[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35776-35777]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-465-000]

Driftwood Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application and Establishing
Intervention Deadline

    Take notice that on June 17, 2021, Driftwood Pipeline LLC
(Driftwood), 1201 Louisiana Street, Suite 3100, Houston, TX 77002,
filed an application, pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA and Parts 157
and 284 of the Commission's regulations, requesting that the Commission
grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and related
approvals, authorizing Driftwood to construct, own and operate, dual
42-inch-diameter natural gas pipelines totaling approximately 67.7
miles in length, an approximately 211,200 horsepower compressor station
and appurtenant facilities, to transport approximately 4.6 billion
cubic feet of natural gas per day, to be located in Beauregard and
Calcasieu Parishes, Louisiana, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open for public
inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to:
Joey Mahmoud, Driftwood Pipeline LLC, 1201 Louisiana Street Suite 3100,
Houston, TX 77002,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lisa
M. Tonery, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 51 West 52nd
Street, New York, N.Y. 10019-6142,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: Complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Sec.  157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project: You can file comments on the project, and you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for
filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to
intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 21, 2021.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments
may include statements of support or objections to the project as a
whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your
comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments
are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or
before July 21, 2021.
    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket
number CP21-465-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Comment on a
Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address below.\2\ Your written comments must reference
the Project docket number (CP21-465-000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1
and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will
receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are
issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process.
    The Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of
a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
For instructions on how to intervene, see below.

Interventions

    Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities,\3\ has the option to file a motion
to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to
request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to
subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit
Courts of Appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is July 21, 2021. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the

extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as the
your interest in the proceeding. [For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene.] For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both
instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-465-000 in
your submission.
    (1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's
eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You
will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; first select
``General'' and then select ``Intervention.'' The eFiling feature
includes a document-less intervention option; for more information,
visit https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/document-less-intervention.pdf.; or
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along
with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below.\6\
Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP21-
465-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene
(option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail
or email at: Joey Mahmoud, Driftwood Pipeline LLC, 1201 Louisiana
Street Suite 3100, Houston, TX 77002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any subsequent submissions by an
intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the
service list at the eService link on FERC Online. Service can be via
email with a link to the document.
    All timely, unopposed \7\ motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1).\8\ Motions to intervene that
are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely, and may be
denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for
being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived
and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule
214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\9\ A person obtaining
party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the
Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or
electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The applicant has 15 days from the submittal of a motion to
intervene to file a written objection to the intervention.
    \8\ 18 CFR 385.214(c)(1).
    \9\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 21, 2021.

    Dated: June 30, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14468 Filed 7-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62159-62162]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24475]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC21-26-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725b) Comment
Request; Errata Notice

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Errata and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collection, FERC-725B, (Mandatory Reliability Standards,
Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP). This notice corrects the 30-
day notice published on September 14, 2021 (86 FR 51131) adjusting the
estimates in the burden table.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due December 9,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-725B to OMB through
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB Control Number (1902-
0248) in the subject line of your comments. Comments should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Please submit copies of your comments to the Commission. You may
submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. IC21-26-000)
by one of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

