utility, a natural
gas company, or both, must file an annual report, FERC Form No. 60, as
provided in Sec.  369.1 of this chapter. Every report must be submitted
on the FERC Form No. 60 then in effect and must be prepared in
accordance with the instructions incorporated in that form.
* * * * *

0
8. The heading of part 367 is revised to read as follows:

PART 367--UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS FOR CENTRALIZED SERVICE
COMPANIES SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY HOLDING
COMPANY ACT OF 2005, FEDERAL POWER ACT AND NATURAL GAS ACT

0
9. The authority citation for part 367 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq., and 42
U.S.C. 16451-16463.

0
10. In Sec.  367.1, paragraph (a)(45) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  367.1  Definitions.

    (a) * * *
    (45) Service company means any associate company within a holding
company system organized specifically for the purpose of providing non-
power goods or services or the sale of goods or construction work to
any public utility or any natural gas company, or both, in the same
holding company system.
* * * * *

0
11. In Sec.  367.2, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  367.2  Companies for which this system of accounts is prescribed.

    (a) Unless otherwise exempted or granted a waiver by Commission
rule or order pursuant to Sec. Sec.  366.3 and 366.4 of this chapter,
this Uniform System of Accounts applies to any centralized service
company operating, or organized specifically to operate, within a
holding company system for the purpose of providing non-power services
to any public utility or any natural gas company, or both, in the same
holding company system.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-30449 Filed 12-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


112 that apply to fuel tank systems, other than secondary containment.
These include tank integrity assessment and tank inspections, tests and
recordkeeping.  Generators and burners must also conduct personnel
training and develop an SPCC plan including a response plan.
Additionally, ECF storage tanks would need “engineered” secondary
containment:  an external liner, vault, or use of double walled tank.
Further, certain storage tanks would need Level 2 air emissions controls
based on requirements of the organics liquid distribution (OLD) NESHAP.
Similar to Option A, records must be kept of each shipment to an
off-site burner, and DOT shipping papers may be required for some
shipments.  Offsite burners must provide a one time certification to the
generator that they will comply with the storage and burner conditions.

Option C (Subtitle C Storage/tracking) – ECF would be stored, tracked,
and transported as hazardous waste subject to RCRA Subtitle C storage
and tracking requirements.  This requirement means that the point of
exclusion would be moved to the ECF burner nozzle.  Thus, 40 CFR 265,
Subpart J tank standards would apply to storage of ECF by generators who
accumulate ECF for less than 90 days, and the permit standards under
Part 264 (including the Subpart J tank standards) would apply to
generators who accumulate for more than 90 days and to burner storage
units.  The Part 265 and Part 264 Subpart J tank standards require
engineered secondary containment virtually identical to Option B.
Additionally, tank systems would be subject to the RCRA air emissions
controls under Subparts BB and CC of Parts 265 or 264.  The Part 264
standards would also require off-site burner storage units (and
generators who accumulate ECF for more than 90 days) to comply with
closure and financial assurance requirements and groundwater monitoring
requirements and to obtain a RCRA storage permit.  As discussed in
Section 7.5.3 below, we analyzed savings for options C under two
different scenarios.

Analysis of ACC Survey

As discussed in Section 1, the ACC survey provided detailed information
on 95 hazardous waste streams that are currently not qualifying for the
comparable fuels exclusion.  However, only 76 of these streams were
subject to further analysis because:

17 streams did not contain sufficient information on heating values
and/or annual quantities generated.

Two wastestreams, N-01-13 and N-01-14 are currently not handled as a
hazardous waste.

Many of these 76 streams were failing the current comparable fuel
specification for only one or two § 261.38, Table 1 constituents.
However, the survey did include many streams that failed for
constituents other than oxygenates and hydrocarbons and would not
qualify as ECF.  Table 7-1 provides a summary of failing constituents
for each of the 76 streams.  Forty three of these streams are failing
the specifications for metals or halogenated, nitrogenated, or
sulfonated organics or Hazard Category A hydrocarbons.  See discussion
of the Relative Hazard Categorization Scheme in Section 2.4 above.
These wastestreams would not qualify as ECF.

	As for wastestreams failing the specification for oxygenates or
hydrocarbons, the table shows which specific constituents are failing
the specifications.  Fifteen streams fail the current specifications for
toluene, ten fail for isobutyl alcohol, nine fail for methyl ethyl
ketone (MEK), and six fail for benzene.

Table 7-1: Classification of Wastestreams from ACC Survey.

Estimate of Qualifying ECF Quantities

Based on information provided in the previous section, we estimated the
quantity of hazardous waste that would qualify as emissions-comparable
fuels by screening out streams that would not meet the definition of
ECF.

Forty three streams would not be eligible as ECF because they fail the
specifications in 40 CFR 261.38, Table 1 for compounds other than the
hydrocarbons and oxygenates for which the specifications would not
apply.  These streams fail the specification for compounds such as
metals, halogenated organics, or Relative Hazard Category A
hydrocarbons.  These streams amount to 121.1 million lbs per year (or
60,600 tons/yr) with a weighted average heating value of 10,500 Btu/lb.
These will continue to be handled as hazardous waste.  See Table 7-2.
Note that only 6 waste streams totaling 5200 tons/yr would be ineligible
as ECF solely because they fail the specification for a Hazard Category
A hydrocarbon.

Thirty three streams meet the definition of emissions-comparable fuel.
These 33 ECF streams amount to 253.4 million lbs/yr (or 126,700
tons/yr), are generated at 16 sites representing eight different
companies.  These streams have a combined thermal value of 2.97 x 106 MM
Btu/yr or a weighted average heating value of 11,700 Btu/lb.  Table 7-2
shows a stream-by-stream breakdown of these results.  The amount of
qualifying comparable fuel is dominated by two streams (one at 118
million lb/year and the other at 56 million lb/yr) together accounting
for more than 60% of the qualifying waste.

Preliminary Information Used in Costs/Savings Estimate

Value of Fuel Oil and ECF

The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration gathers
information on fuel oil pricing.  March 2006 prices for #2 fuel oil and
residual fuel oil were $1.79/gallon and $1.19/gallon respectively which
was a 33% increase (on average) from March 2005 levels.   The March 2005
price for fuel oil #4 was listed as $1.16/gallon (this is the latest
information available for fuel oil # 4).  Based on the average increase
for other types of fuel oil we can estimate the March 2006 price for
fuel oil #4 at $1.54/gallon.  This cost is equivalent to $426/ton or
$11/ MM Btu assuming a heating value of 139,400 Btu/gal.

