[Federal Register: September 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 180)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47888-47891]
[DOCID:fr18se09-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2005-0463; FRL-8957-3]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Revisions to the Denver Emergency Episode Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to the Denver Emergency Episode
Plan submitted by the State of Colorado on September 16, 1997. EPA has
determined that the Denver Emergency Episode Plan revisions meet the
requirements for the prevention of air pollution emergency episodes
with ambient concentrations of air pollutants that may endanger public
health and welfare. The intended effect of this action is to make
Federally enforceable those provisions that EPA is approving. This
action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 17, 2009 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by October 19, 2009. If adverse comment is received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2005-0463, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2005-0463. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words Colorado and State mean the State of Colorado.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Is the Purpose of This Action?
III. What Is the State Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Denver Emergency Episode Plan Revisions
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. General Information

    What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What Is the Purpose of This Action?

    EPA is approving the Denver Emergency Episode Plan (DEEP) adopted
into the State of Colorado SIP on February 28, 1996, and submitted to
EPA September 16, 1997. The 1996 DEEP satisfies 40 CFR part 51, subpart
H, which requires a plan to prevent ambient concentrations of air
pollutants from reaching levels that may endanger public health and
welfare.

III. What Is the State Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?

    The provisions of Section 110(k) of the CAA govern EPA's review of
SIP revisions submittals. The CAA also requires States to follow
certain procedural requirements when developing SIP revisions that are
submitted to EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP
revision be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing, a
process which must occur prior to submitting the revision to EPA.
    The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) held a public
hearing to propose revisions to the 1972 DEEP on January 18, 1996,
adopted the revised plan on February 28, 1996, and submitted the
revisions to EPA on September 16, 1997. However, this submittal was
affected by copying issues, and the version EPA received was missing
several pages. Therefore, EPA requested a replacement copy on March 4,
2009, and, on April 28, 2009, the AQCC office provided a complete copy
of the original September 16, 1997 submittal package from the AQCC
archives.
    We have evaluated the submittal of these SIP revisions by the State
of Colorado and have determined that the State met the requirements for
reasonable notice and public hearing under Section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA.

IV. EPA's Evaluation of the Denver Emergency Episode Plan Revisions

    EPA has reviewed the 1996 Denver Emergency Episode Plan, submitted
on September 16, 1997 and has determined that approval is warranted.
The original Denver Emergency Episode Plan was adopted by the Colorado
AQCC in January 1972 and approved by EPA in May of the same year (37 FR
10842, May 31, 1972.) The revisions EPA is acting on today apply to the
Denver metropolitan area (including the Denver, Jefferson, and Douglas
Counties as well as portions of Adams, Arapahoe, and Boulder Counties)
for the following criteria pollutants: 8-hour Carbon Monoxide (CO), 1-
hour Ozone (O3), and 24-hour PM10, particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers.
    The revised Denver Emergency Episode Plan, adopted by the Colorado
AQCC in February of 1996, makes substantive and administrative changes
to the 1972 DEEP. The substantive changes reflect EPA's July 1, 1987
promulgation of a rule (52 FR 24634) that changed the indicator for
particulate matter from Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) to
PM10. This rule simultaneously promulgated primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards for PM10 intended to
be more protective of the public health and the environment.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PM10 was defined as airborne particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to ten microns.
The 24-hour primary PM10 standard was set to 150 [mu]g/
m\3\, with no more than one expected exceedance per year, replacing
the 24-hour TSP standard of 260 [mu]g/m\3\. The annual primary
PM10 standard was set to 50 [mu]g/m\3\, expected annual
arithmetic mean, replacing the annual TSP standard of 75 [mu]g/m\3\,
annual geometric mean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1996 Denver Emergency Episode Plan retained the 1972 plan's
three contingency stages (Alert, Warning, and Emergency), thus
satisfying the 40 CFR 51.152 requirement that contingency plans include
two or more contingency stages. The 1996 Plan also adopted EPA's
contingency thresholds (40 CFR part 51, Appendix L) for each of the
pollutants noted above. During the years since the adoption of the
revised Plan in 1996, the levels of CO, 1-hour Ozone, and 24-hour
PM10, registered at monitoring stations in the Denver
metropolitan area remained well below the thresholds triggering
contingency plans for the Alert stage. Furthermore, during the October
2001 to October 2002 period the Denver metropolitan area was
redesignated to attainment with the NAAQS for these three criteria
pollutants.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The effective dates for redesignation to attainment were
October 11, 2001 for 1-hour Ozone (66 FR 47086, September 11, 2001),
January 14, 2002 for Carbon Monoxide (66 FR 64751, December 14,
2001), and October 16, 2002 for 24-hour PM10 (67 FR
58335, September 16, 2002.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan's administrative changes included style and terminology
updates, as well as identification of the State of Colorado departments
and offices responsible to implement specific contingency measures. We
believe these administrative changes are not substantive.

V. Final Action

    EPA is approving the State of Colorado's Denver Emergency Episode
Plan, submitted on September 16, 1997, and is amending 40 CFR 52.321 to
reflect that the State has adequately revised its Plan to comply with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H in light of the 1987
PM10 standard.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse
comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 17, 2009
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
October 19, 2009. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must 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.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. General Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);

     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 17, 2009. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
Organic Compounds.

    Dated: September 4, 2009.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.321 is amended by revising the introductory text to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.321  Classification of regions.

