[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30067-30068]
[FR Doc No: E9-14795]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM06-22-006; Order No. 706-C]

Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure
Protection

Issued June 18, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Order denying request for clarification.

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

SUMMARY: On March 19, 2009, the Commission issued Order No. 706-B which
clarified the scope of Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
Standards which were approved in Commission Order No. 706. The
Commission is denying a request for clarification of Order No. 706-B
filed by the Edison Electric Institute.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective June 24, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonathan First (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Regis Binder (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Order Denying Request for Clarification

Issued June 18, 2009.
    1. In this order, the Commission denies the Edison Electric
Institute's

(EEI's) request for clarification of Order No. 706-B.\1\ Specifically,
the Commission denies EEI's request that the Commission clarify its
views with regard to the need and the time frame for the Commission's
developing a memorandum of understanding or other means of coordinating
cyber-security related activities with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). Likewise, the Commission denies EEI's request that
the Commission clarify that the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) must seek stakeholder input in developing and
implementing an ``exception process'' as discussed in Order No. 706-B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure
Protection, Order No. 706, 122 FERC ] 61,040 (2008) (Order No. 706);
order on reh'g, Order No. 706-A, 123 FERC ] 61,174 (2008) (Order No.
706-A); order on clarification, Order No. 706-B, 126 FERC ] 61,229
(2009) (Order No. 706-B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. In Order No. 706, the Commission approved the Critical
Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards that require
certain users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System, including
generator owners and operators, to comply with specific requirements to
safeguard critical cyber assets. In addition, pursuant to section
215(d)(5) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),\2\ the Commission directed
the ERO to develop modifications to the CIP Reliability Standards to
address specific concerns identified by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5)(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Order No. 706-B, the Commission clarified the scope of the
CIP Reliability Standards approved in Order No. 706 to assure that no
``gap'' occurs in the applicability of these Standards. In particular,
each of the CIP Reliability Standards provides that facilities
regulated by the NRC are exempt from the Standard. The Commission
explained that NRC staff had raised a concern at a joint public meeting
of the NRC and the Commission that NRC regulations do not extend to all
equipment within a nuclear power plant. Thus, to assure that there is
no ``gap'' in the regulatory process, the Commission clarified that the
``balance of plant'' equipment within a nuclear power plant in the
United States that is not subject to NRC cyber security regulations,\3\
is subject to compliance with the CIP Reliability Standards approved in
Order No. 706. The Commission explained that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Power Reactor Security
Requirements; Final Rule, 74 FR 13926 (Mar. 27, 2009).

    a nuclear power plant licensee may seek an exception from the
ERO to the extent that the licensee believes that specific equipment
within the balance of plant is subject to NRC cyber security
regulations. If the ERO grants the exception, that equipment within
the balance of plant would not be subject to compliance with the CIP
Reliability Standards. We would expect that the ERO would make such
determinations with the consultation of NRC and oversight of
Commission staff. Thus, to further the development of this ERO
process, the ERO should consider the appropriateness of developing a
memorandum of understanding with the NRC, or revising existing
agreements, to address such matters as NRC staff consultation in the
exception application process and sharing of Safeguard[s]
Information.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. P 50. Safeguards information is a special category of
sensitive unclassified information to be protected pursuant to
Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2167 (2006).
Safeguards information concerns the physical protection of operating
power reactors, spent fuel shipments, strategic special nuclear
material, or other radioactive material. See 10 CFR 73.21 (2009)
(setting forth requirements for the protection of safeguards
information, including access to such information).

    4. In response to comments suggesting that the NRC and the
Commission develop a memorandum of understanding, the Commission agreed
that it is advisable for the two commissions to coordinate their
respective cyber security-related activities with regard to nuclear
power plants.\5\ However, the Commission declined to resolve for
purposes of the proceeding the need for a new memorandum of
understanding between the two commissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. P 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EEI Request for Clarification

    5. EEI requests that the Commission clarify its views with respect
to the need and the time frame for the Commission's developing a
memorandum of understanding or other means of coordinating cyber
security-related activities with the NRC. EEI suggests that, given the
volume of work on cyber security matters and recent regulatory changes
such as the NRC's issuance of its cyber security regulations, it is
vital that the Commission and the NRC commit to develop a memorandum of
understanding on an expeditious schedule. EEI expresses concern that
the Commission's deferral of a decision on the need for a memorandum of
understanding may lead to confusion and regulatory uncertainty.
    6. EEI also requests that the Commission clarify that NERC should
seek stakeholder input in developing and implementing both the
``exception process'' and any process for sharing Safeguards
Information. EEI posits that stakeholder input and industry technical
expertise will be critical to implementing both processes.

III. Discussion

    7. The Commission denies EEI's request for clarification. The
Commission and the NRC entered into a memorandum of agreement in
September 2004.\6\ The Commission views the decision of whether to
develop a new or revised memorandum of agreement with the NRC, and the
timing of that decision, as an intra-governmental matter between the
two commissions. Accordingly, the Commission will not make commitments
to EEI or others in this proceeding regarding the scope or timing of
any coordinated activities between the Commission and the NRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The memorandum of agreement is available on the Commission's
Web site, at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/mou.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. As for EEI's request that the Commission clarify that NERC
should seek stakeholder input in developing and implementing an
exception process and process for sharing Safeguard Information, we
note that NERC sought stakeholder input in a ``Town Hall Meeting'' on
``Auditing of U.S. Nuclear Plants for CIP Standards Compliance'' held
on June 11, 2009. We expect that NERC will allow for further
stakeholder input regarding these processes. Thus, we see no need to
address EEI's request.

The Commission orders:

    Edison Electric Institute's request for clarification is hereby
denied, as discussed in the body of this order.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14795 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 1 of 28 Coil Coating Point Source Category ( 40 CFR 465) and Canmaking Subcategory Detailed Investigation for 2004/ 2005 Planning Process Executive Summary During the Screening Level Review phase of the 2004/ 2005 planning process, coil coating, including the can making subcategory was one of eight industrial categories identified solely through Factor 4 concerns. Issues driving the concerns include changes to industry since promulgation, such as: 1) discharges of new solvents adopted by the industry and not regulated by existing guidelines, 2) costs to monitor pollutants no longer used by the industry, and 3) applicability issues for multi process facilities. Based on information reported to the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) and the Permit Compliance System ( PCS), toxic discharges from coil coating and canmaking operations are low relative to other industrial categories. Discharges from a single facility contribute over 99% of the total toxic weighted pound equivalent ( TWPE) loading estimates for this industry.

The information in the record at this time does not support a decision to revise these effluent guidelines. In the event that stakeholders provide additional data and supporting information during subsequent review cycles, EPA will reevaluate them at that time. In the absence of revisions to the effluent guidelines, both the monitoring concerns and the applicability issues could be addressed through improved information dissemination and outreach by EPA. The Agency could prepare a fact sheet with answers to these and other frequently asked questions ( FAQs), including the names of current contacts within EPA's Office of Water. The Agency could announce the availability of this fact sheet at the regular meetings for permit writers and pretreatment coordinators held by the Office of Wastewater Management ( OWM), and through internet postings and email alerts to the Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD) stakeholders mailing list. As for the new solvents issue, EPA could solicit information about the new solvents and then determine whether the current guidelines would in fact address them through the technology basis. The results of this research could be considered during a subsequent planning cycle. Finally, due to the presence of a single facility discharging the bulk of the TWPE, EPA could also provide assistance to permit writers in preparing BPJ based permits.