Table 7-2: ACC Survey based ECF Waste Quantities.

We assumed that the value of ECF as a fuel would be similar to that of
fuel oil # 4 on a thermal input basis.  However, given that ECF is a
conditionally-excluded hazardous waste subject to substantive storage
and burner conditions (and liability if those conditions are not met),
and may contain an increased level of some hazardous constituents when
compared with fuel oil, we estimate that the value of ECF would be 75%
of that of fuel oil and would be equivalent to $11* 75% or $8.25
$/MMBtu.

Hazardous Waste Disposal Costs

The hazardous waste disposal costs currently being incurred by some
generators for their ECF is estimated to be $0.96/gal.  This is the 2004
average tipping fee for bulk, liquid, nonhalogenated waste charged by
commercial incinerators.  Assuming ECF has a density equivalent to that
of water, we can estimate the disposal costs to be $231/ton.  This
disposal cost is not inconsistent with the limited information available
in the ACC survey which shows disposal cost information for five
streams.  The weighted average disposal cost is $231/ton, although a
range from $130/ton to $270/ton was seen.

Labor Costs

Labor costs are taken from the BIF rule ICR.  The rates are adjusted to
March 2006 levels by increasing the ICR rates based on the increase in
consumer price index.  As Table 7-3 shows, the rates vary from about
$34/hour for clerical support to $119/hour for legal/consultant support.

Estimation of the Number of ECF Shipments

For generators who would ship their ECF off-site for burning, we are
assuming that shipments occur when the volume of each stream reaches
9000 gallons.  However, we are also assuming that each stream is shipped
at least once every 90 days to satisfy accumulation time requirements
for 90-day HW generator tanks under §262.34.

So for a given generator site,

	Appendix E shows the estimated number of shipments by generator site
for each qualifying waste stream.

Estimation of Tank Size for Generators and Burners

In order to estimate storage costs, it was necessary to estimate the
tank size for burners and generators.

Generators:  For generators, we assume that each ECF stream will be
stored in a separate tank.  Therefore:

Number of ECF tanks = Number of ECF streams

There is a large range of production rates among individual ECF streams.
 For example, the 90-day production rate varies from 500 gallons to 3.5
million gallons. Although facilities producing very large quantities can
ship and or transfer their waste to the burner frequently (even multiple
times a day) the generator must have storage capacity to account for
burner downtime and other contingencies (such as shipment delays).

If combusting at onsite burner:  We assume the size of the generator
tank should be at least sufficient to store 2 weeks of ECF.  So:

Tank Size = Biweekly ECF stream generation rate (gallons per 2 weeks) *
2

If combusting at offsite burner:  The 2 week storage minimum applies but
also consider that generators must ship at least once every 90 days.

If generation rate is greater than 9000 gallons/ 2 weeks,

Tank Size (gallons) = 2* Biweekly generation rate (gallons)

If generation rate is less than 9000 gallons every 3 months:

Tanks Size (gallons) = 2* 90 day generation rate (gallon)

For intermediate generation rates:

Tank Size (gallons) = 2*9000

Tank size is rounded up to the nearest 1000 gallons.  Sizes vary from
2000 to 1.1 million gallons.

Burners:  We estimate that all the ECF streams from a single generating
site will go to a single boiler.  And, we assume that this burner will
store all the ECF streams together in a single tank.  Assuming that the
burner tank needs to be large enough to hold a couple of days of the
aggregate ECF:

Burner Tank Size (gallons) = 2* 2* Total ECF sent to burner in a day
(gallons)

	Based on these estimates burner tank size varies from 2000 to 160,000
gallons

The results of these analyses are shown in Appendix E.

Generator Types and ECF burn Scenarios

	Based on the ACC survey, we ascertained that 16 sites representing
eight companies had qualifying ECF. These sites could be categorized
into two groups.

Group 1:  There are nine sites with qualifying ECF currently incurring
disposal costs, i.e., these sites are currently paying a fee (to
incinerators, cement kilns or fuel blenders) to dispose of ECF as
hazardous waste.  These sites are D-01, D-02, D-03, D-04, F-01, J-05,
L-02, L-06, and M-03.  Group 1 sites taking the ECF exclusion will save
on hazardous waste disposal costs.  Additionally, since ECF will
displace fossil fuels burners will have fuel savings.  These generators
and burners will incur costs for recordkeeping and storing ECF,
analyzing ECF for toxic constituents, and for installing burner
controls. These costs, as discussed in the next subsection, will vary by
the regulatory option being considered.

Group 2:  There are seven sites with qualifying ECF that we determined
are not currently incurring disposal costs.  These sites will not
realize any savings for displaced fuel or hazardous waste disposal but
they will have other cost savings such as storage.  Based on the
information provided, we assumed three different scenarios for these
sites.

Scenario 1:  ECF is burned onsite in a boiler that remains a hazardous
waste boiler. (K-01, K-04)

Scenario 2:  ECF is burned onsite in a boiler that exits the HW/MACT
regulatory system. (B-01)

Scenario 3:  ECF is burned offsite at an affiliated boiler (i.e., a
boiler owned by the parent company) that remains a HW boiler. (B-02,
D-05, D-06, G-01)

Costs/Savings Estimation

	The costs and net savings to ECF generators/burners depend on the
regulatory option as well as the classification discussed in Section
7.4.  Primary assumptions used are:

All qualifying ECF generated at a single site will be burned at a single
steam watertube boiler that would be modified to meet ECF combustion
control requirements.  We assume that for each generating site such a
boiler is located close enough to the generator site that makes
transportation of ECF to the boiler economically feasible.

The boiler may be located onsite or offsite.  Based on the ACC survey it
was determined that the following facilities will send their ECF off
site for combustion:  B02, D05, D06, G01, D01, D04, F01, J05, L06, and
D02.

	Group 1 and Group 2 sites are handled differently for purposes of
estimating savings.  The itemized cost estimates were derived from
information collection request (ICF) supporting statements for several
different rules, review of information available from EPA, DOE and other
agencies, and vendor quotes.  Reasonable assumptions were made in cases
where the information was not readily available.  Appendix F lists unit
cost/savings for each item below as well as assumptions and information
sources used.  Appendix G contains the cost model that was developed
based on these assumptions.