    [cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Using the search function under the ``Currently Under Review''
field, select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit,''
and select ``comment'' to the right of the subject collection.
    FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-725B (Mandatory Reliability Standards, Critical
Infrastructure Protection (CIP)).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0248.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725B information
collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.
    Abstract: On August 8, 2005, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act
of 2005.\1\ The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added a new section 215 to
the FPA,\2\ which requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability
Organization to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability
Standards,\3\ including requirements for cybersecurity protection,
which are subject to Commission review and approval. Once approved, the
Reliability Standards may be enforced by the Electric Reliability
Organization subject to Commission oversight, or the Commission can
independently enforce Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, sec. 1261 et
seq., 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o.
    \3\ FPA section 215 defines Reliability Standard as a
requirement, approved by the Commission, to provide for reliable
operation of existing bulk-power system facilities, including
cybersecurity protection, and the design of planned additions or
modifications to such facilities to the extent necessary to provide
for reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. However, the term
does not include any requirement to enlarge such facilities or to
construct new transmission capacity or generation capacity. Id. at
824o(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672,\4\
implementing FPA section 215. The Commission subsequently certified
NERC as the Electric Reliability Organization. The Reliability
Standards developed by NERC become mandatory and enforceable after
Commission approval and apply to users, owners, and operators of the
Bulk-Power System, as set forth in each Reliability Standard.\5\ The
CIP Reliability Standards require entities to comply with specific
requirements to safeguard critical cyber assets. These standards are
results-based and do not specify a technology or method to achieve
compliance, instead leaving it up to the entity to decide how best to
comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Elec. Reliability
Org.; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enf't of
Elec. Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, 71 FR 8661 (Feb. 17,
2006), 114 FERC ] 61,104, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, 71 FR
19814 (Apr. 28, 2006), 114 FERC ] 61,328 (2006).
    \5\ NERC uses the term ``registered entity'' to identify users,
owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System responsible for
performing specified reliability functions with respect to NERC
Reliability Standards. See, e.g., Version 4 Critical Infrastructure
Protection Reliability Standards, Order No. 761, 77 FR 24594 (Apr.
25, 2012), 139 FERC ] 61,058, at P 46, order denying clarification
and reh'g, 140 FERC ] 61,109 (2012). Within the NERC Reliability
Standards are various subsets of entities responsible for performing
various specified reliability functions. We collectively refer to
these as ``entities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 18, 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 706,\6\
approving the initial eight CIP Reliability Standards, CIP version 1
Standards, submitted by NERC. Subsequently, the Commission has approved
multiple versions of the CIP Reliability Standards submitted by NERC,
partly to address the evolving nature of cyber-related threats to the
Bulk-Power System. On November 22, 2013, the Commission issued Order
No. 791,\7\ approving CIP version 5 Standards, the last major revision
to the CIP Reliability Standards. The CIP version 5 Standards implement
a tiered approach to categorize assets, identifying them as high,
medium, or low risk to the operation of the Bulk Electric System (BES)
\8\ if compromised. High impact systems include large control centers.
Medium impact systems include smaller control centers, ultra-high
voltage transmission, and large substations and generating facilities.
The remainder of the BES Cyber Systems \9\ are categorized as low
impact systems. Most requirements in the CIP Reliability Standards
apply to high and medium impact systems; however, a technical controls
requirement in Reliability standard CIP-003, described below, applies
only to low impact systems. Since 2013, the Commission has approved new
and modified CIP Reliability Standards that address specific issues
such as supply chain risk management, cyber incident reporting,
communications between control centers, and the physical security of
critical transmission facilities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Order No. 706, 122 FERC ] 61,040 at P 1.
    \7\ Version 5 Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
Standards, Order No. 791, 78 FR 72755 (Dec. 13, 2013), 145 FERC ]
61,160 (2013), order on reh'g, Order No. 791-A, 146 FERC ] 61,188
(2014).
    \8\ In general, NERC defines BES to include all Transmission
Elements operated at 100 kV or higher and Real Power and Reactive
Power resources connected at 100 kV or higher. This does not include
facilities used in the local distribution of electric energy. See
NERC, Bulk Electric System Definition Reference Document, Version 3,
at page iii (August 2018). In Order No. 693, the Commission found
that NERC's definition of BES is narrower than the statutory
definition of Bulk-Power System. The Commission decided to rely on
the NERC definition of BES to provide certainty regarding the
applicability of Reliability Standards to specific entities. See
Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No.
693, 72 FR 16415 (Apr. 4, 2007), 118 FERC ] 61,218, at PP 75, 79,
491, order on reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 72 FR 49717 (July 25, 2007),
120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007).
    \9\ NERC defines BES Cyber System as ``[o]ne or more BES Cyber
Assets logically grouped by a responsible entity to perform one or
more reliability tasks for a functional entity.'' NERC, Glossary of
Terms Used in NERC Reliability Standards, at 5 (2020), https://www.nerc.com/files/glossary_of_terms.pdf (NERC Glossary of Terms).
NERC defines BES Cyber Asset as
    A Cyber Asset that if rendered unavailable, degraded, or misused
would, within 15 minutes of its required operation, mis-operation,
or non-operation, adversely impact one or more Facilities, systems,
or equipment, which, if destroyed, degraded, or otherwise rendered
unavailable when needed, would affect the reliable operation of the
Bulk Electric System. Redundancy of affected Facilities, systems,
and equipment shall not be considered when determining adverse
impact. Each BES Cyber Asset is included in one or more BED Cyber
Systems.
    Id. at 4.
    \10\ See, e.g., Order No. 791, 78 FR 72755; Revised Critical
Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards, Order No. 822, 81
FR 4177 (Jan. 26, 2016), 154 FERC ] 61,037, reh'g denied, Order No.
822-A, 156 FERC ] 61,052 (2016); Revised Critical Infrastructure
Protection Reliability Standard CIP-003-7--Cyber Security--Security
Management Controls, Order No. 843, 163 FERC ] 61,032 (2018).

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

    The CIP Reliability Standards currently consist of 13 standards
specifying a set of requirements that entities must follow to ensure
the cyber and physical security of the Bulk-Power System.
     CIP-002-5.1a Bulk Electric System Cyber System
Categorization: Requires entities to identify and categorize BES Cyber
Assets for the application of cyber security requirements commensurate
with the adverse impact that loss, compromise, or misuse of those BES
Cyber Systems could have on the reliable operation of the BES.
     CIP-003-8 Security Management Controls: Requires entities
to specify consistent and sustainable security management controls that
establish responsibility and accountability to protect BES Cyber
Systems against compromise that could lead to mis-operation or
instability in the BES.
     CIP-004-6 Personnel and Training: Requires entities to
minimize the risk against compromise that could lead to mis-operation
or instability in the BES from individuals accessing BES Cyber Systems
by requiring an appropriate level of personnel risk assessment,
training, and security awareness in support of protecting BES Cyber
Systems.
     CIP-005-6 Electronic Security Perimeter(s): Requires
entities to manage electronic access to BES Cyber Systems by specifying
a controlled Electronic Security Perimeter in support of protecting BES
Cyber Systems against compromise that could lead to mis-operation or
instability in the BES.
     CIP-006-6 Physical Security of Bulk Electric System Cyber
Systems: Requires entities to manage physical access to BES Cyber
Systems by specifying a physical security plan in support of protecting
BES Cyber Systems against compromise that could lead to mis-operation
or instability in the BES.
     CIP-007-6 System Security Management: Requires entities to
manage system security by specifying select technical, operational, and
procedural requirements in support of protecting BES Cyber Systems
against compromise that could lead to mis-operation or instability in
the BES.
     CIP-008-6 Incident Reporting and Response Planning:
Requires entities to mitigate the risk to the reliable operation of the
BES as the result of a cybersecurity incident by specifying incident
response requirements.
     CIP-009-6 Recovery Plans for Bulk Electric System Cyber
Systems: Requires entities to recover reliability functions performed
by BES Cyber Systems by specifying recovery plan requirements in
support of the continued stability, operability, and reliability of the
BES.
     CIP-010-3 Configuration Change Management and
Vulnerability Assessments: Requires entities to prevent and detect
unauthorized changes to BES Cyber Systems by specifying configuration
change management and vulnerability assessment requirements in support
of protecting BES Cyber Systems from compromise that could lead to mis-
operation or instability in the BES.
     CIP-011-2 Information Protection: Requires entities to
prevent unauthorized access to BES Cyber System Information by
specifying information protection requirements in support of protecting
BES Cyber Systems against compromise that could lead to mis-operation
or instability in the BES.
     CIP-012-1 Communications between Control Centers: \11\
Requires entities to protect the confidentiality and integrity of Real-
time Assessment and Real-time monitoring data transmitted between
Control Centers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CIP-012-1: Communications between Control Centers will be
subject to enforcement by July 1, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CIP-013-1 Supply Chain Risk Management: Requires entities
to mitigate cybersecurity risks to the reliable operation of the BES by
implementing security controls for supply chain risk management of BES
Cyber Systems.
     CIP-014-2 Physical Security: Requires the Transmission
Owner to perform a risk assessment, consisting of a transmission
analysis, to determine which of those Transmission stations and
Transmission Substations and conduct an assessment of potential threats
and vulnerabilities to those Transmission stations, Transmission
substations, and primary control centers using a tailored evaluation
process.
    The CIP Reliability Standards, viewed as a whole, implement a
defense-in-depth approach to protecting the security of BES Cyber
Systems at all impact levels.\12\ The CIP Reliability Standards are
objective-based and allow entities to choose compliance approaches best
tailored to their systems.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Order No. 822, 154 FERC ] 61,037 at 32.
    \13\ Order No. 706, 122 FERC ] 61,040 at 72.