Overview This report presents information for the following topics: Background Industry and Related Subcategories Wastewater Characteristics and Pollutant Sources FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 2 of 28 Pollutants Discharged Treatment Technology and Pollution Prevention Concerns Identified Pre Proposal Concerns Identified in Comments to Proposal Followup Contacts Possible Solutions Attachments provide the following supporting information: EPA Databases and References Used in this Review Point Source Categories Identified Solely Through Factor 4 Guidelines Applicability and Regulatory History PCS Discharges TRI Discharges Reported Pollutant Loadings Background In preparation for proposing the Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005 (" Preliminary Plan," published in February 2004), EPA analyzed four factors identified in the draft " National Strategy for Industrial Clean Water"( Edocket OW 2003 0074 0215). See Attachment A for more background about the 304( m) planning Process. The four factors focus on: 1 Potential impacts to human health and the environment. Preliminary results are summarized in the " Factor 1 Analysis: Human Health and Environmental Impacts   Status of Screening Level Review Phase" ( Edocket OW 2003 0074 0410). 2 Identification of an applicable and demonstrated technology, process change, or pollution prevention alternative that can effectively reduce pollutants discharged. Preliminary results are summarized in the " Factor 2 Analysis: Technology Advances and Process Changes   Status of Screening Level Review Phase." ( Edocket OW 2003 0074 0287). 3 Evaluation of the cost, performance, and affordability of the technology, process change, or pollution prevention measures identified using the second factor. 4 Implementation and efficiency concerns. Preliminary results are presented in the " Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations   Status of Screening Level Review Phase" ( Edocket OW 2003 0074 0329)

When all of the results were integrated prior to proposing the Preliminary Plan, EPA determined that 8 point source categories with existing effluent guidelines had been identified solely through Factor 4 concerns. ( See list in the Attachment B.) In order to determine the best course of action to address these concerns, EPA performed an analysis of issues and potential solutions for each of the 8 categories. The results of that analysis for the Coil Coating category and the Canmaking subcategory are presented in this report. FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 3 of 28 Industry and Related Subcategories The Coil Coating point source category is regulated at 40 CFR Part 465. See Attachment C for the applicability and regulatory background. This point source category includes facilities reporting under Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) industry group341, Metal Cans and Shipping Containers. Specifically, it includes SIC 3411, Metal Cans. The canmaking subcategory was identified during the Factor 4 analysis.

° SIC 3411  Metal Cans Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing metal cans from purchased materials.

The following tables present the facilities in this category that report to the Permit Compliance System ( PCS) and to the Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI). Since this industry ranked low during the screening phase, EPA did not verify any of the information reported to PCS and TRI, and has used it as reported. Although information in PCS and TRI is limited, it can provide insight into this industry. See Attachment A for more details about PCS and TRI.

Table 1 shows the number of facilities identified in this industry. Table 2 lists the facilities reporting to PCS under these SIC codes. Table 3 lists the facilities reporting to TRI under these SIC codes. Attachments D and E list these facilities along with their reported discharges.

Table 1. Number of Facilities SIC 1997 Census PCS TRI Total Major Minor Total No reported discharge Direct discharge Indirect discharge Both direct & indirect 3411 274 8 0 8 136 94 1 41 0 Source: PCSLoads2000, TRIReleases2000.

Table 2. Coil Coating Facilities Reporting to PCS Under SIC 3411 NPDES ID Facility Name City State No facilities reporting to PCS FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 4 of 28 Table 3. Coil Coating Facilities Reporting to TRI Under SIC 3411 Sorted by State NPDES ID Facility Name City State 85031MRCNN211NO REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. PHOENIX AZ FACILITY PHOENIX AZ 91752MTLCN10980 METAL CONTAINER CORP. MIRA LOMA MIRA LOMA CA 91311MRCNN20730 REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. CHATSWORTH FACILITY CHATSWORTH CA 94533MRCNN2433C REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. FAIRFIELD PLANT FAIRFIELD CA 95824SLGNC6200F SILGAN CAN CO. SACRAMENTO CA 80550MTLCN12011 METAL CONTAINER CORP. WINDSOR WINDSOR CO 80403BLLPC4525I BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORP. GOLDEN CO 80401VLLYM17755 VALLEY METAL CONTAINER GOLDEN CO 32205MTLCN1100N METAL CONTAINER CORP. JACKSONVILLE JACKSONVILLE FL 30161MTLCN110MC METAL CONTAINER CORP. ROME ROME GA 30050MRCNN48ROY REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. FOREST PARK FACILITY FOREST PARK GA 60609MRCNN1101W REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. CHICAGO PLANT CHICAGO IL 60915CRWNC1035E CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. BRADLEY IL 46350MRCNN300NO SILGAN CONTAINERS MFG. CORP. LA PORTE IN 01843CRWNC155SH CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. LAWRENCE MA 55107MRCNN139EV REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. EVA STREET ST. PAUL MN SAINT PAUL MN 55044CRWNC84152 CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. LAKEVILLE MN 63010MTLCN42TEN METAL CONTAINER CORP. ARNOLD ARNOLD MO 38654MRCNN10800 REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. OLIVE BRANCH FACILITY OLIVE BRANCH MS 38606CRWNCHWY35 CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. BATESVILLE MS 27107STRHC4000O REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. WINSTON SALEM PLANT WINSTON SALEM NC 08852MRCNNGEORG REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. BRUNSWICK PLANT MONMOUTH JUNCTION NJ 08854MRCNNSORAN REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. PISCATAWAY NJ FACILIT PISCATAWAY NJ 08817MRCNN135NA SILGAN CONTAINERS CORP. EDISON NJ 12550MTLCN1000B METAL CONTAINER CORP. ( NWB) NEW WINDSOR NY 43213MTLCN350MC METAL CONTAINER CORP. COLUMBUS COLUMBUS OH 43420MRCNN2145C REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. FREMONT PLANT FREMONT OH 43571MRCNN10444 REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. WHITEHOUSE PLANT WHITEHOUSE OH 73179MRCNN3400S REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. OKLAHOMA CITY PLANT OKLAHOMA CITY OK 00630CRWNCKM126 CROWN CORK DE PUERTO RICO INC. CAROLINA PR 29010MRCNN609CO REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. BISHOPVILLE SC FACILIT BISHOPVILLE SC 29520CRWNC100EV CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. CHERAW SC 75604STRHC1001F REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. LONGVIEW FACILITY LONGVIEW TX 77029MRCNN8501E REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. HOUSTON FACILITY HOUSTON TX 77303CRWNC2501N CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. CONROE TX 77478CNTNN12910 CROWN BEVERAGE PACKAGING INC. SUGAR LAND TX 79603CRWNC1900N CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. ABILENE TX 98032MRCNN1220N REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. KENT WA FACILITY KENT WA 98507CNTNN1202F CROWN BEVERAGE PACKAGING INC. OLYMPIA WA 53538MTLCN105EA METAL CONTAINER CORP. FORT ATKINSON FORT ATKINSON WI 54603CNTNN1501S CROWN BEVERAGE PACKAGING INC. LA CROSSE WI 82401CRWNC4THST CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. WORLAND WY FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 5 of 28 No facilities for this SIC code reported to PCS. ( Eight minor dischargers report to PCS under SIC 3411, but these facilities do not need to report their discharge data.) There are 42 facilities that report discharges to TRI, all but one of these report only indirect discharges. ( Note: indirect discharge amounts do not reflect removals by the receiving treatment facility.) Facilities are located in 21 states and Puerto Rico. Of the 42 facilities, 10 are located in Region V. A single facility in Indiana contributes over 95% of the toxic weighted pound equivalents ( TWPE). The map on the following page shows the locations of the facilities reporting to TRI.

U. S. Census data indicates a decrease in the number of metal canmaking facilities by 15% between 1992 and 1997. The value of goods shipped has also declined by less than 1% during the same time period. See Table 4 below.

Advance comparative statistics for 1997 to 2002 for the broader category represented by North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) code 332 ( Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing) show a continuing decrease in the number of establishments of almost 3% but just over 1% increase in the value of shipments ( not adjusted for inflation). See Table 5. Table 6 illustrates the increase in can shipments since 1982.

Table 4. 1992 and 1997 Census Data SIC Industry Segment Number of Establishments Value of Goods Shipped ( in billions of dollars)

1997 1992 % Change 1997 1992 % Change 3411 Metal Cans 274 324  15 12.0 12.1  0.6 Source: 1997 U. S. Economic Census Table 5. 1997 and 2002 Census Data NAICS Industry Segment Number of Establishments Value of Goods Shipped ( billions of dollars)

2002 1997 % Change 2002 1997 % Change 332 Fabricated Metal Product Mfr. 60,602 62,384  2.8 245 242 1.2 Source: 2002 U. S. Economic Census FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 7 of 28 Table 6. Can Shipments by Category Year Can Shipments in Billions of Cans Food Beverage General Line 1982 27.6 57.9 3.8 1992 30.9 95.7 4.1 2002 31.3 100.5 4.4 Source: CanCentral. com.. < http:// www. cancentral. com> Accessed on July 6, 2004.