Details of the cost and savings analysis are provided below.

Group 1 Sites:

Savings:

Fossil fuel savings assuming ECF is valued at $8.25/MMBtu.

Savings for not managing ECF as hazardous waste - $ 275/ton (includes
$231/ton for disposal, $14/ton for manifesting, and $30/ton for
generator storage.)

Costs

Costs vary by regulatory option and include costs to comply with the
regulatory requirements as well as costs deemed to arise from standard
operating procedures (SOP).  The cost model groups the costs into five
primary components.  (1) boiler costs associated with retrofitting a
typical fuel oil boiler to meet the requirements of an ECF boiler; (2)
analytical costs incurred to test candidate ECF streams for the
specification constituents and properties; (3) tracking costs for
shipping papers/manifests and maintaining records; (4) generator storage
costs to replace, inspect, and maintain storage tanks, provide secondary
containment and air emissions controls; and (5) burner storage costs.
These components are discussed in detail below.

Boiler-

Costs apply equally to all regulatory options.

Carbon Monoxide Monitor – Assume one time installed cost of $5800 per
boiler annualized over 10 years.

Automatic Feed Cutoff - Assume one time installed cost of $3800 per
boiler annualized over 10 years.

Firing Nozzle – Assume 50% of boilers would require a new firing
nozzle. One time cost (annualized over ten years) of $350 for an ECF
feedrate of 3.3 gallons per minute.  Costs scale with ECF feedrate.

Costs for maintenance, calibration, and recordkeeping related to CO CEMS
and ECF feed systems and automatic feed cutoff – 1.75 hours per day or
$30,400 annually per boiler.

Analytical

Analytical costs apply equally to all options

Testing – Assume $8100 per test per ECF stream for analyzing all
261.38 constituents (including volatile and semi-volatile organics,
metals, PCBs, total nitrogen etc.) and for evaluating other properties
such as sulfur and ash content, heating value, and viscosity.  The cost
takes into account that iterative sampling may be required to achieve
low detection limits. Assume 50% waste streams are tested annually,
while the rest are tested semi-annually.

Recordkeeping – Assume $1200 per test for maintaining lab
documentation of testing (test methods, quantization limits, QA/QC
records etc) and for certifying certain compounds are not in ECF based
on process knowledge.

Tracking –

Tracking costs vary by regulatory option and include:

Shipping papers - Every shipment under Option C will require hazardous
waste manifests at a cost of $50 per manifest.  Assume all shipments
will be accompanied by DOT shipping paper (at half the cost of a
hazardous waste manifest) under Options A & B.

One-time notification to the Regional Administrator by the generator and
off-site burner at $160 per notification annualized over 20 years
(Options A& B)

Transporters and offsite burners obtain EPA ID number at a one time cost
of $470 annualized over 20 years(Option C)

One-time certification by an off-site burner to the generator that
burner is in compliance with storage and burner controls at a one time
cost of $264 annualized over 20 years. (all options)

Recordkeeping for each shipment at $30 per shipment. (all regulatory
options)

Generator Storage

A key assumption for the cost estimate for both generator and burner
storage is that ECF will be stored in above ground tanks only.
Generator storage costs also vary by regulatory option and include:

Replacement of storage tanks at an installed cost of $69,000 for a
20,000 gallon tank.  Cost for other tanks sizes are calculated using a
0.6 scaling factor.  The costs are annualized over 15 years.  (all
regulatory options)

Secondary containment for storage tanks.  Earthen berm for Option A (as
standard operating procedures) at $1300 for a 1000 gal tank.  Engineered
secondary containment with leak detection for Options B/C at cost of
$30,700 for 20,000 gallon tank.  Cost for other tanks sizes are
calculated using a 0.6 scaling factor and the costs are annualized over
15 years.

Piping to from generator tanks to burn tank (assume 500 ft) - Applies
for all options but only for onsite combustion at a cost of $4100 per
tank annualized over 10 years.

Daily visual inspection of tanks at a cost of $8 per inspection per tank
(all options)

Weekly visual inspection of  pumps, valves and piping at a cost of $17
per inspection per tank (all options)

Monthly monitoring for VOC leaks at cost of $150  per test per tank (all
options)

Professional engineer’s certification of major repairs – Assume $490
per repair and assume each tank has one major repair every 5 years. (all
options)-

Cessation/containment of leaks- Leaks must be cleaned up as hazardous
waste Assume three leaks per generator site per year as HW and labor and
disposal costs total $1570 per leak.(all options)

Notification and reporting of leaks to Regional administrator at $1020
per leak (Option C)

SPCC Plan – For review of SPCC plan and certification by PE and
submitting response plan to RA (Option B).  Plans are reviewed every
five years. Equivalent costs are $289 per year per generator site.

Air emissions controls - Cost of Level 2 air emissions control are
estimated to be $20,100 per 20 gallon tank annualized over 15 years.
Assume a fraction of tanks will install Level 2 controls for air
emissions for their replacement storage tanks under the various options.

50% under Option A (currently existing air emissions controls
requirements),

75% under Option B (requirements are per organics liquids distribution
(OLD) NESHAP, in 40 CFR 63 Subpart EEEE), and

75% under Option C (40 CFR 265 Subpart CC)

Recordkeeping related to air emissions-$1400 per tank per year for
maintaining inspection records, tagging defective equipment etc. (all
options)

Operator Training – Assume 40 man hours of training annually at a
total cost of $3600 per generator site (all options)

Burner Storage –

The following burner storage costs are identical to those of generators:

Cost of new storage tank for each burner. (all options)

Secondary containment (earth berm for Option A, engineered materials for
Options B/C)

Daily visual inspection of tanks (all options)

Weekly visual inspection of  pumps, valves and piping (all options)

Monthly monitoring for VOC leaks (all options)

PE certification of major repairs (all options)

Cessation/containment of leaks as HW (all options)

Notification and reporting of leaks to RA (Option C)

SPCC Plan – Review SPCC plan and certify by PE.  Submit response plan
to RA (Option B)

Air emissions controls (Assume 50% will install Level 2 air emissions
controls under Option A, and 75% will install controls under Option B/C
on replacement storage tanks)

Recordkeeping related to air emissions (all options)

Operator training (offsite burners- all options)

The following costs will differ from those for generator storage tanks:

Piping from burn tank to burner- $410 per burner annualized over 10
years. (all options)

Closure /financial assurance (Option C) – Assume facilities will
estimate cost of closure and make annual payments to a closure trust
fund.  Assume total estimated closure cost for site with 1 million
gallon ECF capacity is $1.48 million.  Smaller capacity sites’ costs
are estimated using a 0.6 scaling factor.  Costs include those for
flushing the tanks, decontamination, demolition, and removal of
containment systems, decontamination and removal of soil.  Annual
payment to a closure trust fund is estimated by annualizing total
closure costs over 20 years.  Also, assume $1800 per year for annual
amendments to closure plan.