 FERC-725B--(Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection [CIP] Reliability Standards)
                      After Adding Filers From Cybersecurity Incentives Investment Activity
                                  [Submitted as a separate IC within FERC-725B]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average burden     Total annual
                                 Number and     Annual number                    per response     burden (hours)
                                   type of      of responses    Total number   (hours) \15\ and     and total
                                 respondent    per respondent   of responses       cost per        annual cost
                                    \14\                                           response          \16\ ($)
                                          (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).............  (3) * (4) = (5)
                                                                          (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIP-002-5.1..................           1,492               1           1,492  20 hrs.;          29,840 hrs.;
                                                                                $1,700.40.        $2,536,996.8.
CIP-003-8....................      \17\ 1,492         156.149     232,974.387  1.56 hrs.;        363,440.04
                                                                                $132.63.          hrs.;
                                                                                $30,899,672.20
                                                                                .
CIP-004-6....................             343               1             343  565 hrs.;         193,795 hrs.;
                                                                                $48,036.30.       $16,476,450.90
                                                                                .
CIP-005-7....................             343               1             343  525 hrs.;         180,075 hrs.;
                                                                                $44,635.50.       $15,309,976.50
                                                                                .
CIP-006-6....................             343               1             343  232 hrs.;         79,576 hrs.;
                                                                                $19,724.64.       $6,765,551.52.
CIP-007-6....................             343               1             343  2,080 hrs.;       713,440 hrs.;
                                                                                $176,841.60.      $60,656,668.80
                                                                                .
CIP-008-6....................             343               8            2744  13.225 hrs.;      36,288 hrs.;
                                                                                $1,124.39.        $3,085,205.76.
CIP-009-6....................             343               1             343  162 hrs.;         55,566 hrs.;
                                                                                $13,773.24.       $4,724,221.32.
CIP-010-3....................             343               1             343  1,172 hrs.;       401,996 hrs.;
                                                                                $99,643.44.       $34,177,699.92
                                                                                .
CIP-011-2....................             343               1             343  86 hrs.;          29,498 hrs.;
                                                                                $7,311.72.        $2,507,919.96.
CIP-012-1....................        \18\ 724               1             724  85.67 hrs.;       62,025.08 hrs.;
                                                                                $7,283.66.        $5,273,372.30.

CIP-013-1....................             343               1             343  20 hrs.;          6,860 hrs.;
                                                                                $1,700.40.        $583,237.20.
CIP-014-2....................        \19\ 321               1             321  32.71 hrs.;       10,449.91 hrs.;
                                                                                $2,781.           $888,451.35.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Burden of FERC-725B  ..............  ..............     240,099.387  ................  2,162,849.03
                                                                                hrs.;
                                                                                $183,885,424.5
                                                                                3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The number of respondents is based on the NERC Compliance
Registry as of June 22, 2021. Currently there are 1,508 unique NERC
Registered, subtracting 16 Canadians Entities yields 1492 U.S.
entities.
    \15\ Of the average estimated 295.702 hours per response, 210
hours are for recordkeeping, and 85.702 hours are for reporting.
    \16\ The estimates for cost per hour are $85.02/hour (averaged
based on the following occupations):
    \17\ We estimate that 1,161 entities will face an increased
paperwork burden under Reliability Standard CIP 003-8, estimating
that a majority of these entities will have one or more low impact
BES Cyber Systems.
    \18\ The number of entities and the number of hours required are
based on FERC Order No. 802 which approved CIP-012-1.
    \19\ 321 U.S. Transmission Owners in NERC Compliance Registry as
of June 22, 2021.