Wastewater Characteristics and Pollutant Sources Wastewater pollutant loads depend on the basis material and the production process employed. Table 7 illustrates the processes and the associated pollutants.

Table 7. Sources of Process Wastewater in Coil Coating and Canmaking Process Wastewater Pollutants Cleaning metals, suspended solids, oil Conversion coating metals, suspended solids Finishing suspended solids Canmaking metals, oil, toxic organics, suspended solids Source: 1982 Coil Coating TDD and 1983 Canmaking Subcategory TDD.

Pollutants Discharged Pollutant discharges to surface water as reported to PCS and TRI were evaluated as part of the Factor 1 Analysis: Human Health and Environmental Impacts. Pounds reported as discharged were converted, wherever possible, to their toxic weighted pound equivalents to provide a sense of relative hazard associated with those discharges. ( Note: indirect discharge amounts reflect reductions that are expected to occur at the receiving treatment facility.) Only TRI contains information about pollutants discharged to surface water by coil coating/ canmaking facilities. These discharges only include pollutants characterized as nonconventional pollutants. FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 8 of 28 Of the 42 reporting facilities, only one facility contributes 92% of the total pounds and 99% of the toxic weighted pounds.

Discharged pollutants that can be characterized as nonconventional, conventional, or priority pollutants. Table 8 below shows the relative contributions of each pollutant type, including both pounds discharged and toxic weighted pound equivalents ( TWPE) discharged. See Attachment E for the discharges in toxic weighted pounds as reported to TRI by each facility. See Attachment F for a breakout of these discharges by pollutant. A discussion of each pollutant type discharged follows the table.

Table 8. Pollutant Discharges Reported to PCS and TRI Pollutant Category & Primary Pollutants PCS Pounds PCS TWPE TRI Pounds TRI TWPE All Pollutants 0 0 32,803 11,763 Nonconventional 0 0 32,803 11,763 Sodium Nitrite 31,210 ( 95%) 11,652 ( 99%) Manganese 1,592 ( 5%) 112 ( 1%) Conventional 0 0 0 0 Priority 0 0 0 0 Nonconventional Pollutants TRI included only nonconventional discharges from this point source category. Of these, sodium nitrite discharges ( from a single facility in Indiana) comprise 95% or more of the discharges, both in pounds and in TWPE. The next highest discharge was of manganese, reported discharged by 38 of the 42 reporting facilities.

Conventional Pollutants No information on conventional pollutants discharged by this industry is available through PCS or TRI.

Priority Pollutants No information on conventional pollutants discharged by this industry is available through PCS or TRI.

For purposes of comparison, the toxic weighted pound equivalents ( TWPE) for Coil Coating are presented in the following tables along with the industries reporting the highest discharges in each database. Table 9 presents the information reported to PCS and Table 10 presents the information reported to TRI. For a description of the derivation of the values in these tables, see FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 9 of 28 the memo in the public record titled " Description and Results of EPA Methodology to Synthesize Screening Level Results for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005," which is available through Edocket at document number OW 2003 0074 0391.

Table 9. Coil Coating TWPE Reported to PCS Compared to Top Ranking Results 40 CFR Part Point Source Category PCS Reported TWPE PCS Rank 423 Steam electric power generation 2,933,209 1 414 Organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers 1,805,928 2 422 Phosphate manufacturing 1,095,321 3 415 Inorganic chemicals manufacturing 853,568 4 421 Nonferrous metals manufacturing 434,925 5 440 Ore mining and dressing 383,560 6 410 Textile mills 296,601 7 419 Petroleum refining 198,251 8 455 Pesticide chemicals manufacturing, formulating 178,977 9 418 Fertilizer manufacturing 116,464 10 465 Coil Coating 0 Table 10. Coil Coating TWPE Reported to TRI Compared to Top Ranking Results 40 CFR Part Point Source Category TRI Reported TWPE TRI Rank 414 Organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers 7,303,782 1 423 Steam electric power generation 1,856,645 2 421 Nonferrous metals manufacturing 978,450 3 430 Pulp, paper and paperboard ( Phase II) 628,785 4 415 Inorganic chemicals manufacturing 624,250 5 40 CFR Part Point Source Category TRI Reported TWPE TRI Rank FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 10 of 28 429 Timber products processing 404,926 6 419 Petroleum refining 385,347 7 455 Pesticide chemicals manufacturing, formulating 324,393 8 428 Rubber manufacturing 166,343 9 463 Plastic molding and forming 106,189 10 434 Coil Coating 11,763 25 Treatment Technology and Pollution Prevention Coil Coating: Standard treatment for coil coating may include chemical precipitation and sedimentation, oil removal, cyanide removal, chromium reduction, or filtration.

Canmaking: Standard treatment for canmaking may include chemical precipitation and sedimentation, oil removal, filtration, neutralization, chemical emulsion breaking, or dissolved air flotation. Oil skimming was used as the technology basis for total toxic organics ( TTO) removal for the can making subcategory. Since toxic organics detected in can making wastewater are similar to those in aluminum forming and coil coating wastewater, the removal rate from aluminum forming plants was used to predict the organics removal for can making. On average, aluminum forming plants achieve a 97 percent removal of organics by oil skimming.

Pollution Prevention: Recycle and reuse, and use of alternative cleaning or conversion coating agents are the focus of current pollution prevention activities. Some facilities have achieved zero discharge by evaporating wastewater to leave a dry residue. Separation of waste streams can increase the efficiency of the wastewater treatment system and reduce the pounds of chemicals added for treatment. See Table 11 for more information about pollution prevention alternatives.

Table 11. Water Conservation and Pollution Prevention Alternatives Process Water Conservation/ Pollution Prevention Alternatives Aluminum coil coating Install ultrafiltration units to remove aluminum etchings from cleaning solutions. This extends the life of cleaning solutions, thus reducing use of cleaning solvents, and reduces discharges of aluminum in effluent. Process Water Conservation/ Pollution Prevention Alternatives FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 11 of 28 Cleaning Reduce dragout Reuse of alkaline cleaning rinse water as make up to the alkaline cleaning tank Multi stage countercurrent rinses Conversion coating Chromium regeneration system Recycle and reuse rinse water Recycle quench water Use cyanide free chromating solutions Use zinc free sealing rinses Use no rinse conversion coating in place of chromate conversion coating Finish coating Use of solvent free wax reduces organic emissions, reduces gas consumption formerly required to dry the wax/ solvent mixture, reduces combustion byproducts from drying and oxidation process.

Can coating Use of radiation cured coatings reduces VOC emissions, eliminates/ reduces need for carrier solvents.

Source: Technical Development Documents and industry web sites Concerns Identified Pre Proposal The Coil Coating point source category and the Canmaking subcategory were identified by several responders surveyed by the Agency in the process of preparing the 2004/ 2005 Plan. Their suggestions are summarized below.

Consultations with Permitting Authorities ( Section 2.5 of the " Factor 4 Analysis: Implementation and Efficiency Considerations   Status of Screening Level Review Phase" ( Edocket OW 2003 0074 0329) EPA permit writers and pretreatment coordinators note that the industry has changed since the effluent guidelines were promulgated in 1983. The industry is using completely different solvents than those assessed during the development of the existing guidelines. However, no supporting data has been provided to EPA to support this observation. EPA permit writers and pretreatment coordinators are also concerned about the costs associated with monitoring requirements for pollutants that are no longer in use by the industry. In addition, applicability issues have been identified by EPA permit writers and pretreatment coordinators in two Regions ( 2 and 5), and by stakeholders in the States ( Alabama and Tennessee). Questions focused on facilities with multiple processes which also perform coil coating, most recently aluminum forming facilities.

Concerns Identified in Comments to Proposal FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 12 of 28 No concerns for the Coil Coating point source category or the Canmaking Subcategory were received in comments to the Preliminary Plan.