Groundwater monitoring (offsite burners, Option C) – Assume detection
monitoring only,i.e., compliance monitoring and corrective action not
required.  Assume capital costs for groundwater monitoring system of
$143,000 (annualized over 15 years) and $40,300 per year for labor and
O&M costs.

Permitting - (offsite burner, Option C) - Requirements for part B permit
application including waste analysis plan, closure/financial assurance
plan, certification of tanks and equipment.  One time cost $171,500 for
labor and O&M annualized over 10 years.  Assume permit renewal costs in
10 years are 50% of that of the original permit.  This is equivalent to
$18,300 per year for each offsite burner.

Group 2 Sites:

Costs/Savings depend on scenario and regulatory option.

Scenario 1- ECF is burned onsite in a boiler that remains a hazardous
waste boiler.

Savings-

Secondary containment on replacement storage and burn tanks (Option A)

Partial air emissions control costs (Option A)

Permit renewal costs for burn tanks (Option A, B)

Costs-

SPCC Plan renewal, certification, and submittal (Option B)

Scenario 2 – ECF is burned on site in a boiler that that would cease
being a part of the RCRA/MACT regulatory system

Savings-

BIF/MACT compliance related – Assume $65,300 per year savings due to
elimination of BIF/MACT compliance costs.   (All regulatory options)

Secondary containment on replacement storage and burn tanks (Option A)

Partial air emissions control costs (Option A)

Permit renewal costs (Option A, B)

Costs-

SPCC Plan renewal, certification, and submittal (Option B)

Scenario 3- ECF is burned offsite in an affiliated boiler that remains a
hazardous waste boiler.

Savings-

Tracking (difference between costs of manifests and shipping papers,
Option A-B)

Secondary containment on replacement storage and burn tanks.(Opt A)

Partial air emissions control costs (Option A)

Permit renewal costs for burn tanks (Opt A-B)

Costs-

SPCC Plan renewal/certification and submittal (Opt B)

Additional Assumptions for Option C for Offsite Combustion of ECF

Given that Regulatory Option C would require offsite boiler to obtain a
storage permit for ECF, we calculated savings estimates under two
scenarios:

Low End Savings Estimate – Assume no offsite shipment of ECF.
Facilities that would otherwise ship their ECF to offsite facilities
will not claim the exclusion.

High End Savings Estimate – Assume limited offsite shipments of ECF.
Some generators will claim the exclusion even if they do not have
quantifiable savings for the intangible benefits associated with dealing
with less hazardous waste.  Estimate also assumes commercial HWCs
(incinerators and kilns) will reduce their fees rather than lose revenue
from these streams.

The following sites’ ECF streams are currently burned in an affiliated
boiler and would continue to do so:  B02, D05, D06, and G01 – These
sites claim the exclusion but incur no quantifiable savings.

The following sites’ streams are currently burned in an offsite
commercial HWC and generators would claim the exclusion and continue to
send ECF to the HWC under reduced fees:  D01, D04, F01, J05, and L06 –
These sites will incur savings of disposal costs.

The following site will not claim the exclusion: D02

Results and Discussion

The results of savings estimates are shown in Table 7-4.  The results
are shown for all three regulatory options and are also broken down for
Group 1 and Group 2 sites. For each option, the number of companies,
sites, and ECF streams that are estimated to take the exclusion are
shown.

	The quantity of waste that is excluded would be 126,700 tons/year under
Regulatory Options A and B.  Under Option C the excluded waste quantity
will vary between 25,600 to 125,200 tons/yr.  The table also shows fuel
and hazardous waste management savings for Group 1 sites and other costs
or savings (note-table shows costs in parenthesis) for both Group 1 and
2 sites.  A site-by-site breakdown of these figures can be found in
Appendix H.

 	Net savings to generators and burners are also shown in the table.
Under Option A, net annual savings are $7.73 million with Group 1 sites
seeing 96% of these savings. Under Option B, slightly higher costs for
storage will result in slightly lower net savings of $7.58 million per
year or 98% of Option A savings.  Annual savings under Option C range
from $2.2 to $3.9 million (or 29-51% of option A savings).  The
reduction in savings is due to:–

Reduction in amount of waste excluded

Increase in number of generators that incur no savings despite taking
the exclusion.

Limitations of the Analysis

As noted earlier, the analysis in this section is limited to information
provided in the ACC survey.  The survey contained information on
generators that produce 187,000 tons/year of hazardous waste.  However,
according to EPA’s Biennial Reporting System, over 30 million tons of
hazardous waste was generated in 2003. A national estimate based on the
2003 Biennial Report and the 1996 hazardous waste constituent survey is
presented elsewhere.

Additionally, the analysis in this section does not account for
transportation costs/savings.  Note that generators who currently burn
ECF onsite and would ship ECF offsite under the exclusion will incur
transportation costs while others that are currently burning or
disposing of the waste offsite may see some savings on transportation
expenses.

Appendices

DRE versus CO/HC: Supplement to 1997 TSD

Analysis of Nondetect Organic Emissions

Outlier Analysis for Hazardous Waste Boiler Organic Emissions

Calculations for DF Comparative Risk Assessment

ECF Tank size and Number of Shipments

Assumptions used for Savings Estimate

Cost Model for Economic Analysis.

Generator Savings by Option

 See section 2.1 for a definition of ECF.

 Each of these five groups included Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC)

 See USEPA, “Final Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards
Volume VI: Development of Comparable Fuels Specifications”, May 1998.

 Method 8240 has been discontinued and replaced by Method 8260. The
newer method uses a capillary GC instead of a column GC.