    Dated: November 3, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-24475 Filed 11-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 173)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51365-51373]
[DOCID:fr07se07-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0071; FRL-8448-9]
RIN 2060-A009

Update of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods: Technical
Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on ``Update of Continuous
Instrumental Test Methods: Technical Amendments'' to correct errors in
a recent final rule that amended five instrumental test methods and was
published on May 15, 2006. As published, the amendments contained
inadvertent errors and provisions that need to be clarified. We are
correcting errors and clarifying portions of the amendments to reflect
the intent of the rule and to make them more understandable by affected
parties.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 6, 2007 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 9, 2007. If EPA
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0071, 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: Update of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two
copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., EPA Headquarters Library, Room 3334, EPA West Building,
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-
2002-0071. 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.
    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 Update of Continuous

Instrumental Test Methods, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, EPA Headquarters
Library, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Update of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Foston Curtis, Air Quality and
Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D143-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number (919) 541-
0516; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule?
II. Does This Action Apply to Me?
III. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This Action?
IV. Judicial Review
V. Background
VI. This Action
    A. Method 3A--40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-1
    B. Method 6C--40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-4
    C. Method 7E--40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-4
    D. Method 20--40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7
VII. 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 Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule?

    EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because
we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. The technical amendments we are making simply add clarity and
correct errors in the prior rule. However, in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposed rule to these technical
amendments if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule.
We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

II. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This rule applies to sources that are subject to the New Source
Performance Standards, Clean Air Markets requirements, and other
regulations that require the use of Method 3A of Appendix A-1, Methods
6C and 7E of Appendix A-4, and Method 20 of Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR part
60.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially affected
include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Examples of regulated entities          SIC codes      NAICS codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil Fuel Steam Generators............            3569          332410
Industrial, Commercial, Institutional               3569          332410
 Steam Generating Units.................
Electric Generating.....................            3569          332410
Stationary Gas Turbines.................            3511          333611

Petroleum Refineries....................            2911          324110
Municipal Waste Combustors..............            4953          562213
Kraft Pulp Mills........................            2621          322110
Sulfuric Acid Plants....................            2819          325188
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This Action?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this direct final rule will also be available on the Worldwide Web
(WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of the final amendments will be
placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides

information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.

IV. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this direct final rule is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by November 6, 2007. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,
only an objection to this direct final rule that was raised with
reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be
raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the
CAA, the requirements established by this action may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.

V. Background

    Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10, and 20 measure oxygen, carbon dioxide,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide emissions from
stationary sources. They are prescribed for use in determining
compliance with a number of Federal, State, and Local regulations. The
EPA published amendments to simplify, harmonize, and update these test
methods on May 15, 2006 (71 FR 28081). These amendments became
effective August 14, 2006. As published, the amendments contained
inadvertent errors and provisions that need to be clarified. We are
correcting errors and clarifying portions of the amendments to reflect
the intent of the rule and to make them more understandable by affected
parties.

VI. This Action

    EPA is taking the following actions:

A. Method 3A--40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-1

    1. We are clearly stating that precleaned or scrubbed air may be
used for the high-level calibration gas provided no interfering gases
are present.
    2. An incorrect reference in Section 8.1 to Section 8.2 of Method 3
for sampling to determine gas molecular weight is corrected to
reference Section 8.2.1 of Method 3.

B. Method 6C--40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-4

    In Section 6.2, a reference to Section <IP_ADDRESS> for dual-range
analyzers is expanded to include Section <IP_ADDRESS> which also applies.

C. Method 7E--40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-4

    1. Under the descriptions for calibration gases in Section 3.3, the
quality of zero gas allowed for instrument calibration is clarified.
The current requirement is that all calibration gases be of EPA
traceability protocol quality. However, the traceability protocol does
not have a specification for zero gas. Therefore, we are adopting the
specification for ``zero air material'' in 40 CFR 72.2 for zero gas in
place of the traceability protocol.
    2. In Section 3.4, we recommend the instrument calibration span be
chosen such that emission concentrations are between 20 to 100 percent
of the calibration span, ``to the extent practicable.'' We are adding a
note, as an example, that meeting this 20 to 100 percent criterion may
not be practicable when emissions are low relative to the emission
limit and the purpose of the test is to show compliance with the
emission limit.
    3. Section 3.9 is clarified to note that drift is the difference
between the pre- and post-run system bias checks instead of the
difference between the measurement system readings for the pre- and
post-run bias checks.
    4. Section 3.12 is corrected to remove erroneous citations to 40
CFR 53.55 and 53.56 which have nothing to do with the manufacturer's
stability test (MST).
    5. Section 3.16 is corrected to note that system bias is calculated
from the difference between the system calibration response and the
manufacturer certified gas concentration and not from the difference
between the system calibration response and the direct calibration
responses.
    6. In Section 6.2.2, we are specifically stating that the
particulate media must be included in the system bias test only when
using out-of-stack filters.
    7. In Section 6.2.6, the description of the calibration gas
manifold is clarified to note that blocking the sample flow is not
necessary when in direct calibration mode, as suggested in the current
method, but the calibration gas manifold may simply supply an excess of
calibration gas through the system.
    8. The method implies that all analyzers with calibration spans of
20 ppmv or less are required to perform the MST. In Section <IP_ADDRESS>, we
are clarifying the MST requirement to note that it is only required for
those analyzers that are routinely calibrated with a calibration span
of 20 ppmv or less.
    9. The new converter efficiency check that was added in Section
16.2.2 requires the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) test gas be of
EPA traceability protocol quality. Subsequent discussions with the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concerning the
quality of the NIST NO2 standard revealed that this standard
contains small but consistent amounts of nitric acid (HNO3).
Some converters may not be able to completely convert this
HNO3 to nitric oxide (NO) for analysis. There are also
concerns about the cost and stability of certified NO2 gas
over time. We are therefore dropping the new requirement that the
converter efficiency gas be of EPA traceability protocol quality and
reverting to the previous requirement that the gas be of a
manufacturer-certified concentration. In addition, for this converter
check procedure, the gas is required to be in the 40 to 60 ppmv range
while the two alternative procedures require gas in the mid- to high-
calibration range. We are dropping the 40 to 60 ppmv requirement in
favor of recommending the concentration be in the mid- to high-
calibration range in order to keep the three procedures consistent.
Subsequent references to the 40 to 60 ppmv requirement have been
deleted from the method.
    10. In Section 7.2, we are clearly stating that the appropriate
test gases listed in Table 7E-3, or others not listed