Followup Contacts Marv Rubin, EPA/ OST/ EAD ( 202) 566 1050 Frank Brock, USEPA Region 2, ( 212) 637 3762 Matt Gluckman, USEPA Region 5, ( 312) 886 6089 Glenda Dean, Alabama, ( 334) 270 5602 Possible Solutions EPA appreciates all comments and suggestions provided by the stakeholders and EPA Regional staff. Based on information reported to TRI and PCS, toxic discharges from coil coating and canmaking operations are low relative to other industrial categories. Discharges from a single facility contribute over 99% of the total TWPE. Stakeholders and EPA staff identified various issues associated with discharges from coil coating and canmaking plants. The information in the record at this time does not support the concerns raised. In the event that stakeholders provide additional data and supporting information during subsequent review cycles, EPA will reevaluate them at that time. However, as with any comments received by the Agency, EPA can not address these suggestions without adequate supporting data. In the event that stakeholders provide additional data and supporting information, on these or any of the issues identified above, EPA will reevaluate them at that time. In the absence of revisions to the effluent guidelines, these concerns could be addressed through improved information dissemination and outreach by EPA.

New Solvents Being Discharged: There is a possibility that the new solvents are controllable by the technology considered in the development of the guidelines for this point source category. The permitting of control authority can attempt to address this issue by answering the following questions: 1) What are the solvents in use when the guidelines were developed? 2) What is the technology basis for controlling those solvents? 3) What are the new solvents being used by the industry? 4) Are these new solvents controlled by the technology? At this time, based on the information in its record, EPA has no basis to conclude that solvents are being discharged by this industry. Solvents were not identified as discharged from this industry in either PCS or TRI. Consequently, unless EPA receives additional information that demonstrates solvent discharges are a concern for this industry, EPA does not plan to address this issue in more detail.

Costs to Monitor Pollutants No Longer in Use: For direct dischargers, permit writers can reduce the frequency of required monitoring through the provisions described at 40 CFR 122.44( 1)( 2) " Monitoring waivers for certain guideline listed pollutants." ( This is not available during the term of the first permit.) For indirect discharges, the Office of Wastewater Management is preparing to FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 13 of 28 propose a waiver provision for " pollutants not present" under the National Pretreatment Program's streamlining regulation. That regulation is projected to be final in December, 2004. EPA can alert permit writers and pretreatment coordinators to both provisions.

Applicability Issues for Multi process Facilities: Applicability issues appear to be extremely case specific, and best addressed through individual discussions with Engineering and Analysis ( EAD) staff. However, a table addressing the potential overlapping guidelines for aluminum forming, coil coating, and metal finishing would also be helpful. EAD can share these concerns with the Office of Wastewater Management to assist them in increasing the consistency of application of effluent guidelines.

Summary of Potential Solutions: Both the monitoring concerns and the applicability issues could be addressed through information dissemination and outreach by EPA. The Agency could prepare a fact sheet with answers to frequently asked questions ( FAQs), including a table of potentially overlapping guidelines and specifically discussing the pollutant monitoring information. This fact sheet could be posted on EPA's web site. In addition, the Agency could announce the availability of this fact sheet, and the name of the current EAD staff available to answer questions at the regular meetings for permit writers and pretreatment coordinators held by the Office of Wastewater Management ( OWM) and also through email alerts to the EAD mailing list. Finally, due to the presence of a single facility discharging the bulk of the TWPE, EPA could also provide assistance to permit writers in preparing BPJ based permits.

As for the new solvents issue, EPA needs data about any solvents being discharged before it could determine whether the current guidelines do in fact address them through the technology basis. Information on the new solvents may be available from permit writers and others in the field experienced with this industry. Any solvents thus identified can then be evaluated relative to the guidelines technology basis to determine whether they would in fact be controlled by that technology. The results of this research could be considered during a subsequent planning cycle. FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 14 of 28 Attachment A EPA Databases and References Used in this Review Overview of the 304( m) Planning Process CWA Section 304( m)( 1) requires EPA to establish a schedule for the annual review and revision of all existing effluent guidelines and to identify categories of point sources discharging toxic or non conventional pollutants for which EPA has not published effluent guidelines. To accomplish this review, EPA conducted a screening level analysis using readily available information from EPA's Permit Compliance System ( PCS) and Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) databases. EPA estimated the mass of pollutants discharged from each category, weighted the pollutant releases based on chemical toxicity, and ranked the categories based on the toxicweighted pollutant releases.

In addition to reported discharges in PCS and TRI, EPA used other readily available data, as well as information from public outreach, including industry categories recommended by stakeholders for regulatory development or regulatory revision, to evaluate implementation and efficiency considerations.

For additional details on EPA's screening level analysis refer the following documents in EPA Docket Number OW 2003 0074:

Memorandum: Description and Results of EPA Methodology to Synthesize Screening Level Results for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005, DCN 548, Section 3.0;

Development of PCSLoads 2000, DCN 620, Section 2.1.2 ( this document explains how pollutant loads were calculated from PCS data); and

Evaluation of RSEI Model Runs, DCN 618, Section 2.1.1. Information from EPA's Permit Compliance System ( PCS) and Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) databases were used to create the PCSLoads2000 and TRIReleases2000 databases. These databases were the primary source of information used to conduct this review. Since this industry ranked low during the screening phase, however, EPA did not verify any of the information reported to PCS and TRI, and has used it as reported.

TRIReleases2000 The Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) is the major source of data for the TRIReleases2000 database. TRI is the common name for Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA). Each year, facilities that meet certain thresholds must report their FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 15 of 28 releases and other waste management activities for listed toxic chemicals. That is, facilities must report the quantities of toxic chemicals recycled, collected and combusted for energy recovery, treated for destruction, or disposed of. A separate report must be filed for each chemical that exceeds the reporting threshold. The TRI list of chemicals for reporting year 2000 includes more than 600 chemicals and chemical categories. For this review, EPA used data for reporting year 2000, because they were the most recent available at the time the review began.

There are three criteria that a facility must meet to be required to submit a TRI report for that reporting year. The criteria are:

( 1) SIC Code Determination: Facilities in SIC Codes 20 through 39, seven additional SIC codes outside this range, and federal facilities must concern themselves with TRI reporting. EPA rarely checks or refutes facility claims regarding the SIC code identification. The primary SIC code determines TRI reporting.

( 2) Number of Employees: Facilities must have 10 or more full time employees or their equivalent. EPA defines a " full time equivalent" as a person that works 2,000 hours in the reporting year ( there are several exceptions and special circumstances that are well defined in the TRI reporting instructions).

( 3) Activity Thresholds: If the facility is in a covered SIC code and has 10 or more full time employee equivalents it must conduct an activity threshold analysis for every chemical and chemical category on the current TRI list. The facility must determine whether it manufactures, processes, OR otherwise uses each chemical at or above the appropriate activity threshold. Reporting thresholds are not based on the amount of release. All TRI thresholds are based on mass, not concentration. Different thresholds apply for persistent bioaccumulative toxic ( PBT) chemicals than for non PBT chemicals.

In TRI, facilities report annual loads released to the environment of each toxic chemical or chemical category that meets reporting requirements. They must report onsite releases to air, receiving streams, disposal to land, underground wells, and several other categories. They must also report the amount of toxic chemicals in wastes transferred to off site locations, including discharges to POTWs and other off site locations, such as commercial waste disposal facilities.

For this review, EPA focused on the amount of chemicals facilities reported either discharging directly to a receiving stream or transferring to a POTW. For facilities discharging directly to a stream, the loads were taken directly from the reported TRI data for calendar year 2000. For facilities that transfer toxic chemicals to POTWs, EPA first adjusted the TRI pollutant loads reported to be transferred to POTWs to account for pollutant removal that occurs at the POTW prior to discharge to the receiving stream. This adjustment was made using POTW removal efficiencies from EPA's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators ( RSEI) model ( see Section 2.1.1 of the docket for more information on TRI and the RSEI model). FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 16 of 28 Reporting facilities are not required to sample and analyze wastestreams to determine the quantities of toxic chemicals released. They may estimate releases based on mass balance calculations, published emission factors, site specific emission factors, or other approaches. Facilities are required to indicate, by a reporting code, the basis of their release estimate. TRI's reporting guidance is that for chemicals reasonably expected to be present but measured below the detection limit, facilities should use one half the detection limit to estimate the mass released. The guidance is slightly different for dioxins and dioxin like compounds in that it allows nondetects to be treated as zero.