    The revised Denver Emergency Episode Plan, adopted by the State of
Colorado February 28, 1996, was submitted by the Governor of Colorado
with a September 16, 1997 letter.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. E9-22279 Filed 9-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51456-51457]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22164]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-04-2018-3756; FRL-9985-29-Region 4]

Notice of Settlement: Arkla Terra Property Suprfund Site,
Thonotosassa, Hillsborough County, Florida

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into a settlement with
Arkla Terra, Inc. concerning the Arkla Terra Property Superfund Site
located in Thonotosassa, Hillsborough County, Florida. The settlement
addresses recovery of CERCLA costs for a cleanup action performed by
the EPA at the Site.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
November 13, 2018. The Agency will consider all comments received and
may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if
comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that
the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by
contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact
information provided in his notice. Comments may also be submitted by
referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:
    Internet: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices.
     U.S. Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund
Division, Attn: Paula V. Painter, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
     Email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: September 5, 2018.
Maurice L. Horsey, IV,
Chief, Enforcement and Community Engagement Branch, Superfund Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-22164 Filed 10-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19241-19242]
[FR Doc No: E9-9554]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Interagency Statement on Sound Practices Concerning Elevated
Risk Complex Structured Finance Activities, OMB Control No. 3235-
0622, SEC File No. 270-560.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing collection of
information provided for in the proposed Interagency Statement on Sound
Practices Concerning Elevated Risk Complex Structured Finance
Activities (``Statement'') under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act'') and the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b et seq.) (``Advisers Act''). The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office
of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    The Statement was issued by the Commission, together with the
Office of

the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the
Office of Thrift Supervision (together, the ``Agencies''), in May 2006.
The Statement describes the types of internal controls and risk
management procedures that the Agencies believe are particularly
effective in assisting financial institutions to identify and address
the reputational, legal, and other risks associated with elevated risk
complex structured finance transactions.
    The primary purpose of the Statement is to ensure that these
transactions receive enhanced scrutiny by the institution and to ensure
that the institution does not participate in illegal or inappropriate
transactions.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 5 registered broker-
dealers or investment advisers will spend an average of approximately
25 hours per year complying with the Statement. Thus, the total
compliance burden is estimated to be approximately 125 burden-hours per
year.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to Charles Boucher, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 20, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9554 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57801]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0707]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Rock
Island, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Rock Island Railroad and Highway
Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock
Island, Illinois. The deviation is necessary to facilitate a charity
marathon race. This deviation allows the bridge to be maintained in the
closed-to-navigation position for four and a half hours.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., September
25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, (USCG-2016-0707) is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge
Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested
a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway
Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock
Island, Illinois to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for
four and a half hours from 7 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., September 25, 2016 to
facilitate the Quad City Marathon.
    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently operates
in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement
that the drawbridge shall open on signal. There are no alternate routes
for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River. The
bridge cannot open in case of emergency.
    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge provides a vertical
clearance of 23.8 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation
position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial
tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been
coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received. The Coast
Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 19, 2016.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2016-20265 Filed 8-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 66)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17401-17409]
[DOCID:fr06ap06-26]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0199; FRL-8055-2]
RIN 2060-AL98

Alternative Work Practice To Detect Leaks From Equipment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule amendment.

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

SUMMARY: Numerous EPA air pollution standards require specific work
practices for equipment leak detection and repair (LDAR). The current
work practice requires the use of a monitor which meets required
performance specifications. This work practice is based on 25-year-old
technology. New technology has been developed which we believe provides
equal, or better, environmental protection than that provided by the
current work practice. This action proposes a voluntary alternative
work practice (AWP) for finding leaking equipment using optical gas
imaging.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before June 5, 2006, or 30 days
after the date of any public hearing, if later.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a
public hearing by April 26, 2006, a public hearing will be held on May
4, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0199, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air Docket, EPA, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two
copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room
B102, Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0199. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by law. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The Web site http://www.regulations.gov

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in http://www.regulations.gov.
 Although listed in the index, some information is

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by law. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy

at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10
a.m. and will be held at the EPA facility complex in Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons
interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a
public hearing is to be held must contact Mr. David Markwordt; Coatings
and Chemicals Group; Sector Policies and Programs Division; EPA;
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on the
proposed rule amendment, review the reports listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
    General and technical information. Mr. David Markwordt, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (C439-03), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, electronic
mail (e-mail) address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities affected
by the proposed rule amendment include, but are not limited to:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                      NAICS *                 Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................             325  Chemical manufacturers.
                                                      324  Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal
                                                            products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* North American Information Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the
national emission standards. To determine whether your facility would
be affected by the national emission standards, you should examine the
applicability criteria in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63 and 65, including,
but not limited to: Part 60, subparts A, Kb, VV, XX, DDD, GGG, KKK,
QQQ, and WWW; part 61, subparts F, L, V, BB, and FF; part 63, subparts
G, H, I, R, S, U, Y, CC, DD, EE, GG, HH, OO, PP, QQ, SS, TT, UU, VV,
YY, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, MMM, OOO, VVV, FFFF, and GGGGG; and part 65,
subparts A, F, and G. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of the national emission standards to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule amendment will also be
available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).
Following signature, a copy of the proposed rule amendment will be
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/.
 The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various

areas of air pollution control.
    Reports for Public Comment. We have prepared a summary memorandum
covering the rationale for the proposed rule amendment. The memorandum
is entitled: ``Basis and Purpose for the Alternative Leak Detection and
Repair (LDAR) Work Practice,'' and is in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0199. See the preceding Docket section for docket information and
availability.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:

I. Background Information
    A. What is the current LDAR work practice?
    B. What are the current LDAR requirements?
    C. What is the statutory basis for these requirements?
    D. How can the existing requirements be changed?
    E. Why is EPA proposing consideration of an alternative LDAR
work practice?
    F. How does the new optical gas imaging technology work?
    G. How were emission reductions estimated for LDAR programs
originally?
    H. What did the Agency do to compare existing and proposed work
practice effectiveness?
    I. How well does the new technology work?
    J. How does this proposed voluntary work practice promote
development of innovative technology?
    K. Request for comments
II. Summary of the Regulatory Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

I. Background Information

A. What is the current LDAR work practice?

    Numerous EPA air pollution control standards require specific work
practices for LDAR. These practices require plant operators to
periodically inspect designated equipment for leaks. The work practice
currently employed requires the use of a monitor which meets the
performance specifications of EPA Reference Method 21.
    The monitor is a portable instrument that is used to detect leaks
of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) at the leak interface of the equipment component. The work
practice requires periodic monitoring of the equipment, usually on a
quarterly basis. A ``leak'' is generally defined under the current
rules as 10,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of VOC and 500 ppmv
of HAP, as measured by the monitor (i.e., the EPA Reference Method 21
instrument).

B. What are the current LDAR requirements?

    U.S. refineries, chemical manufacturers, and other industries are
required to identify leaks using EPA Reference Method 21 for processes
and streams described in various subparts of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63
and 65, including, but not limited to: Part 60, subparts A, Kb, VV, XX,
DDD, GGG, KKK, QQQ, and WWW; part 61, subparts F, L, V, BB, and FF;
part 63, subparts G, H, I, R, S, U, Y, CC, DD, EE, GG, HH, OO, PP, QQ,
SS, TT, UU, VV, YY, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ, MMM, OOO, VVV, FFFF, and GGGGG;
and part 65, subparts A, F, and G. Currently, covered facilities must
periodically monitor each regulated component (e.g., pump, valve,
connector, closed vent system, etc.) with an EPA Reference Method 21
instrument. The frequency of such monitoring may vary from each month
to every 4 years depending on the subpart and the piece of equipment
being monitored. If equipment is found to be leaking, the equipment is
tagged and required to be repaired within a specified time.
    The current LDAR work practice involves placing an EPA Reference
Method 21 instrument probe at the leak interface (seal) of a component
and registering a VOC and/or HAP concentration. We developed a
correlation which relates the mass rate of VOC or HAP leaking from the
component to the concentration registered by the instrument. EPA and
some State agencies have established different concentration thresholds
which define a leak. If the concentration exceeds the leak definition,
then the component must be repaired. EPA's leak definition varies from
500 ppmv to 10,000 ppmv depending on the type of component and the
specific subpart.
    After the LDAR program has been used for a few periods, the number
of leaks detected decreases because pre-existing leaks have been
repaired and may not leak for extended periods of time. Although repair
costs decrease as the number of leaks are reduced, the costs of
conducting EPA Reference Method 21 monitoring remains constant,
resulting in a decrease in cost-effectiveness.

C. What is the statutory basis for these requirements?

    Current LDAR requirements are primarily applicable to sources
through EPA work practice standards promulgated under Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 111 (New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)) and section
112 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP)). These sections authorize EPA to

promulgate work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission
standards where ``it is not feasible in the judgment of the
Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' because
the regulated pollutants ``cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant * * * or
[because] the application of measurement methodology to a particular
class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic
limitations.'' 42 U.S.C. 7412(h)(1), (2); see also 42 U.S.C.
7411(h)(1), (2).
    In promulgating such standards, we are not required to mandate a
single work practice applicable to all sources in a source category but
may instead provide several AWP options. Indeed, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has indicated
that EPA may provide sources with multiple work practice compliance
options if EPA demonstrates that at least one of these options is cost
effective and ``expressly provides for the alternative in the
standard.'' Arteva Specialties S.R.R.L., d/b/a KoSa v. EPA, 323 F.3d
1088, 1092 (DC Cir. 2003).

D. How can the existing requirements be changed?

    Once promulgated, EPA retains the authority to provide additional
work practice alternatives. Such authority exists under EPA's general
authority to review and amend its regulations as appropriate, e.g., 42
U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6).