that can potentially interfere, as noted elsewhere, must be used for
the test. We are also making it clear that the gases used should be
manufacturer-certified but are not required to be prepared by the EPA
traceability protocol.
    11. In Section 8.1.2, we are explicitly stating that the required
stratification test is to be performed at each test site except for
small stacks that are less than 4 inches in diameter.
    12. In Section 8.2.1, we are making it clear that testers must
obtain a certificate from the gas manufacturer documenting the quality
of the calibration gas.
    13. In Section 8.2.4, we are clearly stating that the converter
efficiency test may be performed either before or after a test or after
a series of tests.
    14. In Section 8.2.7, paragraph (1) is reworded to add clarity to
the interference test, and paragraph (2) is corrected to note that the
interference test is valid for the life of the instrument unless major
components are replaced with different model parts.
    15. In the sample traversing procedure in Section 8.4, we delete
redundant language in paragraphs (1) and (2).
    16. In paragraph (1) of Section 8.5, we clarify the handling of
failed post-run bias checks by removing unnecessary wording.
    17. In Section 10.0, we clearly state that analyzers which measure
NO and NO2 without using a converter must be calibrated with
both NO and NO2. The current wording is not clear to some
users.
    18. In Section 12.1, we are revising certain definitions to reflect
the corrections being made to the calculations.
    19. In Section 12.4, we correct the system calibration error
equation by adding a term for the dilution factor.
    20. In Section 12.6, we add a missing equation for calculating
sample concentration when a zero gas is used as the low-level
calibration gas.
    21. In Section 12.9 we replace the erroneous equation added in the
updates rule with the one traditionally used by the method.
    22. In Section 12.11, we correct the equation for calculating the
spike recovery.
    23. In Section 13.5, we are adding the 2 percent limit for the
alternative converter efficiency test.
    24. In Section 16.2.2, we are deleting the procedures in paragraphs
(2) and (3) because they are not needed for the test and are confusing.
    25. In Section 16.3, the erroneous references to 40 CFR 53.55 and
53.56 are removed; only 53.53 is followed for the MST. A note is added
to clarify that alternative procedures or documentation of instrument
stability are acceptable.
    26. In Table 7E-3, the title is edited to note that the table
contains example interference gases and concentrations. We are removing
a table footnote instructing dilution extractive systems to use the hot
wet concentrations because it may not be applicable in all cases. In
its place, a footnote is added to remind the tester to use the highest
gas concentration expected at test sites for the interference test.
    27. In Table 7E-5, we correct the typographical error listing the
NOX concentration at ``.80% of calibration span'' to read
``80% of calibration span.'' We have removed the note to evaluate each
model by the MST at least quarterly or once per 50 production units
because it is not necessary.

D. Method 20--40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7

    1. In Section 8.4, we are adding a minimum sample run time of 21
minutes.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
These amendments do not add information collection requirements beyond
those currently required under the applicable regulation. The
amendments being made to the test methods do not add information
collection requirements but make needed corrections to existing testing
methodology.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

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 rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent
company has fewer than 100 or 1,000 employees, or fewer than 4 billion
kilowatt-hr per year of electricity usage, depending on the size
definition for the affected North American Industry Classification
System 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.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule
on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This direct final rule will not impose any requirements on small
entities because it does not impose any additional regulatory
requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 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 to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate,

or to 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 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 this direct final rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year, nor does this rule significantly or
uniquely impact small governments, because it contains no requirements
that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus,
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
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.''
``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.''
    This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The amendments in
this direct final rule will benefit State and Local governments by
clarifying and correcting provisions they currently implement. No added
responsibilities or increase in implementation efforts or costs for
State and Local governments are being added in today's action. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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 9, 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.''
    This direct final rule does not have tribal implications as
specified in Executive Order 13175. 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 this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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, the Agency 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. EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended
to mitigate health or safety risks.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law
104-113, 12(d)(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory 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, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this direct final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This direct final rule

does not relax the control measures on sources regulated by the rule
and therefore will not cause emissions increases from these sources.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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). This rule will be effective November 6, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

    Dated: July 26, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Appendix A-2--[Amended]

0
2. Amend Method 3A as follows:
0
a. Add a sentence after the second sentence of Section 7.1.
0
b. Revise the second sentence in Section 8.1.