TRI provides the option for facilities to report releases as specific numbers or as ranges, if appropriate. Specific estimates are encouraged if data are available to ensure the accuracy; however, EPA allows facilities to report releases in the following ranges: 1 to 10 pounds, 11 to 499 pounds, and 500 to 999 pounds. For this analysis, EPA used the mid point of each reported range to represent a facility's releases.

EPA weighted the direct and indirect pollutant releases to surface waters using toxic weighting factors ( TWFs) developed by Office of Water/ Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD), to calculate toxic weighted pound equivalents ( TWPE) for each reported release. See 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 for more discussion of TWFs and calculation of TWPE. EPA compiled data taken from TRI, the adjusted releases from POTWs to surface waters, the calculated TWPE, and the relationship between SIC codes and point source category into a Microsoft Access   database named TRIReleases2000. Some corrections were made to this database as further study was conducted on the TRI data. Limitations of TRI are discussed in Section IV of the Technical Support Document for this planning process.

PCSLoads2000 The Permit Compliance System ( PCS) is the major source of data for the PCSLoads2000 database. PCS is a computerized management information system maintained by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA). It was created to track permit, compliance, and enforcement status of facilities regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program under the Clean Water Act ( CWA).

More than 65,000 industrial facilities and water treatment plants have obtained permits for water discharges of regulated pollutants. To provide an initial framework for setting permit issuance priorities, EPA developed a major/ minor classification system for industrial and municipal wastewater discharges. Major discharges almost always have the capability to impact receiving waters if not controlled and, therefore, have been accorded more regulatory attention than minor discharges. There are approximately 6,400 facilities ( including sewerage systems) with major discharges for which PCS has extensive records. Permitting authorities classify discharges as major based on an assessment of six characteristics: FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 17 of 28 ( 1) toxic pollutant potential; ( 2) ratio of discharge flow to stream flow; ( 3) conventional pollutant loading; ( 4) public health impact; ( 5) water quality factors; and ( 6) proximity to coastal waters.

Facilities with major discharges must report compliance with NPDES permit limits via monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports ( DMRs) submitted to the permitting authority. The permitting authority enters the reported DMR data into PCS, including the type of violation ( if any), concentration and quantity values, and the Quarterly Non Compliance Report ( QNCR) indicators. Minor discharges may, or may not, adversely impact receiving water if not controlled. Therefore, EPA does not require DMRs for facilities with minor discharges. For this reason, the PCS database includes data only for a limited set of minor dischargers when the states choose to include these data. As a consequence, extensive data are not available for minor discharges in PCS.

Parameters in PCS include water quality parameters ( such as pH and temperature), specific chemicals, bulk parameters ( such as BOD 5 and TSS), and flow rates. Although other pollutants may be discharged, PCS only contains data for the parameters identified in the facility's NPDES permit. Facilities typically report monthly average pounds per day discharged, but also report daily maxima, and pollutant concentrations.

For this review, EPA used data for reporting year 2000, to correspond to the data obtained from TRI. EPA used its Effluent Data Statistics ( EDS) system program to calculate annual pollutant discharges using the monthly reports in PCS. Because units of measure vary widely in PCS, EPA developed the EDS system to estimate mass loadings based on data stored in PCS. The EDS system uses existing PCS reported mass loading values or multiplies reported discharge flows and effluent concentrations to estimate loadings for each outfall ( discharge pipe), taking into account the various units of concentration and flow rates.

Where concentrations were reported as below detection limit ( BDL) EPA assumed the parameter concentration was equal to zero for parameters never detected by the facility in 2000. For parameters sometimes detected and sometimes not, the " BDL" concentration was set equal to half of the detection limit. . The EDS system program sums the monthly loads to calculate annual discharges, interpolating ( using average reported loads) for months with missing reports.

EPA weighted the calculated annual pollutant discharges using EAD's TWFs to calculate TWPE for each reported discharge, as it did for the reported TRI releases. See sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 for more discussion of TWFs and calculation of TWPE. EPA compiled data taken from PCS, the calculated TWPE, and the relationship between SIC codes and point source category into a Microsoft Access   database named PCSLoads2000. As further study was conducted on the PCS data, some corrections were made. FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 18 of 28 Other Information Sources In addition to TRI and PCS, EPA used the following sources of information in its review of this industry:

1997 Economic Census data; and 2002 Economic Census data.

Contacts with reporting facilities to verify reported releases and facility categorization.

US EPA, October 1982. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coil Coating Point Source Category. EPA440/ 1 82/ 071.

US. 2001. Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR Part 465: Coil Coating Point Source Category.

US EPA, November 1983. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coil Coating Point Source Category ( Canmaking Subcategory. EPA440/ 1 83/ 071.

Jupiter Aluminum Corp., 1999. Pollution Prevention Project Report. Accessed at < http:// www. ecn. purdue. edu/ CMTI/ Technology_ Transfer/ Jupitp2 web. htm> on July 6, 2004.

US EPA Coatings Alternative Guide ( CAGE). Accessed at < http:// cage. rti. org> on July 6, 2004.

CanCentral. com. Information about the can industry. Accessed at < http:// www. cancentral. com> on July 6, 2004.

National Coil Coating Association web page. Accessed at < http:// www. coilcoating. org/> on July 6, 2004. FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 19 of 28 Attachment B Point Source Categories Identified Solely Through Factor 4 Industry Formal Comment Process Previous Suggestions ( Sec. 2.4) Draft Strategy Outreach Comments on Draft Strategy ( Sec. 2.2) Comments on 2002/ 2003 Plan ( Sec. 2.3) Permitting Authoritie s ( Sec. 2.5) AMSA & ASIWPC A ( Sec. 2.6)

Coal Mining

Coil Coating

Dairy Products Processing

Electrical and Electronic Components

Fruits and Vegetable Processing

Metal Molding and Casting

Mineral Mining and Processing

Seafood Processing

FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 20 of 28 Attachment C Applicability and Regulatory History Applicability of 40 CFR Part 465 Subpart A  Steel Basis Material Subcategory. This subpart applies to discharges to waters of the United States, and introductions of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works from coil coating of steel basis material coils.

Subpart B  Galvanized Basis Material Subcategory. This subpart applies to discharges to waters of the United States and introductions of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works from coil coating of galvanized basis material coils.

Subpart C  Aluminum Basis Material Subcategory. This subpart applies to discharges to waters of the United States and introductions of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works from coil coating of aluminum basis material coils.

Subpart D  Canmaking Subcategory. This subpart applies to discharges to waters of the United States, and introductions of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works from the manufacturing of seamless can bodies, which are washed.

Definition: Coil coating means the process of converting basis material strip into coated stock. Usually cleaning, conversion coating, and painting are performed on the basis material. Part 465 applies to processes that perform any two of the three operations REGULATORY BACKGROUND Regulatory History Final versions of the effluent limitations for Subparts A  C were promulgated October 30, 1982. Effluent limitations for Subpart D ( Canmaking) were promulgated November 1983.

The technology basis of existing regulations for subparts A  C is:

 cyanide treatment, chromium reduction, oil removal, lime precipitation and sedimentation for BAT and PSES;

 recycle, cyanide treatment, chromium reduction, oil removal, lime precipitation and sedimentation, and sludge dewatering for BPT; FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 21 of 28  recycle, cyanide treatment, chromium reduction, oil removal, chemical precipitation and sedimentation, and sludge dewatering for NSPS; and  recycle, cyanide treatment, chromium reduction, chemical precipitation and sedimentation, and sludge dewatering for PSNS.

The technology basis for existing regulations for subpart D is:

 wastewater flow normalization, chromium reduction, oil removal, and lime precipitation and sedimentation for BPT;

 in process flow reduction, chromium reduction, oil removal, and lime precipitation and sedimentation for BAT and PSES; and  BPT end of pipe treatment and in process flow reduction for NSPS and PSNS.