 Gasoline has a higher fraction of volatiles than fuel oil and matrix
interferences required larger dilution factors for the samples.
Additionally, more dilution was required for gasoline to quantify one
the hydrocarbon VOCs (toluene) within the GC/MS calibration range.  The
higher dilution factors result in high detection limits for nondetect
substances.  EPA believed that waste fuels are likely to have a
composition more similar to fuel oil than gasoline, and thus the matrix
interferences for waste fuels would be more similar to fuel oil than
gasoline.  Therefore, EPA believed it was appropriate to base the
specifications for VOCs that were not detected in gasoline on fuel oil
QLs rather than gasoline QLs.

 USEPA, “Spring 2006 Regulatory Agenda”, Sequence # 3245- Expanding
the Comparable Fuels Exclusion under RCRA.

 Letter from American Chemistry Council (Carter Lee Kelly, Leader, Waste
Issues Team, and Robert A. Elam, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Waste
Issues Team) to Robert Springer and Matt Hale, USEPA, dated November 24,
2003.

 Not all information was provided for every waste stream. In fact about
20% of these waste streams had insufficient information for further
analysis.

 Only a summary of the combustion control requirements are presented
here.  See the preamble to the proposed rule Part 2; Section IIB for a
complete description. Also see Section 6 of this technical support
document.

 	Note that hazardous waste may be treated by bona fide means (e.g.,
other than blending) to achieve a heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb.  Note
also that ECF must have an as-fired heating value of 8,000 Btu/lb.
Consequently, ECF may be blended with other fuels to achieve the 8,000
Btu/lb as-fired heating value.

 This list of substances for which specification would be waived
includes all 22 oxygenates and two of the thirteen hydrocarbons (benzene
and toluene) that are in Table 1 of §261.38.  Note that the
specifications are unchanged for the remaining 11 hydrocarbons, other
organics (nitrogenated, sulfonated, and halogenated organics), metals
and other compounds listed in the table.

 See discussion in Section 3.1.1

 Note that Naphthalene is also sometimes classified as a PAH. See also
Section 2.4

 This classification is based on the test methods used to measure the
constituent during the development of the specifications.

 In a few instances the vapor pressure values were available
temperatures other than 25 C and were corrected to 25 °C assuming that
vapor pressure varies linearly with temperature.

 The one exception was endothall which had an estimated heating value of
7500 Btu/lb.

 Dellinger B., & Talor P.H., “ Designating Principal Organic Hazardous
Constituents,” App D in USEPA “Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions
and Reporting Trial Burn Results, 1989, EPA/625/6-89/019

 Brunner, C.R., 1988 “Handbook of Hazardous Waste Incineration”, TAB
Books

 T99(2)This is the temperature required to achieve 99% DRE in two
seconds. Note-The compound with the highest T99(2) values is ranked #1
and so on.

 This Section was written by Tim Taylor, Environmental Scientist at EPA
OSW’s Economics Methods and Risk Analysis Division.

 The specific use of the current version of the WMPT rankings in
developing the RCRA Priority Chemical List is documented in the Tier III
Priority Chemical List Docket.

 Benzene also has a High WMPT Eco-toxicity score, is a PAH precursor,
and very difficult to destroy thermally .  This information suggests
that benzene warrants special consideration in current decision-making.

 See 69 FR 55218.

USEPA, 2004,  “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Industrial Boiler &
Process Heater NESHAP,” EPA-452/R-04-002

 Six thousand out of 57,000 ICI boilers and process heaters are
oil-fired units according to, USEPA, “The Upcoming Industrial Boiler &
Process Heater MACT Standard., “A&WMA MACT Web Confierence, May 2002.

 USEPA, “AP 42:Compilation of Air Pollution Emissions Factors, Vol I:
Stationary Point and Area Sources,” , 5th Edition, 1995, Ch.1.3 Fuel
Oil Combustion.

 Property values from, Stultz & Kitto, eds, “Steam: It’s Generation
and Use,” 40th Edition, 1992, Ch.8.

 Chevron Products Company, “Diesel Fuels Technical Review,” 1998

 See preamble to the 1998 comparable fuels rulemaking at 63FR 33785.

 Various geographic regions in the are assigned single volatility class
each month based on altitude and ambient temperature range

 From http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/

 ASTDR, 1995, “Toxicological Profile for Automotive Gasoline,”
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp72.html

 This requirement is currently being removed.
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/rfg.htm

 http://www.epa.gov/OMS/regs/fuels/rfg/properf/rfg-params.htm

 The use of MTBE is being phased out.

 Chevron Products Co., “Motor Gasoline Technical Review”, 1996

 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/renewable_diesel.html

 Owens, E., “Oxygenates for Diesel Emissions Reduction” 7th Diesel
Engines Emissions Reductions workshop, Portsmouth, VA.

 Avallone, E.A., & Baumeister, T.(eds), “Mark’s Standard Handbook
for Mechanical Engineers,” 9th Edition, 1987

 Note there are subcategories within these main categories.

 See Section 6.2.3 for a discussion on atomization systems.

 See 63 Fr 55218 (Sept. 13, 2004) and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD.

 USEPA, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters;
Final Rule,” September 2004, See 69 FR 55223

 USEPA, Draft Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards(NODA),
Volume II: Evaluation of CO/HC and DRE Database,” April 1997

 La Fond, et al, 1985, “Evaluation of Continuous Performance
Monitoring Techniques for Hazardous Waste Incinerators.

 Hall, D.L., Dellinger, B., Graham, J.L., and Rubey, W.A. “Thermal
Decomposition Properties of a Twelve Component Organic Mixture.”
Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials, Volume 3, November 4 1986, pg
441-449.  Lieber, Inc. Publishers.

 Note that the low CO measurements are somewhat deceptive.  The POHCs
were injected at low concentration with no auxiliary fuel.  There was
very little carbon available to form CO.  The CO concentrations were not
corrected to 7% oxygen and this correction would be complicated because
the oxidant was a mixture much higher in nitrogen than standard
combustion air.  A preliminary estimate suggests that the 15 ppm CO
would be over 100 ppm at 7% O2  if also corrected for nitrogen dilution.

 Dellinger, B. Taylor, P., and Tirey, D., “Pathways of Formation of
Chlorinated PICs from the Thermal Degradation of Simple Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons.” Journal of Hazardous Materials, Elsevier Publishers,
1989.