Method 3A--Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in
Emissions From Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)

* * * * *
    7.1 Calibration Gas. * * * Precleaned or scrubbed air may be
used for the O2 high-calibration gas provided it does not
contain other gases that interfere with the O2
measurement.
* * * * *
    8.1 Sampling Site and Sampling Points. * * * In that case, you
may use single-point integrated sampling as described in Section
8.2.1 of Method 3.
* * * * *

Appendix A-4--[Amended]

0
3. Amend Method 6C by revising the last sentence in Section 6.2 to read
as follows:

Method 6C--Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Stationary
Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)

* * * * *
    6.2 * * * The low-range and dual-range analyzer provisions in
Sections <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> of Method 7E apply.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Method 7E as follows:
0
a. Revise Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.9.
0
b. Revise the third sentence in Section 3.12.
0
c. Revise the first sentence in Section 3.16.
0
d. Revise Section 6.2.2.
0
e. Revise the second sentence in Section 6.2.6.
0
f. Revise Section <IP_ADDRESS>.
0
g. Add a sentence after the second sentence in Section 7.1.
0
h. Revise Section 7.1.4.
0
i. Revise Section 7.2.
0
j. Add two sentences to the beginning of Section 8.1.2.
0
k. Revise the second sentence in Section 8.2.1.
0
l. Revise the first sentence in Section 8.2.4.
0
m. Revise Section <IP_ADDRESS>.
0
n. Revise the first and second sentences in paragraph (1) and the
second sentence in paragraph (2) of Section 8.2.7.
0
o. Revise paragraphs (1) and (2) in Section 8.4.
0
p. Revise the introductory paragraph and paragraph (1) of Section 8.5.
0
q. In Section 9.0, the table entitled ``Summary Table of QA/QC'' is
amended by revising the entry for ``M'' ``System Performance''
``NO2-NO conversion efficiency'' ``[gteqt]90% of certified
test gas concentration'' ``before each test.''
0
r. Revise the last sentence in paragraph (1) of Section 10.0.
0
s. Add a definitions for ``Cnative,'' ``COA,''
and ``DF'' in alphabetical order to Section 12.1.
0
t. Remove the definition for ``NOfinal'' in Section 12.1.
0
u. Revise the definition of ``SBf'' in Section 12.1.
0
v. Revise Equation 7E-3 in Section 12.4.
0
w. Revise Sections 12.6 and 12.9.
0
x. Revise Equation 7E-12 in Section 12.11.
0
y. Revise Section 13.5.
0
z. Revise the third sentence in paragraph (1) of Section 16.2.2.
0
aa. Remove and reserve paragraph (2) and remove paragraph (3) of
Section 16.2.2.
0
bb. Revise Section 16.3.
0
cc. Revise Table 7E-3.
0
dd. Revise Table 7E-5.

Method 7E--Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions From Stationary
Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)

* * * * *
    3.3 Calibration Gas means the gas mixture containing
NOX at a known concentration and produced and certified
in accordance with ``EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and
Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards,'' September 1997, as
amended August 25, 1999, EPA-600/R-97/121 or more recent updates.
The tests for analyzer calibration error, drift, and system bias
require the use of calibration gas prepared according to this
protocol. If a zero gas is used for the low-level gas, it must meet
the requirements under the definition for ``zero air material'' in
40 CFR 72.2 in place of being prepared by the traceability protocol.
* * * * *
    3.4 Calibration Span means the upper limit of the analyzer's
calibration that is set by the choice of high-level calibration gas.
No valid run average concentration may exceed the calibration span.
To the extent practicable, the measured emissions should be between
20 to 100 percent of the selected calibration span. This may not be
practicable in some cases of low-concentration measurements or
testing for compliance with an emission limit when emissions are
substantially less than the limit. In such cases, calibration spans
that are practicable to achieving the data quality objectives
without being excessively high should be chosen.
* * * * *
    3.9 Drift means the difference between the pre- and post-run
system bias (or system calibration error) checks at a specific
calibration gas concentration level (i.e. low-, mid- or high-).
    3.12 * * * An MST subjects the analyzer to a range of line
voltages and temperatures that reflect potential field conditions to
demonstrate its stability following procedures similar to those
provided in 40 CFR 53.23. Ambient-level analyzers are exempt from
the MST requirements of Section 16.3. * * *
* * * * *
    3.16 System Bias means the difference between a calibration gas
measured in system calibration mode and the manufacturer certified
concentration of the gas expressed as a percentage of the
calibration span.
* * * * *
    6.2.2 Particulate Filter. An in-stack or out-of-stack filter.
The filter must be made of material that is non-reactive to the gas
being sampled. The filter media for out-of-stack filters must be
included in the system bias test. The particulate filter requirement
may be waived in applications where no significant particulate
matter is expected