E. Why is EPA proposing to consider an alternative LDAR work practice?

    On November 17, 2000, the American Petroleum Institute (API)
requested a meeting with EPA to initiate discussion regarding approval
of an alternative LDAR work practice based on the proposed work
practice's ``equivalency'' with the current EPA Reference Method 21
based LDAR work practice. While the request did not indicate if it was
invoking EPA(s general rulemaking authority or the AWP provisions of
CAA sections 111 and 112, EPA has treated the request as being for a
general rulemaking because API's request was not specific to any single
source category.
    API(s request was based upon ongoing studies involving API, EPA,
and the Department of Energy designed to provide guidance for
conducting LDAR programs in a more cost-effective manner. These studies
began with a 1997 study conducted by API. It evaluated data collected
under the LDAR program by seven Los Angeles, California, refineries in
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The data was
examined to help determine: (1) The design and operational
characteristics that influence leaks from equipment; and (2) whether a
sub-population of chronic leakers existed which could be the primary
focus of a more cost-effective LDAR program. SCAQMD requires refineries
to screen all accessible components quarterly (valves, connectors etc.)
and defines a leak as equal to, or greater than, 1,000 ppmv as
registered with an EPA Reference Method 21 instrument.
    The API study analyzed 11.5 million LDAR program monitoring values
collected over 5\1/2\ years, 1991 to mid-1996. The data were analyzed
to determine if certain component designs or component applications
(e.g., gate valves vs. globe valves, different process units, or
different frequencies of actuation) are more susceptible to leaks. The
refinery screening study showed that about 0.13 percent of components
contribute greater than 90 percent of controllable fugitive emissions.
This small population of large leakers is random over time, type of
component, and process unit. Thus, no clear criteria exist for
predicting which components are likely to leak.
    Consequently, the refining industry began to analyze alternative
work practices/technologies to find leaking equipment more efficiently.
The outgrowth of this analysis was the development of a work practice
based on optical gas imaging.

F. How does the new optical gas imaging technology work?

    Currently available optical gas imaging technologies fall into two
general classes, active and passive. The active type uses a laser beam
that is reflected by the background. The attenuation of the beam
passing through a hydrocarbon cloud provides the optical image. The
passive type uses ambient illumination to detect the difference in heat
radiance of the hydrocarbon cloud.
    The principle of operation of the active system is the production
of an optical image by reflected (backscattered) laser light, where the
laser wavelength is such that it is strongly absorbed by the gas of
interest. The system illuminates the scene with infrared light and a
video camera-type scanner picks up the backscattered infrared light.
The camera converts this backscattered infrared light to an electronic
signal, which is displayed in real-time as an image. Since the scanner
is only sensitive to illumination from the infrared light source and
not the sun, the camera is capable of displaying an image in either day
or night conditions.
    The passive instrument has a tuned optical lens, which is in some
respects like ``night-vision'' glasses. It selects and displays a video
image of light of a particular frequency range and filters out the
light outside of that frequency range. In one design, by superimposing
the filtered light (at a frequency that displays VOC gas) on a normal
video screen, the instrument (or camera) displays the VOC cloud in real
time in relationship to the surrounding process equipment. The operator
can see a plume of VOC gas emanating from a leak.

G. How were emission reductions estimated for LDAR programs originally?

    The most accurate technique for measuring mass emissions from
leaking equipment requires the ``bagging,'' or physical isolation, of
each component leak and subsequent measurement. This technique is
estimated to cost approximately $500 per component. Facilities may have
as many as a million components, making bagging each component
impractical and prohibitively expensive.
    The original EPA studies correlated EPA Reference Method 21
measurement values (i.e., screening values) with a mass emissions rate
from limited bagging results as a way to estimate emissions from the
total population of components. The resulting correlation equations
enable the calculation of emissions from the total population of
equipment by plugging all measured EPA Reference Method 21 screening
values into those equations. EPA used the original screening values
from uncontrolled plants to determine both the amount of uncontrolled
emissions and which leaks require repair. The original studies showed
that mass emissions associated with EPA Reference Method 21 screening
values equal to, or greater than, 10,000 ppmv represented 95 percent of
the total emissions, but involved only 5 percent of all the equipment.
Based on the correlation approach, the 10,000 ppmv leak definition, in
conjunction with the quarterly periodic detection requirement, reduces
emissions by approximately 70 to 80 percent.
    Because the cost of direct emission measurement, i.e., bagging each
component, is so expensive, the correlation approach is the only cost-
effective way to estimate emissions. However, there is some uncertainty
associated with any emission estimates based on using the correlation

equations. These uncertainties arise because the correlation equations
do not take into account the inherent variability of equipment leak
emissions recorded through direct periodic measurements. We are unable
to determine whether leak rates are constant or intermittent, how
effective repair is, and whether leaks are chronic or random.
    Also, the calculation of emission estimates from leaking equipment
using correlation equations cannot be used with instruments other than
the EPA Reference Method 21 instruments, i.e., organic vapor analyzers.
In other words, the correlation equations and emission factors are
directly linked to EPA Reference Method 21. Therefore, it was necessary
to develop a methodology specifically for the purpose of comparing
existing and alternative work practices.

H. What did the Agency do to compare existing and proposed work
practice effectiveness?

    Any new work practice must be as equally protective of the
environment as the current work practice. Because it is too costly to
measure mass emissions directly, EPA developed a computer model that
allows the simulation of leaks as well as the effect of various leak
definitions and monitoring frequencies. This model performs a side by
side comparison of alternative work practices to the current EPA
Reference Method 21 based work practice.
    1. How does the model work? The model's four basic steps can be
summarized as follows:

--Select an uncontrolled population of process equipment components
with known EPA Reference Method 21 field data which has been used to
estimate mass emission rates,
--Simulate each work practice for each equipment component to determine
the work practice's response to mass emission leak rates,
--Identify leakers by comparing each work practice's response to the
various leak definitions. Reduce emissions from detected leakers to
simulate the effect of being repaired, and
--Calculate total emissions for both the current work practice and
alternative work practices.