 Staley, Richards, Huffman, Olexsey, and Dellinger. “On the
Relationship Between CO, POHC and PIC Emissions from a Simulated
Hazardous Waste Incinerator.” JAPCA 39: 321-327, 1989.

 This database is available from the OAQPS website on the ICI NESHAP at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/finalmact/index.htm#finaloc
t

 These are two Rubicon units in Geismar, LA (Source IDs 812 & 813) and a
BASF unit (834) in LA.  These units have a boiler section that is
separated by ductwork from the primary combustion chamber and, thus, do
not meet the definition of a boiler in 40 CFR 260.10.

 Information on boiler type was limited.

 A majority of the units with emissions data burn residual fuel oil.

 See   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html  for the list of HAP.

 USEPA, “AP 42:Compilation of Air Pollution Emissions Factors, Vol I:
Stationary Point and Area Sources,”  5th Edition, 1995, Ch.1.3 Fuel
Oil Combustion.

   HYPERLINK "http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp14-c6.pdf"
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp14-c6.pdf

 For these compounds we did not extract partial detects.

  See Appendix C

 USEPA “Risk Burn Guidance for Hazardous Waste Combustion
Factilities”, EPA OSW/Region 4,  EPA 530-3-01-001, 2001

 USEPA, “Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards,”
September 2005, Vol; IV Compliance with the HWC MACT Standards, Section
3.

 Stanmore B.R., 2004,“The Formation of Dioxins in Combustion
Systems,” Combustion and Flame, v 36, pp398-427.

 Gullet B., and Seeker, R., 1997, “Chlorinated Dioxin and Furan
Formation, Control and Monitoring”, ICCR Meeting Presentation

 Porcaccini et al, 2003 “Formation of Chlorinated Aromatics by
Reactions of Cl., Cl2, and HCl with Benzene in the Cool-Down Zone of a
Combustor” Engineering Science and Technology, v .37 p, pp 1684-1689.

 http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp69.html

 Note that there is no specification limit for Copper.

 USEPA, “Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standards, Vol IV,
Compliance with HWC MACT Standards,” September 2005, Section 3.2

 Ni is known to increase PCDD/F formation.

 Beth Antley, USEPA, Region 4, and David Layland, USEPA, OSW, made
significant contributions to this section.

 RTI International, “Inferential Risk Analysis in Support of Standards
for Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Hazardous Waste
Combustors,” Final Report, July 2005

 It must be emphasized that emission-adjusted MOEs should not be
construed as predictions of the level of risk.  Instead, they are only
intended to provide an indication of whether risks could exceed a level
of concern based on simplifying assumptions and as such, are subject to
a considerable degree of uncertainty

 Boilers that were not integrally designed were not excluded.

 Industrial boilers with dry air pollution control devices that elect to
burn ECF would be required to control their air pollution control device
inlet temperatures to 400F unless their primary fuel is coal

 The specification would not be waived for PAHs.

 We note, however, that there is no reason to believe that these
parameters (e.g., stack parameters, location, nearby land use) would be
any different for the universe of ECF boilers than for the universe of
MACT HW boilers.

	Please note that, although the 2000 slope factor is consistent with
EPA’s most recent upper bound slope factor for human cancer risk,
based on human data, there are a variety of sources of uncertainty in
this estimate.  The 1985 estimate was derived from animal studies, which
EPA has reanalyzed as part of its dioxin reassessment.  These estimates
are not final and are subject to change once EPA finalizes the
assessment.

 Generators may blend hazardous waste fuels to meet the viscosity
specification under conditions stipulated in proposed §216.38 (a)(4).
Note that the waste is not excluded until after blending to achieve a
maximum viscosity of 50 cs, and the blending is hazardous waste
treatment.

 EPA is seeking comment if storage in other containers (such as 55
gallon drums and other portable containers) is likely to occur.

 USEPA, “A Must for USTs” July 1995, EPA 510-K-95-002

 See proposed rule at §261.38(c) (2)(ii) for complete specifications
and see Preamble to the proposed rule Part Two, Section II.B for a
discussion of the rationale for these conditions.

 Note that oxygen must also be measured with a CEMS.

 For a spherical droplets the surface area to volume ratio is equal to
6/d, where d is the diameter of the droplet.  Therefore the smaller the
droplet the higher the surface area per given volume of fuel that is
available to absorb heat from the flame.

 Engineering Science, “Background Information Document for the
Development of Regulations to Control the Burning of Hazardous Wastes in
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, Volume I: Industrial Boilers,”
January 1987.

 Brunner,C.R., 1989 “Handbook of Hazardous Waste Incineration,” Tab
Books Inc.,

 Note that ECF cannot have a viscosity exceeding 50 cs.

 	Note that 35 and 100 mesh corresponds to a particle size less than 500
microns and 150 microns respectively.  Note, however, that ECF must be
able to pass through a 200 mesh (74 micron) sieve to ensure that
particles are small enough to ensure volatilization and destruction of
organic compounds.

 Letter from American Chemistry Council (Carter Lee Kelly, Leader, Waste
Issues Team, and Robert A. Elam, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Waste
Issues Team) to Robert Springer and Matt Hale, USEPA, dated November 24,
2003.

 This is similar to secondary containment required by the states of
Florida and Minnesota for above ground fuel oil tanks.

 Although the ACC survey table shows 96 streams, one stream L-02-12 was
duplicated on a 2nd row.

 Six streams totaling 9.4 million lbs/yr are failing the specifications
for naphthalene, a hazard category A hydrocarbon.

 The waste stream IDs in the ACC survey had the form x-XX-XX (for e.g.
A-01-12). We assumed that the letter in the code represented a single
company and the first 2 digit number represented a unique generating
site. This approach may have underestimated the number of generating
sites.

 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/a803700002m.htm

 http://www.etc.org/costsurvey8.cfm

 USEPA, “Supporting Statement for EPA ICR 1361.10,” October 2005.

 ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.tx

 This is based the size of a typical tanker truck.

An additional factor of 2 to provide sufficient headspace.

 The savings for HW manifests and generator storage are equal to the
costs for these items under regulatory option C.

 Absent a condition of the exclusion, we nonetheless assumed that
facilities would incur certain costs to implement standard operating
procedures (SOP), such as keeping records of each shipment of waste fuel
under Regulatory Option A.