(e.g., for emission testing of a combustion turbine firing natural
gas).
* * * * *
    6.2.6 Calibration Gas Manifold. * * * In system calibration
mode, the system should be able to flood the sampling probe and vent
excess gas. * * *
* * * * *
    <IP_ADDRESS> Low Concentration Analyzer. When an analyzer is
routinely calibrated with a calibration span of 20 ppmv or less, the
manufacturer's stability test (MST) is required. See Table 7E-5 for
test parameters.
* * * * *
    7.1 Calibration Gas. * * * If a zero gas is used for the low-
level gas, it must meet the requirements under the definition for
``zero air material'' in 40 CFR 72.2.
    * * *
    7.1.4 Converter Efficiency Gas. What reagents do I need for the
converter efficiency test? The converter efficiency gas is a
manufacturer-certified gas with a recommended concentration in the
mid- to high-calibration gas range. Lower concentrations may be more
appropriate where source emissions are low. For the test described
in Section <IP_ADDRESS>, NO2 is required. For the alternative
converter efficiency tests in Section 16.2, NO is required.
* * * * *
    7.2 Interference Check. What reagents do I need for the
interference check? Use the appropriate test gases listed in Table
7E-3 or others not listed that can potentially interfere (as
indicated by the test facility type, instrument manufacturer, etc.)
to conduct the interference check. These gases should be
manufacturer certified but do not have to be prepared by the EPA
traceability protocol.
* * * * *
    8.1.2 Determination of Stratification. Perform a stratification
test at each test site to determine the appropriate number of sample
traverse points. A stratification test is not required for small
stacks that are less than 4 inches in diameter. * * *
* * * * *
    8.2.1 Calibration Gas Verification. * * * Obtain a certificate
from the gas manufacturer documenting the quality of gas. * * *
* * * * *
    8.2.4 NO2 to NO Conversion Efficiency. Before or
after each field test, you must conduct an NO2 to NO
conversion efficiency test if your system converts NO2 to
NO before analyzing for NOX. You may risk testing
multiple facilities before performing this test provided you pass
this test at the conclusion of the final facility test. A failed
final conversion efficiency test in this case will invalidate all
tests performed subsequent to the test in which the converter
efficiency test was passed. * * *
    <IP_ADDRESS> Introduce NO2 converter efficiency gas to the
analyzer in direct calibration mode and record the NOX
concentration displayed by the analyzer. Calculate the converter
efficiency using Equation 7E-7 in Section 12.7. The specification
for converter efficiency in Section 13.5 must be met. The user is
cautioned that state-of-the-art NO2 calibration gases may
have limited shelf lives, and this could affect the ability to pass
the 90 percent conversion efficiency requirement.
    8.2.7 Interference Check. * * *
    (1) You may introduce the appropriate interference test gases
(that are potentially encountered during a test, see examples in
Table 7E-3) into the analyzer separately or as mixtures. Test the
analyzer with the interference gas alone at the highest
concentration expected at a test source and again with the
interference gas and NOX at a representative
NOX test concentration. * * *
    (2) * * * This interference test is valid for the life of the
instrument unless major analytical components (e.g., the detector)
are replaced with different model parts. If major components are
replaced with different model parts, the interference gas check must
be repeated before returning the analyzer to service.
* * * * *
    8.4 Sample Collection.
    (1) Position the probe at the first sampling point. Purge the
system for at least two times the response time before recording any
data. Then, traverse all required sampling points, sampling at each
point for an equal length of time and maintaining the appropriate
sample flow rate or dilution ratio (as applicable). You must record
at least one valid data point per minute during the test run.
    (2) Each time the probe is removed from the stack and replaced,
you must recondition the sampling system for at least two times the
system response time prior to your next recording. If the average of
any run exceeds the calibration span value, that run is invalid.
* * * * *
    8.5 Post-Run System Bias Check and Drift Assessment.
    How do I confirm that each sample I collect is valid? After each
run, repeat the system bias check or 2-point system calibration
error check (for dilution systems) to validate the run. Do not make
adjustments to the measurement system (other than to maintain the
target sampling rate or dilution ratio) between the end of the run
and the completion of the post-run system bias or system calibration
error check. Note that for all post-run system bias or 2-point
system calibration error checks, you may inject the low-level gas
first and the upscale gas last, or vice-versa. You may risk sampling
for multiple runs before performing the post-run bias or system
calibration error check provided you pass this test at the
conclusion of the group of runs. A failed final test in this case
will invalidate all runs subsequent to the last passed test.
    (1) If you do not pass the post-run system bias (or system
calibration error) check, then the run is invalid. You must diagnose
and fix the problem and pass another calibration error test (Section
8.2.3) and system bias (or 2-point system calibration error) check
(Section 8.2.5) before repeating the run. Record the system bias (or
system calibration error) results on a form similar to Table 7E-2.
* * * * *

9.0 Quality Control

                                             Summary Table of QA/QC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Process or           QA/QC                                     Checking
             Status                   element         specification      Acceptance criteria       frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
M..............................  System             NO2-NO conversion  [gteqt]90% of           Before or after
                                  Performance.       efficiency.        certified test gas      each test.
                                                                        concentration.

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

* * * * *
    10.0 Calibration and Standardization * * *
    (1) * * * Analyzers that measure NO and NO2
separately without using a converter must be calibrated with both NO
and NO2.
* * * * *
    12.1 Nomenclature. * * *
    Cnative = NOX concentration in the stack
gas as calculated in Section 12.6, ppmv. * * *
    COA = Actual concentration of the low-level
calibration gas, ppmv. * * *
    DF = Dilution system dilution factor or spike gas dilution
factor, dimensionless. * * *
    SBfinal = Post-run system bias, percent of
calibration span.
* * * * *
    12.4 System Calibration Error. * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07SE07.000

* * * * *
    12.6 Effluent Gas Concentration. For each test run, calculate
Cavg, the arithmetic average of all valid NOX
concentration values (e.g., 1-minute averages). Then adjust the
value of Cavg for bias using Equation 7E-5a if you use a
non-zero gas as your low-level calibration gas, or Equation 7E-5b if
you use a zero gas as your low-level calibration gas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07SE07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07SE07.002

* * * * *
    12.9 Alternative NO2 Converter Efficiency. If the
alternative procedure of Section 16.2.2 is used, determine the
NOX concentration decrease from NOXPeak after
the minimum 30-minute test interval using Equation 7E-9. This
decrease from NOXPeak must meet the requirement in
Section 13.5 for the converter to be acceptable.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07SE07.003

* * * * *
    12.11 Calculated Spike Gas Concentration and Spike Recovery for
the Example Alternative Dynamic Spiking Procedure in Section 16.1.3.
* * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07SE07.004