    2. What are the issues in developing the comparative work practices
model?

--To make an equivalency determination of any AWP requires modeling of
an uncontrolled facility. The control effectiveness of the current EPA
Reference Method 21 based work practice was based on facility leak
rates dating from the 1970s. EPA Reference Method 21 plant emissions
data from the 1970s provided the basis for the regulatory requirements
for refinery and chemical plants at that time. These facilities were
uncontrolled; that is, these facilities did not have LDAR programs in
place at the time. The original uncontrolled baseline EPA Reference
Method 21 data used to develop the existing work practice would have
been appropriate to make the comparison. Unfortunately, this 25-year-
old database is no longer available. The only uncontrolled data
available were from natural gas processing plants which were used in
the modeled comparison. These plants were screened with EPA Reference
Method 21 instruments in the early 1990s as part of an EPA/industry
effort to develop emission factors for the refinery and gas processing
industries.
--There is a large variance in EPA Reference Method 21 screening values
for a given mass emission rate. That is, the empirical data show that
the EPA Reference Method 21 instrument will register different ppmv
concentrations for the same mass emission leak.

    Based on a 1993 petroleum industry study, EPA developed a
statistical relationship between measured (bagged) mass emissions and
the associated measured EPA Reference Method 21 screening values. The
study contained a database of 337 paired values (i.e., mass emissions
rate (kg/hr) and screening value (ppmv) for each valve). This
statistical relationship established the probability of registering an
EPA Reference Method 21 screening value for a given range of mass
emissions. The statistical relationship was then used to simulate
detection of leaks by the EPA Reference Method 21 work practice in the
computer model. The model selects a screening value for the current EPA
Reference Method 21 work practice for each mass emission rate
associated with the population of uncontrolled equipment. The modeling
program compares the screening value of EPA Reference Method 21 to
various leak definitions to determine if a leak would be detected.
Similarly, the model assigns a mass rate detection limit to the AWP.
For each component with a leak at or above the assigned mass detection
limit, the program specifies detection by the AWP.

--The model must also consider the frequency of applying the work
practice. The emission control effectiveness of any work practice is a
function of both its ability to detect leakage and the frequency of
monitoring. An equivalent work practice may require more frequent
monitoring, depending on its mass rate threshold for detecting leaks. A
work practice which detects leaks at a higher mass rate than the
current work practice would need to be practiced more frequently than
the current periodic requirement of once a quarter. A more frequent
monitoring requirement becomes necessary because higher mass emissions
reductions from large leaks, found earlier, are offset to some degree
by smaller leaks which go undetected.
--The AWP mass detection limit and monitoring frequency were varied and
modeled to determine the equivalent mass emission reduction to the
existing work practice. For both the existing work practice and the
AWP, the model then reduces emissions from components found leaking to
simulate emissions from repaired components. Finally, total emissions
from the AWP are compared to emissions from the current work practice.
Modeling results showed a work practice repeated bimonthly with a
detection limit of 60 grams per hour (g/hr) range was equivalent to the
existing work practice. The model also showed a work practice repeated
semi-quarterly with a detection limit of 85 g/hr range was equivalent
to the existing work practice.

    The model generated different detection limits for the 500 and
10,000 ppmv thresholds in existing rules. The proposed rule reflects
the mass detection limit for 500 ppmv, i.e., the more stringent limit
which provides equivalency for both leak definitions.

I. How well does the new technology work?

    Lab and field data demonstrate that the optical gas imaging
technology can routinely detect leaks at a mass rate of approximately
60 g/hr. The imaging technology has negligible variance associated with
its ability to detect leaks of 60 g/hr.
    Five laboratory and field tests have been conducted using optical
gas imaging for fugitive emissions monitoring at both refineries and
petrochemical plants. Each test used at least one of the imager types:
CO2 laser imager, ``fiber'' laser imager, and passive IR
imager. In each case, the imager was successfully tested at chemical
plants or refineries.
    Based on the model used to compare existing and proposed work
practice effectiveness, a leak mass rate of 60 g/hr was determined as
the equivalent for

an AWP. The tests conducted on the optical gas imaging technology
showed that the imagers could detect a leak with a mass rate of as low
as 1 g/hr.
    Several evaluations have been conducted to demonstrate the ability
of the optical gas imaging technology to detect a range of VOC under
typical plant operating conditions. The technology currently available
has been shown to detect propylene, ethylene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, isoprene, all butanes, 1,3 butadiene, toluene, all
pentenes, all pentanes, all trimethybenzenes, all xylenes, all
ethyletoluenes, and all hexenes.
    In one test, a side-by-side comparison of EPA Reference Method 21
and the optical gas imaging device was conducted. This study took place
at two different plants and tested four different imagers: Two passive
IR imagers, long-wave BAGI imager, and mid-wave BAGI imager. A total of
66 leaks were discovered at the two sites. The imagers detected 31
leaks and the EPA Reference Method 21 instrument detected 49 leaks. The
imagers and the EPA Reference Method 21 instrument found 14 of the same
leaks. Neither method for detecting leaks discovered all leaking
equipment at the test sites. Of the leaks discovered by the imagers,
leak mass rates ranged between 1 g/hr and over 100 g/hr. The imagers
did detect all leaks with leak mass rates greater than 60 g/hr, thus
supporting the conclusion that the optical gas imaging device will
detect leaks above the 60 g/hr threshold.