Existing Limitations Effluent limitations guidelines are mass based on the basis of milligram ( mg) per surface area processed in square meters ( m2) and grams ( g) per one million cans produced.

BCT was deferred for all Subparts ( A D).

Limitations were established based on subcategorization by basis material used or product ( metal cans).

Pretreatment standards for total toxic organics ( TTO) were established for new and existing sources in the canmaking subcategory. EPA detected 14 organic compounds at quantifiable levels during wastewater sampling, and selected these compounds to be included in the regulation. According to Part 465, TTO is the sum of the mass of each of the following toxic organic compounds which are found at a concentration greater than 0.010 mg/ 1:

1,1,1 Trichloroethane; 1,1 Dichloroethane; 1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane; Bis ( 2 chloroethyl) ether; Chloroform; 1,1 Dichloroethylene; Methylene chloride ( dichloromethane); Pentachlorophenol; Bis ( 2 ethylhexyl) phthalate; Butyl benzyl phthalate; Di N butyl phthalate; Phenanthrene; Tetrachloroethylene; and Toluene. FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 22 of 28 EPA received comments after proposal that changes in can making technology had eliminated toxic organic pollutants. Sampling data collected between 1978 and 1983 did not support this comment.

Other Effluent Guidelines 40 CFR Part 467 ( Aluminum Forming) is applicable to rolling, drawing, extruding, forging, and related operations such as heat treatment, casting, and surface treatments. For the purposes of this regulation, surface treatment of aluminum is considered to be an integral part of aluminum forming whenever it is performed at the same plant site at which the aluminum is formed. FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 23 of 28 Table C 1. Effluent Guidelines for Coil Coating and Canmaking Pollutant BPT 30 day averages BAT 30 day averages NSPS 30 day averages PSES 30 day averages PSNS 30 day averages Subparts A C ( mg/ m2) Subpart D ( g/ 1 million cans) Subparts A C ( mg/ m2) Subpart D ( g/ 1 million cans) Subparts A C ( mg/ m2) Subpart D ( g/ 1 million cans) Subparts A C ( mg/ m2) Subpart D ( g/ 1 million cans) Subparts A C ( mg/ m2) Subpart D ( g/ 1 million cans)

Chromium 0.45 0.58 38.70 0.16 2.0 15.10 0.052 0.47 11.45 0.16 0.20 15.10 0.052 0.047 11.45 Copper 2.61a NR 0.90b NR 0.21 a NR 0.90a 83.90 0.21a 63.60 Cyanide 0.32 0.41 NR 0.11 0.14 NR 0.028 0.25 NR 0.11 0.14 NR 0.025 0.38 NR Zinc 1.46 1.89 131.15 0.51 0.66 51.18 0.14 0.20 38.80 0.51 0.66 51.18 0.14 0.20 38.80 Aluminum 6.26b 688.00 1.84b 268.48 0.59b 203.52 NR NR NR NR Iron 1.65 1.74 5676.00 0.57 0.74 2214.96 0.20 0.22 1679.04 NR 2214.96 NR 1679.04 Phosphorous NR 1468.45 NR 573.04 NR 434.39 NR 573.04 NR 434.39 Manganese NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 24.33 NR 18.44 Oil and grease 31.31 40.4 2580 NR NR 3.16 4.75 763.20 NR 1006.80 NR 763.20 TSS 52.2 67.3 4192.5 NR NR 3.79 5.70 1240.20 NR NR NR NR TTO* NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 12.59 NR 9.54 pH 7.5 10.0 7.0 10.0 NR NR 7.5 10.0 7.0 10.0 NR NR NR NR * Total toxic organic pollutants include 1,1,1 Trichloroethane, 1,1 Dichloroethane, 1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane, Bis ( 2 chloroethyl) ether, Chloroform, 1,1 Dichloroethylene, Methylene chloride ( dichloromethane), Pentachlorophenol, Bis ( 2 ethylhexyl) phthalate, Butyl benzyl phthalate, Di N butyl phthalate, Phenanthrene, Tetrachloroethylene, and Toluene.

a Subpart B only.

NR = Not regulated b Subpart C only. FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 24 of 28 Attachment D PCS Discharges SIC NPDES ID NAME CITY Flow ( MGD) Pounds/ Year TWPE Percent of Total SIC TWPE Cumulative Percent of Total SIC TWPE No Reported Results for this point source category. FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 25 of 28 Attachment E TRI Discharges  Only Indirect Discharges Reported for All But One Facility SIC Code Facility TRI ID Facility Name Facility City Facilit y State Total lbs Total TWPE Percent Total of SIC TWPE Cumulative Percent Total of SIC TWPE 3411 46350MRCNN300NO SILGAN CONTAINERS MFG. CORP. LA PORTE IN 31,210 11,652 99% 99%

3411 12550MTLCN1000B METAL CONTAINER CORP. ( NWB) NEW WINDSOR NY 156 11 0%

3411 30161MTLCN110MC METAL CONTAINER CORP. ROME ROME GA 156 11 0%

3411 32205MTLCN1100N METAL CONTAINER CORP. JACKSONVILLE JACKSONVILLE FL 156 11 0%

3411 43213MTLCN350MC METAL CONTAINER CORP. COLUMBUS COLUMBUS OH 156 11 0%

3411 53538MTLCN105EA METAL CONTAINER CORP. FORT ATKINSON FORT ATKINSON WI 156 11 0%

3411 63010MTLCN42TEN METAL CONTAINER CORP. ARNOLD ARNOLD MO 156 11 0%

3411 80550MTLCN12011 METAL CONTAINER CORP. WINDSOR WINDSOR CO 156 11 0%

3411 91752MTLCN10980 METAL CONTAINER CORP. MIRA LOMA MIRA LOMA CA 156 11 0%

3411 08852MRCNNGEOR G REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. BRUNSWICK PLANT MONMOUTH JUNCTION NJ 17 1 0%

3411 08854MRCNNSORA N REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. PISCATAWAY NJ FACILITY PISCATAWAY NJ 17 1 0%

3411 27107STRHC4000O REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. WINSTON SALEM PLANT WINSTONSALEM NC 17 1 0%

3411 29010MRCNN609CO REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. BISHOPVILLE SC FACILITY BISHOPVILLE SC 17 1 0%

3411 30050MRCNN48ROY REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. FOREST PARK FACILITY FOREST PARK GA 17 1 0%

3411 38654MRCNN10800 REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. OLIVE BRANCH FACILITY OLIVE BRANCH MS 17 1 0%

3411 43420MRCNN2145C REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. FREMONT PLANT FREMONT OH 17 1 0%

3411 43571MRCNN10444 REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. WHITEHOUSE PLANT WHITEHOUSE OH 17 1 0% SIC Code Facility TRI ID Facility Name Facility City Facilit y State Total lbs Total TWPE Percent Total of SIC TWPE Cumulative Percent Total of SIC TWPE FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 26 of 28 3411 55107MRCNN139EV REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. EVA STREET ST. PAUL MN SAINT PAUL MN 17 1 0%

3411 60609MRCNN1101W REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. CHICAGO PLANT CHICAGO IL 17 1 0%

3411 73179MRCNN3400S REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. OKLAHOMA CITY PLANT OKLAHOMA CITY OK 17 1 0%

3411 75604STRHC1001F REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. LONGVIEW FACILITY LONGVIEW TX 17 1 0%

3411 77029MRCNN8501E REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. HOUSTON FACILITY HOUSTON TX 17 1 0%

3411 85031MRCNN211NO REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. PHOENIX AZ FACILITY PHOENIX AZ 17 1 0%

3411 91311MRCNN20730 REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO.