* * * * *
    13.5 NO2 to NO Conversion Efficiency Test (as
applicable). The NO2 to NO conversion efficiency,
calculated according to Equation 7E-7, must be greater than or equal
to 90 percent. The alternative conversion efficiency check,
described in Section 16.2.2 and calculated according to Equation 7E-
9, must not result in a decrease from NOXPeak by more
than 2.0 percent.
* * * * *
    16.2.2 Tedlar Bag Procedure. * * * Fill the remainder of the bag
with mid- to high-level NO in nitrogen (or other appropriate
concentration) calibration gas.
* * * * *
    16.3 Manufacturer's Stability Test. A manufacturer's stability
test is required for all analyzers that routinely measure emissions
below 20 ppmv and is optional but recommended for other analyzers.
This test evaluates each analyzer model by subjecting it to the
tests listed in Table 7E-5 following procedures similar to those in
40 CFR 53.23 for thermal stability and insensitivity to supply
voltage variations. If the analyzer will be used under temperature
conditions that are outside the test conditions in Table B-4 of Part
53.23, alternative test temperatures that better reflect the
analyzer field environment should be used. Alternative procedures or
documentation that establish the analyzer's stability over the
appropriate line voltages and temperatures are acceptable.
* * * * *

       Table 7E-3.--Example Interference Check Gas Concentrations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Concentrations \2\  Sample
                                             conditioning type
  Potential interferent gas\1\   ---------------------------------------
                                        Hot wet              Dried
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2.............................  5 and 15%.........  5 and 15%.
H2O.............................  25%...............  1%.
NO..............................  15 ppmv...........  15 ppmv.
NO2.............................  15 ppmv...........  15 ppmv.
N2O.............................  10 ppmv...........  10 ppmv.
CO..............................  50 ppmv...........  50 ppmv.
NH3.............................  10 ppmv...........  10 ppmv.
CH4.............................  50 ppmv...........  50 ppmv.
SO2.............................  20 ppmv...........  20 ppmv.
H2..............................  50 ppmv...........  50 ppmv.
HCl.............................  10 ppmv...........  10 ppmv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Any applicable gas may be eliminated or tested at a reduced level if
  the manufacturer has provided reliable means for limiting or scrubbing
  that gas to a specified level.
\2\ As Practicable, gas concentrations should be the highest expected at
  test sites.

* * * * *

                Table 7E-5.--Manufacturer Stability Test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Test description               Acceptance criteria (note 1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal Stability............  Temperature range when drift does not
                                exceed 3.0% of analyzer range over a 12-
                                hour run when measured with NOX present

Fault Conditions.............  Identify conditions which, when they
                                occur, result in performance which is
                                not in compliance with the
                                Manufacturer's Stability Test criteria.
                                These are to be indicated visually or
                                electrically to alert the operator of
                                the problem.
Insensitivity to Supply        10.0% (or manufacturers
 Voltage Variations.            alternative) variation from nominal
                                voltage must produce a drift of < = 2.0%
                                of calibration span for either zero or
                                concentration >= 80% NOX present.
Analyzer Calibration Error...  For a low-, medium-, and high-calibration
                                gas, the difference between the
                                manufacturer certified value and the
                                analyzer response in direct calibration
                                mode, no more than 2.0% of calibration
                                span.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: If the instrument is to be used as a Low Range analyzer, all
  tests must be performed at a calibration span of 20 ppm or less.

* * * * *

Appendix A-7--[Amended]

0
5. Amend Method 20 by adding a sentence to the end of Section 8.4 to
read as follows:

Method 20--Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in
Emissions From Stationary Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure)

* * * * *
    8.4 Sample Collection. * * * A test run must have a duration of
at least 21 minutes.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-17415 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 19085-19086]
[DOCID:fr08ap08-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0216]

Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the
Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC). This Committee

advises the Coast Guard on matters related to the training,
qualification, licensing, certification, and fitness of seamen serving
in the U.S. merchant marine.

DATES: Completed application forms should reach us on or before June
15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may request an application form by writing to Mr. Mark
Gould, Assistant to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for MERPAC, at
Commandant (CG-5221), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001. Please submit applications to the same
address. Also, a copy of the application form, as well as this notice,
is available in our online docket, USCG-2008-0216, at http://
www.regulations.gov. Send your completed application to the Assistant
DFO at the street address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Gould, Assistant to DFO of
MERPAC; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MERPAC (``Committee'') is a Federal advisory
committee established by authority of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act under 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). MERPAC advises the Assistant
Commandant for Prevention on matters of concern to seamen serving in
our merchant marine, such as implementation of the International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978 (STCW), as amended.
    MERPAC normally meets twice a year, once at or near Coast Guard
Headquarters, Washington, DC, and once elsewhere in the country. It may
also meet for extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees and working
groups may also meet to consider specific tasks as required.
    We will consider applications for five positions that expire or
become vacant on January 31, 2009. To be eligible, you should have
experience in the following areas of expertise: Shipping companies
employed in ship operation management; marine training institutions
other than state or federal maritime academies; licensed engineering
officer; licensed deck officer, preferably with an inland or river
endorsement, and who represents a labor point of view; and one person
who represents the general public. Each member serves for a term of
three years. Members may serve consecutive terms if re-appointed.
Members serve without compensation from the Federal Government;
however, they do receive travel reimbursement and per diem.
    In support of the policy of the Coast Guard on gender and ethnic
diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority groups
to apply.
    If you are selected as a member who represents the general public,
you will be appointed and serve as a special Government employee (SGE)
as defined in section 202(a) of title 18, United States Code. As a
candidate for appointment as a SGE, applicants are required to complete
a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). A completed
OGE Form 450 is not releasable to the public except under an order
issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy
Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Only the Designated Agency Ethics Official or the
DAEO's designate may release a Confidential Financial Disclosure
Report.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the
Committee, send a completed application to Mr. Mark Gould, Assistant to
the DFO of MERPAC, at the address above. Send the application in time
for it to be received by the DFO on or before June 15, 2008.
    A copy of the application form is available in the docket for this
notice. To visit our online docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2008-0216) in the Search
box, and click ``Go.''

    Dated: March 27, 2008.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. E8-7290 Filed 4-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P