J. How does the proposed voluntary work practice promote development of
innovative technology?

    Several field and laboratory studies have been conducted to
demonstrate the use of optical gas imaging for fugitive emissions
monitoring. In both the laboratory and field tests, the technology has
been shown to find leaks. However, some of these laboratory and field
tested units are prototypes which are not yet commercially available.
Vendors will only manufacture the technology if there is a demand for
the equipment. Our current regulations do not allow companies to use
the new technology. Thus, we propose to add amendatory language to
allow companies to elect an AWP based on the new technology. Allowing
this AWP will, therefore, encourage development of this technology
because it should open the market driven by regulatory requirements to
optical gas imaging equipment.

K. Request for Comments

    We are requesting comment on the need for clarifying language in
individual subparts, the use of optical gas imaging technology for
monitoring closed vent systems, and opportunities for reduced
recordkeeping and reporting burden.
    We are contemplating incorporating the appropriate rule language
for the AWP into the General Provisions of 40 CFR parts 60, 61, 63, and
65. The new work practice requirements are nearly identical to the
existing work practice requirements with the exception of the
instrument used to detect the leaks. Therefore, rather than amending
all of the applicable subparts, we are considering amending only the
General Provision language of each part. These amendments would be
intended to allow for the use of the optical gas imaging technology.
Facilities choosing to demonstrate compliance with LDAR requirements by
using the AWP would continue to comply with all the non-instrumentation
requirements of the existing subparts. We are requesting public comment
regarding whether the proposed amendatory language provides sufficient
legal authority for a source to utilize the AWP for complying with the
LDAR requirements.
    Additionally, we are requesting public comment on whether the
amendatory language clearly explains what requirements a source must
satisfy if using the AWP. Current subparts language includes many
requirements specific to the EPA Reference Method 21 based work
practice, specifically to the Method 21 instrument itself. Although the
specific EPA Reference Method 21 requirements would not be applicable
to a source using the AWP, that language may confuse a source regarding
what requirements would apply. We are, therefore, seeking comment on
whether the amendatory language provided in today's notice sufficiently
enables a source to identify the applicable requirements for using the
AWP, or whether it is necessary to amend all of the existing subparts
to clarify which of the existing requirements apply only to the EPA
Reference Method 21 based work practice.
    Current requirements specify annual monitoring of closed vent
systems with an EPA Reference Method 21 instrument. Vent systems used
to route emissions to control devices are required to be closed. The
original ppmv threshold was set at 5 percent of the leak definition
(10,000 ppmv) or 500 ppmv. This threshold has never been changed even
though the leak definition for many standards was lowered to 500 ppmv.
    The modeled results show a similar mass limit threshold for both
500 and 10,000 ppmv. This suggests the optical gas imaging technology
as specified for LDAR could be used to satisfy the closed vent system
monitoring requirements. We could use the same approach we used
originally, that is, use 5 percent of the new threshold, i.e., 3 g/hr
as the basis for monitoring closed vent systems. We are soliciting
comment on the appropriateness of also using the optical gas imaging
technology for closed vent systems.
    Facilities subject to current rules will, for the purpose of the
alternative LDAR work practice, still rely on the current rule language
for all recordkeeping and reporting requirements which are not specific
to the use of the EPA Reference Method 21 instrument. We are soliciting
comment on alternative recordkeeping and reporting requirements which
may be feasible with the optical gas imaging technology.

II. Summary of the Regulatory Action

    The proposed AWP allows owners or operators to identify leaking
equipment using an optical gas imaging instrument instead of a leak
monitor prescribed in 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7. The new work
practice requirements are identical to the existing work practice
requirements except for those requirements which are directly or
indirectly associated with the instrument used to detect the leaks. For
example, owners or operators are still subject to the existing
difficult to and unsafe to monitor, repair, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. If a leak is identified using the optical gas
imaging instrument, then the leak must be re-screened after repair
using the imaging instrument.
    Owners or operators must use an optical gas imaging instrument
capable of imaging compounds in the streams that are regulated by the
applicable rule. The imaging instrument must provide the operator with
an image of the leak and the leak source.
    Prior to using the optical gas imaging instrument, owners and
operators must determine the mass flow rate that the imaging instrument
will be required to image. The optical gas imaging instrument may
either meet a minimum detection sensitivity mass flow rate (provided in
the proposed AWP), or owners or operators may calculate the mass flow
rate for their process by prorating a standard detection sensitivity
emission rate (provided in the proposed AWP) using equations