CHATSWORTH FACILITY CHATSWORTH CA 17 1 0%

3411 94533MRCNN2433C REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. FAIRFIELD PLANT FAIRFIELD CA 17 1 0%

3411 98032MRCNN1220N REXAM BEVERAGE CAN CO. KENT WA FACILITY KENT WA 17 1 0%

3411 80403BLLPC4525I BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORP. GOLDEN CO 12 1 0%

3411 80401VLLYM17755* VALLEY METAL CONTAINER* GOLDEN CO 4 0 0%

3411 00630CRWNCKM126 CROWN CORK DE PUERTO RICO INC. CAROLINA PR 3 0 0%

3411 01843CRWNC155SH CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. LAWRENCE MA 3 0 0%

3411 29520CRWNC100EV CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. CHERAW SC 3 0 0%

3411 38606CRWNCHWY3 5 CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. BATESVILLE MS 3 0 0%

3411 54603CNTNN1501S CROWN BEVERAGE PACKAGING INC. LA CROSSE WI 3 0 0%

3411 55044CRWNC84152 CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. LAKEVILLE MN 3 0 0%

3411 60915CRWNC1035E CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. BRADLEY IL 3 0 0%

3411 77303CRWNC2501N CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. CONROE TX 3 0 0%

3411 77478CNTNN12910 CROWN BEVERAGE PACKAGING INC. SUGAR LAND TX 3 0 0% SIC Code Facility TRI ID Facility Name Facility City Facilit y State Total lbs Total TWPE Percent Total of SIC TWPE Cumulative Percent Total of SIC TWPE FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 27 of 28 3411 79603CRWNC1900N CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. ABILENE TX 3 0 0%

3411 82401CRWNC4THST CROWN CORK & SEAL CO. INC. WORLAND WY 3 0 0%

3411 98507CNTNN1202F CROWN BEVERAGE PACKAGING INC. OLYMPIA WA 3 0 0%

3411 08817MRCNN135NA SILGAN CONTAINERS CORP. EDISON NJ 1 0 0%

3411 95824SLGNC6200F SILGAN CAN CO. SACRAMENTO CA 1 0 0%

3411 TOTAL 32,803 11,764 * Only direct discharging facility, no indirect pounds reported. FINAL DRAFT Coil Coating August 12, 2004 Page 28 of 28 Attachment F Reported Pollutant Loadings SIC Nonconventional Pollutants CAS PCS Discharges TRI Indirect Discharges TRI Direct Discharges Facilities Reporting Pollutant Pounds TWPE Facilities Reporting Pollutant Pounds TWPE Facilities Reporting Pollutant Pounds TWPE 3411 SODIUM NITRITE 7632000 0     1 31,210 11,652 3411 MANGANESE 7439965 0     38 1,587 112 1 4 0.28 3411 GLYCOL ETHERS N230 0     3 1 0.00013 3411 N BUTYL ALCOHOL 71363 0     3 1 0.000093 3411 SUM OF NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS 0 0 32,799 11,763 4 0.28


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81074-81075]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD23-9-000]

Reliability Technical Conference; Notice Inviting Post-Technical
Conference Comments

    On Thursday, November 9, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) convened its annual Commissioner-led
Reliability Technical Conference to discuss policy issues related to
the reliability of the Bulk-Power System, and the impact of the
Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule under section 111 of
the Clean Air Act on electric reliability.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired
Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units;
and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, 88 FR 33240
(proposed May 23, 2023) (to be codified at 40 CFR part 60).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments to address issues raised during the technical
conference and identified in the Second Supplemental Notice for this
Technical Conference issued on October 30, 2023. For reference, the
questions included in the Second Supplemental Notice are included
below. Commenters need not answer all of the questions, but are
encouraged to organize responses using the numbering and order in the
below questions. Commenters are also invited to reference material
previously filed in this docket, but are encouraged to avoid repetition
or replication of their previous comments. Comments must be submitted
on or before 30 days from the date of this Notice.
    Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed electronically
or paper-filed. Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov is
preferred. Documents must be filed in acceptable native applications
and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture format. Instructions
are available on the Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
    Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, submissions sent via
the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    For more information about this Notice, please contact:
Michael Gildea (Technical Information), Office of Energy Reliability,
(202) 502-8420, [email protected].
Gonzalo E. Rodriguez (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

    Dated: November 14, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Post Technical Conference Questions

1. State of Bulk Power System Reliability With a Focus on the Changing
Resource Mix and Resource Adequacy

    The transformation of the Bulk-Power System is resulting in
significant changes to the nation's power supply portfolio. These
changes include increased penetrations of inverter-based resources, the
increased use and importance of natural gas generating units for system
balancing, and the

participation of distributed energy resources. Ensuring the adequate
supply of electric energy to service loads during peak hours and during
extreme weather conditions is also becoming more challenging in many
regions of North America.
    What should the Commission's top reliability priorities be for the
next one to three years? What are potential actions the Commission
could take to improve reliability regarding these priorities?
    (a) What trends and risks identified in NERC's 2023 State of
Reliability Report and the 2023 ERO Reliability Risk Priorities Report
warrant the most attention and effort?
    (b) Resource adequacy traditionally has been characterized in terms
of planning reserve margin, which assesses the excess generating
capacity required to meet peak load. NERC and industry have recently
been discussing the notion of energy adequacy, which assesses whether
there is sufficient energy--power over time--to meet customers' energy
needs. Is energy adequacy a more appropriate metric to characterize
reliability risks given the changing grid?
    (c) NERC has highlighted essential reliability services (e.g.,
frequency response, voltage control, and ramping capability) as core to
maintaining reliable operation of the grid. How does the changing
resource mix and characteristics of load affect the needed amount and
provision of these essential reliability services? What actions, and by
whom, are necessary to ensure adequate levels of these services?
    (d) The electric grid is undergoing its most significant changes in
a century. How should reliability oversight adapt to this change? Is
the existing reliability oversight model flexible and agile enough to
help lead the change?
    (e) In recent years, reliance on natural gas as a fuel for electric
generation has steadily increased. At the Commission's recommendation,
the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) held forums between
August 2022 and July 2023 to discuss the growing interdependence
between the natural gas and electric sectors. NAESB issued
recommendations to enhance market coordination to address challenges
posed by this growing interdependence. Should the Commission prioritize
pursuing any specific NAESB recommendation?
    (f) Wildfires are no longer considered only a California or Western
states issue for grid reliability, as drought conditions are expanding
into additional regions including MISO, ERCOT and SPP creating further
reliability impacts. What preparations have you taken (or are you
considering) to address emerging wildfire and drought reliability risks
in your region?

2. CIP Reliability Standards and the Evolving Grid

    Cybersecurity vulnerabilities and threats continue to evolve at a
pace that tests utility cybersecurity programs. These quickly evolving
threats present a challenge when assessing whether security controls,
including the CIP Reliability Standards, adequately respond to the
latest cyber risks. Most utilities and other electric sector
stakeholders with mature cybersecurity programs implement an
overarching cybersecurity program to oversee all aspects of their
cybersecurity activities, including identification of the assets to be
protected, staffing, technology selection and procurement, and
compliance with the CIP Reliability Standards. However, ongoing and
anticipated changes to the interconnected electric grid, such as the
shift in the types of energy sources used to generate electricity may
disrupt cyber programs. Utilities are digitizing their grids while
managing an increasing number of grid-connected devices. As a
consequence, utilities require more advanced tools to process and
analyze large amounts of data for grid planning, operations, and
security. These changes are also leaving uncertainty as to where these
digital assets will fit into the cybersecurity regulatory framework and
what tools can be used to effectively manage them or even what the
future may bring as cyberattacks continue to grow in sophistication.
    (a) Discuss the primary security issues facing electric utilities
and describe the prioritization of resources and investment. What are
some lessons learned and best practices?
    (b) With regard to evolving cyber threats, describe how your
cybersecurity program identifies and responds to such conditions. When
responding, how do you assess the risk posed to your systems by the
threats?
    (c) Describe the benefits and challenges of implementing and
maintaining a cybersecurity program as the resource mix continues to
evolve. How does this program interact with actions to comply with the
CIP Reliability Standards? How does such a program help to identify and
prioritize security concerns, and what actions are taken to address
those concerns, including the application of best practices?
    (d) Describe how supply chain security and the use of third-party
systems, such as cloud services, are addressed in your risk assessments
and implemented in the cybersecurity program. What concerns still exist
related to supply chain and third-party systems?
    (e) What additional actions can the Commission, NERC, and industry
take to further protect the grid from security threats, both physical
and cyber?