 Assumes every boiler burning ECF will purchase a new CO CEMS and every
boiler is already equipped with an oxygen CEMS.

 A 0.6 scaling factor was used in all economic estimates where the size
of the item had an impact on the cost.

 This overestimates costs because ECF will require DOT shipping papers
only if ECF meets the DOT definition of a hazardous material.

 Assume separate tank for each qualifying ECF stream.  Tanks replacement
schedule:  33% replaced immediately, 33% after 5 years and 33% after 10
years.

 For example the installed cost for a 10,000 gallon tank would be =
$69,000* (10,000/20,000)0.6= $45,000.

 The visual inspections of tanks/equipment as well as monthly monitoring
are based on requirements for hazardous waste tanks in Subparts J and CC
of 40 CFR 265 and requirements for fuel oil tanks under SPCC
requirements.  It is assumed that these inspections are SOP and would be
performed under Option A as well.

 Assume spills are less than 42 gallons which is below  the SPCC
reporting threshold per 40 CFR §112.4

  Costs are for renewing existing plans.  The cost of a response plan is
included although very few generator sites would have a total storage
capacity for fuel oil and ECF of >1,000,000 gal, the threshold for which
a response plan is required under §112.20(f)(1).

 Assume that application of the CAA OLD NESHAP and RCRA Part 265/264,
Subpart CC, will result in a similar number of tanks being subject to
air emissions controls under Options B and C.  However, assume that only
50% of tanks will be subject to Level 2 controls under existing product
controls (Option A).

 All ECF streams combined in single new storage tank for each burner.
Tank life is 15 years.

 This estimate is based on a closure cost tool developed by Washington
State Dept of Ecology, Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction
Program,Publication # 05-04-009; May 2005

 These costs are based on, “Supporting Statement for EPA ICR 959.12,
Facility Groundwater Monitoring Requirements,” January 2005.

 From “Supporting Statement for EPA ICR # 1573.10, Part B Permit
Application, Permit Modification, Special Permits.***

 Annualized savings based on elimination of one time SSRA costs of
$300,000,  one time PCDD/F test cost of $7700, Comprehensive performance
test costs ($144,000 every 5 years), SSMP, notification of compliance,
documentation of compliance etc.

 Difference between engineered secondary containment and cost of earth
berm.

 For example, reduced taxes for managing hazardous waste.

 We assume commercial incinerators/kilns will reduce their disposal fees
by 75%.

 The qualifying waste quantity is the same for all options and is equal
to the excluded waste quantity under options A and B.

 See 7.5.3 for assumptions used to obtain high and low end estimates for
option C.

 Note that respondents to the survey reported waste that they believed
were candidate waste fuels that could potentially be excluded from RCRA
regulation.  The wastes were liquid hazardous wastes with a heating
value > 5000 Btu/lb and they failed the comparable fuel specification
for only a few constituents or for viscosity.

 USEPA, “The National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Based on
2003 Data), ***

 USEPA, “Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other
Impacts of the Expansion of the RCRA Comparable Fuel
Exclusion—Proposed Rule,” May 2007.

Draft Technical Support Document for the Expansion of the Comparable
Fuels Exclusion

________________________________________________________________________
______________

 PAGE

 PAGE   i

Nov 17, 2006

 PAGE

 PAGE   14

Nov 17, 2006

 PAGE

 PAGE   15

Nov 17, 2006

The Fenceline Approach

Most of the subfactors are scored using a “fenceline” approach.  The
fenceline scoring approach involves comparing the value for a given
chemical data element against predefined “high” and “low”
threshold values for that data element, termed “fencelines.”

S

Ä

„

1

2

3

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

U

q

r

s

t

w

x

¢

£

¤

¾

¿

À

Á

Â

Ã

Ä

Å

Æ

â

ã

ä

å

è

é

ý

þ

ÿ

+

,

-

.

3

4

a

b

c

}

~

‚

ƒ

„

…

†

¢

£

#£

¤

¥

ª

«

Þ

ß

à

ú

û

ü

þ

ÿ

j¸

j;

j¬

j/

j

gd

I

gd

I

„Ð`„Ðgd

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

਀&䘋%摧䤋

摧䤋

萑Ũ葠Ũ摧䤋

萑ː葠ː摧䤋

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

萑ː葠ː摧䤋

摧䤋

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

਀&䘋&摧䤋

਀&䘋;摧䤋

摧䤋

萑Ũ葠Ũ摧䤋

h

I

h

I

h

I

摧䤋

萑ː葠ː摧䤋

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

摧䤋

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

h

I

摧䤋

hù

hÕ

'(

ë

ë

ë

ë

ë

ë

ë

ë

ë

ë

ë

ë

ë

S

T

w

Ñ

Ò

Y

[

d

e

g

r

s

Û

Ü

ë

R

S

T

Ñ

Ò

Ø

ñ

ò

÷

ø

û

ý

þ

X

Y

Z

[

c

d

e

f

g

q

r

s

w

Ù

Ú

Û

Ü

ã

ê

-ê

ë

ì

ô

ö

ý

þ

h

 h

h

h

h

 h

H*  h

h

h

h

h

਀&䘋

萑ː葠ː摧‛

옍ć̘栁؁摧‛

 hþ

萏Ũ葞Ũ摧岎)

 h‰

hO

h

hˆ~

h

 hO

hO

 hO

 hO

hO

h

h¤

 h¤

h

 h¤

h¤

h¤

h^{«f h¤

h¤

 h¤

h

摧纈

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

h

 h¤

摧纈

摧纈

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

hˆ~

摧纈

gdˆ~

摧纈

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

	㜀$␸䠀$摧ᗻ_

$

h)

h¦

h2

$

&

4

h)

h‡

J4

5

=

N

Z

o

p

q

Î

Ï

Ð

ù

:

A

B

J

K

L

M

T

_

`

a

b

c

ñ

ó

hd

 hd

h;

h;

hd

 h;

h;

 h;

h;

h;

਀&䘋

摧殉íᘀ

 hò

 hò

摧䤋

᐀mical-specific value is less than the “high” fenceline, the
subfactor is assigned a score of 3 (high concern).  If the chemical’s
value for that data element is between the “high” and the “low”
fencelines, the subfactor is assigned a score of 2 (medium concern).
For other data elements (e.g., the cancer potency slope factor, BCFs),
lower numeric values denote lower concern; in such cases, the fenceline
logic is reversed.  All the subfactors are scored as low concern (score
= 1), medium concern (score = 2), or high concern (score = 3).