provided in the amendatory language. If the owner or operator chooses
to prorate the standard detection sensitivity, they must conduct an
engineering analysis to identify the stream containing the lowest mass
fraction of chemicals that have to be identified as detectable.
    Owners or operators must conduct a daily instrument check to
confirm that the optical gas imaging equipment is able to detect leaks
at the emission rate specified in the amendatory language (or
calculated by the owner or operator). The instrument check consists of
using the optical gas imaging instrument to view the mass flow rate
required to be met exiting a gas cylinder.
    Owners or operators using the AWP must keep records of the
detection sensitivity level used for the optical gas imaging
instrument; the analysis to determine the stream containing the lowest
mass fraction of detectable chemicals; the basis of the mass fraction
emission rate calculation; documentation of the daily instrument check
(either with the video recording device, electronically, or written in
a log book); and the video record of the leak survey.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether a regulation is ``significant'' and, therefore,
subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
    Because the proposed amendments are voluntary and expected to
reduce burden, it has been determined that the proposed amendment is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive
Order 12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. et seq.
Today's proposed decision provides plant operators with an alternative
method for identifying equipment leaks but does not change the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the various subparts of CFR
parts 60, 61, 63 and 65. However, EPA anticipates that this proposed
action will change the burden estimates developed and approved for the
existing national emission standards by reducing the labor hours
necessary to identify equipment leaks.
    An ICR document (EPA ICR No. 2210.01) was prepared for this action
to estimate the costs associated with reading and understanding the
proposed alternatives, purchasing an optical imaging instrument, and
initial training of plant personnel. The ICR has been submitted for
approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The annual public
burden for this collection of information (averaged over the first 3
years after the effective date of the final rule) is estimated to total
3,027 labor hours per year and a total annual cost of $2,260,048. EPA
has established a public docket for this action (Docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2003-0199) which can be found at http://www.regulations.gov. The

ICR for this proposal is included in the public docket.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The ICR for this proposal will be submitted for
approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. The OMB control numbers for the ICRs developed for the existing
national emission regulations under CFR parts 60, 61, 63 and 65 are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed amendment
on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
whose parent company has fewer than 100 to 1,500 employees, or a
maximum of $5 million to $18.5 million in revenues, depending on the
size definition for the affected North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that the
small business definition applied to each industry by NAICS code is
that listed in the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards
(13 CFR part 121).
    After considering the economic impact of today's proposed amendment
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Today's
proposed amendment imposes no additional burden on facilities impacted
by existing EPA regulations because this action allows for an AWP to
existing requirements and is voluntary. We continue to be interested in
the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation of why that alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that today's proposed amendment does not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more to State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector in any 1 year. Therefore, today's proposed amendment
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
In addition, today's proposed amendment does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements
that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.
Therefore, today's proposed decision is not subject to section 203 of
the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
The phrase ``policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in
the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Today's proposed amendment does not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order
13132. Thus, the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to
today's proposed amendment.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' The phrase ``policies that
have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    Today's proposed amendment does not have tribal implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to today's proposed
amendment.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    Today's proposed amendment is not subject to the Executive Order
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action presents a
disproportionate risk to children.

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

    Today's proposed amendment is not a ``significant energy action''
as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that
today's proposed amendment is not likely to have any adverse energy
impacts.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, all Federal
agencies are required to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in
their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA requires Federal agencies to provide Congress, through annual
reports to OMB, with explanations when the agency does not use
available and applicable VCS.
    Today's proposed amendment does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, the requirements of the NTTAA are not applicable.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Equipment leaks, and Alternative
monitoring.

    Dated: March 31, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60
of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Section 60.2 is amended by adding the definitions for
``Engineering analysis,'' ``Gas imaging instrument,'' ``Imaging,'' and
``Stream'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
* * * * *
    Engineering analysis means the assessment of the imaging
technology's capability to detect leaks at the specified sensitivity
level for each component.
* * * * *
    Imaging means making visible on a screen an emission plume which is
otherwise invisible to the naked eye.
* * * * *
    Optical gas imaging instrument means an instrument which makes
visible on a screen an emission plume which is otherwise invisible to
the naked eye.
* * * * *
    Stream means gasoline or any other stream for which no constituent
exceeds one percent of the stream by weight.
* * * * *
    3. Section 60.18 is amended by:
    a. The section heading is revised;
    b. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; and
    c. Adding paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.18  General Control Device and Work Practice Requirements.

    (a) Introduction. This section contains requirements for control
devices used to comply with applicable subparts of parts 60 and 61. The
requirements are here for administrative convenience and only apply to
facilities covered by subparts referring to this section. This section
also contains requirements for an alternative work practice used to
identify leaking equipment. This alternative is placed here for
administrative convenience and is available to all subparts in 40 CFR
parts 60, 61, 63, and 65 that require monitoring of leaking equipment
with a 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7, Method 21 monitor.
* * * * *
    (g) Alternative Work Practice for Monitoring Equipment for Leaks.
Paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section apply to all leaking equipment.
    (h) This section contains an alternative work practice used to
identify leaking equipment. Specifically, this section allows a source
to use an optical gas imaging instrument as described in paragraph
(i)(1) of this section instead of a 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7,
Method 21 monitor. This alternative is available to all subparts in 40
CFR parts 60, 61, 63, and 65 that require monitoring of leaking
equipment with a 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7, Method 21 monitor.
    (1) An owner or operator of an affected source subject to CFR parts
60, 61, 63, or 65 can choose to comply with the requirements in
paragraph (i) of this section instead of using the 40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A-7, Method 21 monitor to identify leaking components.
    (2) Any leak identified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section must be
tagged for repair.
    (3) Re-screening after repairing a leaking component must be
conducted using the same method used to identify the leaking component.
    (i) Owners or operators of an affected source who choose to use the
alternative work practice shall comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this section.
    (1) Instrument Specifications. The optical gas imaging instrument
must meet the following requirements:
    (i) Image the compounds in the streams for which it will be used to
monitor leaks, and
    (ii) Provide the operator with an image of the potential leak
points for a component and the regulated species at the standard
detection sensitivity level selected from Table A, within the distance
to be used in the daily instrument check of paragraph (i)(2) of this
section, provided the instrument has been properly adjusted to the
manufacturer's prescribed settings.
    (2) Daily Instrument Check. Daily prior to beginning any leak
monitoring work you must test the optical gas imaging instrument at the
mass flow rate determined in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section in
accordance with the procedure specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)
through (i)(2)(iv) of this section, unless an alternative method to
demonstrate daily instrument checks has been approved in accordance
with paragraph (i)(2)(v) of this section.
    (i) The mass flow rate to be used in the daily instrument check
shall be determined in accordance with either paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A)
or (i)(2)(i)(B) of this section.
    (A) Calculate a mass flow rate using paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(A)(1) and
(i)(2)(i)(A)(2) of this section.
    (1) For a specified population of components to be imaged by the
instrument, perform an engineering analysis to identify the stream
containing the lowest mass fraction of chemicals that have to be
identified as detectable, within the distance to be used in paragraph
(i)(2)(iv) of this section, at or below the standard detection
sensitivity level.
    (2) Multiply the standard detection sensitivity level in Table A by
the mass fraction of detectable chemicals from the stream identified in
paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A)(1) of this section to determine the mass flow
rate to be used in the daily instrument check, using the following
equation.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AP06.042