3. Reliability Implications of EPA's Proposed Rule on ``Greenhouse Gas
Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants''

    On May 23, 2023, the EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The proposed rule would set New
Source Performance Standards for new power plants that run on fossil
gas.
    (a) Will the rule, if implemented as proposed, affect electric
reliability? In what ways?
    (b) What tools and processes should the Commission, other federal
and state agencies, and industry consider in order to implement the
proposed rule? What authority should the Commission and other federal
and state agencies have in order to address potential reliability
issues that could arise during implementation of the proposed rule?
    (c) What existing processes for coordination will enable federal
and state agencies, planning entities, and industry stakeholders to
share ongoing developments relevant to the implementation of the
proposed rule?
    (d) What specific tools are currently available to agencies to
consider impacts to retail consumers? Are there additional tools that
should be developed to consider these issues?

[FR Doc. 2023-25672 Filed 11-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2442-2444]
[FR Doc No: 2011-645]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0179]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections.
    This document describes the collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2010-0179 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Block, Contracting Officer's
Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NTI-
131), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., W46-499, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Block's phone number is
202-366-6401 and his email address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (I) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:

Demonstration Tests of Different High Visibility Enforcement Models

    Type of Request--New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number--None.
    Form Number--NHTSA Forms 1121, 1122, 1123.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--3 years from date of
approval.

    Summary of the Collection of Information--The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposes to collect information
from the public to evaluate three programs of sustained enforcement of
the drinking and driving laws. The programs will extend over a period
of 2 years. A baseline wave of telephone interviews with residents in 3
program sites and 2 comparison sites not carrying out a demonstration
program will be conducted prior to the start of the enforcement
program. Additional telephone survey waves will be conducted at each of
the 5 sites at approximately 6 month intervals following the baseline
survey wave until a final telephone survey wave is conducted after the
conclusion of the program, for a total of 5 telephone survey waves
including the baseline. Sample size for the program sites will be 1,200
while sample size for the comparisons sites will be 500, totaling
23,000 interviews. During the 3rd and 5th survey waves, 50 individuals
interviewed during the baseline wave at each of the sites will be re-
interviewed. This will add 500 interviews, for a grand total of 23,500
telephone interviews over a period of approximately 26 months. The
survey will ask questions about drinking behavior, awareness of the
enforcement program, impressions of the program's effectiveness and
utility, and perceived risk of alcohol-impaired drivers being stopped
by law enforcement officers. Interview length will average 10 minutes.
    Augmenting the telephone surveys at each of the 3 program sites
will be data collected from individuals at locations where there is an
increased likelihood of persons at high risk of driving while alcohol-
impaired, i.e., at bars. Data will be collected from 100 bar patrons
concurrent with each of the 5 telephone survey waves for a total of
1,500 face-to-face interviews. Interview length will average 5 minutes
and ask about awareness of the program and perceived risk of alcohol-
impaired drivers being stopped by law enforcement officers.
    Data will also be collected from drivers at the program and
comparison sites through a roadside survey before, midway, and after
the 2-year intervention period. Breath samples will be obtained to
identify any changes in the distribution of roadside BACs (Blood
Alcohol Concentration) across data collection periods, and the drivers
will also be administered a 5-minute face-to-face interview. Sample
size will be 100 drivers per site per data collection wave, for a total
of 1,500 drivers. The interviews will collect information on program
awareness and perceived risk of an alcohol-impaired driver being
stopped by law enforcement officers.
    In conducting the proposed telephone interviews, the interviewers
would use computer-assisted telephone interviewing to reduce interview
length and minimize recording errors. The proposed data collection at
bars and the roadside survey would be anonymous; they would not collect
any personal information that would allow anyone to identify
respondents. The telephone interviews during wave 1 will include some
collection of personally identifying information in order to conduct a
small number of re-interviews during waves 3 and 5. However, that
information will be held exclusively by the survey contractor,
protected from disclosure to any other parties, and destroyed once no
longer needed for re-contacting prospective respondents. Moreover, the
personally identifiable information will be separated from the survey
responses. No personally identifiable information will be collected
during telephone survey waves 2 through 5.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--NHTSA was established to reduce the number of deaths,
injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on
the Nation's highways. As part of this statutory mandate, NHTSA is
authorized to conduct research as a foundation for the development of
motor vehicle standards and traffic safety programs.
    The heavy toll that alcohol-impaired driving exacts on the nation
in fatalities, injuries, and economic costs is well documented. High
visibility enforcement has historically had the strongest support in
the research literature for effectiveness in reducing alcohol-impaired
driving. Studies have demonstrated that prolonged commitment to highly
visible and well-publicized enforcement of the drinking and driving
laws, with enforcement and communication activities conducted on a
regular basis, can result in substantial reduction in alcohol-related
and alcohol-impaired driving crashes. In practice, however, law
enforcement agencies have consolidated their high visibility alcohol
enforcement efforts into a small number of enforcement waves that occur
each year. The high visibility enforcement becomes an enhanced form of
enforcement rather than something that the officers normally do. Thus
attempting to sustain the high visibility enforcement over time entails
determining how law enforcement agencies can integrate high visibility
enforcement of the drinking and driving laws so that it is not
producing an extra burden for officers but is rather a normal and
regular part of their work.
    NHTSA plans to demonstrate three community programs of high
visibility enforcement of the drinking and driving laws. Two of those
programs will be designed as fully integrated high visibility
enforcement programs. Since many law enforcement agencies would be
unable to move directly to a fully integrated program, a third program
will be demonstrated that is operating at an intermediate level between
current common practice and full integration. NHTSA will collect
information to assess the extent to which the programs penetrate public
awareness, how effective the programs are perceived by residents in the
intervention communities, and whether changes occur over the course of
the programs in the perceived risk of an alcohol-impaired driver being
stopped by law enforcement officers. Because the alcohol crash fatality
problem is concentrated among certain groups, particular attention will
be paid to assessing this information for drivers most likely to drive
at BACs above the legal limit. In addition to self-report information,
NHTSA will collect roadside BAC data to obtain a measure of the
distribution of BACs among drivers on the road.
    NHTSA will use the findings from this proposed collection of
information to assist States, localities, and law enforcement agencies
to design and implement sustained programs of high visibility
enforcement of the drinking and driving laws.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
Under this proposed effort, the Contractor would conduct 23,500
telephone interviews, 1,500 face-to-face interviews with bar patrons,
and 1,500 face-to-face interviews with drivers who participate during
roadside surveys. The telephone interviews will be conducted with
drivers age 18 and older in the five selected communities, with over-
sampling of drivers 18 through 34. Interview length will average 10
minutes. Interviews would be conducted with drivers at residential
phone numbers selected through random digit dialing. Businesses are
ineligible for the sample and would not be interviewed. A total of 250
respondents who complete the interview during the initial baseline
survey wave will be administered the survey two additional times
separated

by 1-year intervals, for a total of three administrations of the survey
over slightly more than a 2 year period. All other members of the
sample will be administered the survey one time only.
    The interviews with bar patrons will be conducted with individuals
21 years of age and older. Interview length will average approximately
5 minutes, and each member of the sample would complete one interview.
Businesses are ineligible for the sample and would not be interviewed.
    The roadside survey interviews will be conducted with drivers 18
and older. Interviews would average 5 minutes, and each member of the
sample would complete one interview. Businesses are ineligible for the
sample and would not be interviewed.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information--NHTSA estimates that
respondents would require an average of 10 minutes to complete the
telephone interviews or a total of 3,917 hours for the 23,500
respondents. The interviews with bar patrons will average 5 minutes or
a total of 125 hours for the 1,500 respondents. The roadside survey
interviews will also average 5 minutes or a total of 125 hours for the
1,500 respondents. The total number of estimated reporting burden hours
on the general public would be 4,167. The annual reporting burden would
be 1,923 hours based on a 26 month data collection period. The
respondents would not incur any reporting cost from the information
collection. The respondents also would not incur any record keeping
burden or record keeping cost from the information collection.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

Jeffrey Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2011-645 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P