EPA’s PBT Priority Chemical List

After several rounds of internal expert and public comments, EPA used
the current version of the WMPT as the initial step in the process of
identifying the initial pool of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
(PBT) chemicals that are national priorities for voluntary pollution
prevention activities across the agency.  EPA determined the initial
pool of (PBT) priority chemical candidates based on their rank.  The
rankings are based on the higher of available scores for human health
concern (i.e., the sum of the scores for persistence, bioaccumulation,
and human toxicity) and ecological concern (i.e., the sum of the scores
for persistence, bioaccumulation, and ecological toxicity).  The (PBT)
priority chemical candidate pool was limited to those chemicals with
WMPT scores of 8 or 9 (on a scale of 3 to 9).

See USEPA (2000) for a more detailed description of the WMPT development
process.  The specific use of the current version of the WMPT rankings
in developing the RCRA(PBT) priority chemical list is documented in the
Tier III (PBT) Priority Chemical List Docket.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 23915]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11043]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-1954-000]

Notice of Request To Vacate Order: Athens Energy, LLC

    Take notice that on May 3, 2018, Athens Energy, LLC, filed a
request To vacate the August 25, 2017 Letter Order Accepting for filing
the Notice of Cancellation of its Market-Based Rate Tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the website that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 7, 2018.

    Dated: May 17, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11043 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


20137 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Notices characteristics, almost all of the RFETS plutonium will be included in the approximately 6.5 MT of alternate feedstock, meaning that this material would not require long term storage. Based on these analyses, DOE/ NNSA has determined that the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed changes to the revised disposition program, including facility design changes, a small increase in the total amount of material to be fabricated into MOX fuel, and the processing of approximately 6.5 MT of surplus plutonium originally intended for immobilization, would not constitute significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the action and impacts previously analyzed in the SPD EIS. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.314, no additional NEPA analysis is required for DOE/ NNSA to move forward with the design changes and modify its disposition program so that it will entail processing 34 MT of surplus plutonium, including approximately 6.5 MT of plutonium originally intended for immobilization, into MOX fuel.

V. Amended Decision DOE/ NNSA is modifying its previous surplus plutonium disposition decisions in order to implement the U. S. Russia Agreement using a 34 MT MOX only approach. DOE/ NNSA is modifying its decisions on the disposition of surplus plutonium as follows:

  Pursue a program of fabricating into MOX fuel ( after appropriate sampling to determine actual material characteristics) approximately 6.5 MT of surplus weapons grade plutonium originally intended for immobilization, including the material transferred from RFETS to SRS for storage that after appropriate sampling is determined to meet the MOX fabrication facility's specifications.

  Increase the total amount of surplus plutonium to be fabricated into MOX fuel under that program from 33 MT to 34 MT.

Issued in Washington, DC, this 17th day of April, 2003.

Linton F. Brooks,

Acting Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration. [ FR Doc. 03   10151 Filed 4   23   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450   01   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OW   2002   0064; FRL   7487   6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 0029.08 ( OMB No. 2040   0068) to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: NPDES Modifications and Variance Requests. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 27, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Faulk, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management, Mail Code 4203M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202   564   0768; fax number: ( 202) 564   6431; email address: faulk. jack@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On January 10, 2003, ( 68 FR 1454), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW   2002   0064, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566   2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by e mail to owdocket epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mail Code: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May 31, 2002), or go to http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Title: NPDES Modification and Variance Requests ( OMB Control Number 2040   0068, EPA ICR Number 0029.08). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. Abstract: This ICR calculates the burden and costs associated with modifications and variances made to NPDES permits and to the National Sewage Sludge Management Program permit requirements. The regulations specified at 40 CFR 122.62 and 122.63 specify information a facility must report in order for the U. S.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 45 Apr 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APN1. SGM 24APN1 20138 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 79 / Thursday, April 24, 2003 / Notices Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to determine whether a permit modification is warranted. A NPDES permit applicant may request a variance from the conditions that would normally be imposed on the applicant's discharge. An applicant must submit information so the permitting authority can assess whether the facility is eligible for a variance, and what deviation from Clean Water Act ( CWA) provisions is necessary. In general, EPA and authorized States use the information to determine whether: ( 1) The conditions or requirements that would warrant a modification or variance exist, and ( 2) the progress toward achieving the goals of the ( CWA) will continue if the modification or variance is granted. Other uses for the information provided include: updating records on permitted facilities, supporting enforcement actions, and overall program management, including policy and budget development and responding to Congressional inquiries. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average about 23 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; 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. Respondents/ Affected Entities: NPDES permit applicants that request a variance or modification of the NPDES or sewage sludge management conditions. Estimated Number of Respondents: 13,137. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 303,997 hours. Estimated Total Annual Cost ( non labor costs): $ 10,952,021, includes $ 0 annualized capital or O& M costs. Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 10,674 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase in the applicant respondent and NPDES authorized state burden is due to an increase in the number of States authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program ( i. e., shift of burden from EPA to the States).

Dated: April 10, 2003. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 03   10165 Filed 4   23   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OAR   2003   0033; FRL   7487   7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission of EPA ICR No. 2078.01 to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: ENERGY STAR   Product Labeling. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost. DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 27, 2003. ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Schmeltz, Climate Protection Partnerships Division, Office of Air and Radiation, MC 6202J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202   564   9124; fax number: 202   565   2077; email address: schmeltz. rachel@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On July 17, 2002 ( 67 FR 46969), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8( d). EPA received no comments. EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR   2003   0033, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is ( 202) 566   1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: ( 1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET ( our preferred method), by email to a and r Docket@ epa. gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and ( 2) mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 ( May VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 45 Apr 23, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24APN1. SGM 24APN1


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30815]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13906]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0025; FRL-9964-23-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Reasonably Available Control
Technology for US Watercraft, LLC

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Rhode Island. The revision consists of a reasonably available
control technology approval for a volatile organic compound emission
source in Rhode Island, specifically, US Watercraft, LLC. This action
is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0025 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. 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. The 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, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100 (Mail code OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: June 7, 2017.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator,EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-13906 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P