Where:

Edic = Mass flow rate for the daily instrument check, grams
per hour.
Xi = Mass fraction of detectable chemical(s) i seen by the
optical gas imaging instrument, within the distance to be used in
paragraph (i)(2)(iv) of this section, at or below the standard
detection sensitivity level, Esds.
Esds = Standard detection sensitivity from Table A, grams
per hour.
k = Total number of detectable chemicals emitted from the leaking
equipment and seen by the optical gas imaging instrument.

    (B) Use the minimum detection sensitivity level specified in Table
A as the mass flow rate for the daily instrument check. The
calculations specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A) of this section are
not required if the daily instrument check is performed at the minimum
detection sensitivity level.
    (ii) Start the optical gas imaging instrument according to the
manufacturer's instructions, ensuring that all appropriate settings
conform to the manufacturer's instructions.
    (iii) Use any gas chosen by the user that can be viewed by the
optical gas imaging instrument and that has a purity of no less than 98
percent.
    (iv) Establish a mass flow rate by using the following procedures:
    (A) Position a cylinder of the gas in a secured upright position.
    (B) Set up the optical gas imaging instrument at a recorded
distance from the outlet or leak orifice of the flow meter that will
not be exceeded in the actual performance of the leak survey. Do not
exceed the operating parameters of the flow meter.
    (C) Open the valve on the flow meter to set a flow rate that will
create a mass emission rate equal to the mass rate specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this section while observing the gas flow through
the optical gas imaging instrument viewfinder. When an image of the gas
emission is seen through the viewfinder at the required emission rate,
make a record of the reading on the flow meter.

    (v) If you wish to use an alternative method to demonstrate daily
instrument checks, then you must apply to the Administrator for
approval of the alternative under Sec.  60.13(i).
    (3) Leak Survey Procedure. Operate the optical gas imaging
equipment to image every regulated component in accordance with the
instrument manufacturer's operating parameters.
    (4) Recordkeeping. You must keep the following records:
    (i) The detection sensitivity level used for the optical gas
imaging instrument.
    (ii) The analysis of the component population to determine the
stream containing the lowest mass fraction of detectable chemicals in
paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A)(1) of this section.
    (iii) The technical basis for the mass fraction used in the
equation in paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A)(2) of this section.
    (iv) The daily instrument check. You may document the daily
instrument check using either a video recording device, electronic
recordkeeping, or written entry into a log book.
    (v) Recordkeeping requirements in the applicable subpart. A video
record must be used to document the leak survey results.

                                     Table A.--Detection Sensitivity Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Detection sensitivity level
                                                                    Monitoring           (grams per hour)
                      Monitoring frequency                           frequency   -------------------------------
                                                                      (days)         Standard         Minimum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bi-Monthly......................................................              60              60             6.0
Semi-Quarterly..................................................              45              85             8.5
Monthly.........................................................              30             100            10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E6-5005 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43845-43846]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20050]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FDA-2016-C-2570]

Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Spirulina
Extract; Confirmation of Effective Date

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is confirming the
effective date of August 3, 2017, for the final rule that appeared in
the Federal Register of July 3, 2017, and that amended the color
additive regulations to provide for the expanded safe use of spirulina
extract to seasonally color hard-boiled shell eggs at levels consistent
with good manufacturing practice.

DATES: Effective date of final rule published in the Federal Register
of July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30731), confirmed: August 3, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Molly A. Harry, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of July 3, 2017 (82
FR 30731), we amended the color additive regulations in Sec.  73.530
Spirulina extract (21 CFR 73.530) to provide for the expanded safe use
of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled
eggs.
    We gave interested persons until August 2, 2017, to file objections
or requests for a hearing. We received no objections or requests for a
hearing on the final rule. Therefore, we find that the effective date
of the final rule that published in the Federal Register of July 3,
2017, should be confirmed.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 73

    Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Medical devices.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e) and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, we are
giving notice that no objections or requests for a hearing were filed
in response to the July 3, 2017, final rule. Accordingly, the
amendments issued thereby became effective August 3, 2017.

    Dated: September 14, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-20050 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P