                                  MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

TO:			Paul Shriner and Lisa Biddle, EPA
FROM:		John Sunda, Tetra Tech
DATE: 		June 24, 2013

SUBJECT: 	Evaluation of EPRI and Riverkeeper Closed-Cycle Cost Estimates

Comparison of EPA to EPRI Costs

In 2007 EPRI provided to EPA a cost worksheet for estimating closed-cycle cooling system retrofit costs at power plants. This worksheet included capital cost factors for retrofits of varying difficulties. These costs factors were developed based on actual and estimated costs for closed-cycle retrofit projects at approximately 50 different power plants. EPA adopted and incorporated the cost approach and costs factors in the 2007 EPRI worksheet in the cost methodology used to estimated closed-cycle recirculating system (CCRS) retrofits for cost options involving the performance requirements based on CCRS technology or its equivalent. Subsequent EPRI worksheet submissions contained no revisions to the methodology. However, EPRI did conduct further research and apparently made some changes to their cost estimation approach, the results of which was presented in the Closed-Cycle Cooling System Retrofit Study (Technical Report # 1022491) in 2011 which was included as an attachment to their Proposal public comment. This more recent study includes additional cost data from a total of over 80 different power plants and appears to be the culmination of EPRI's effort to derived costs for closed-cycle retrofits at power plants. EPRI was able to incorporate into their methodology site-specific facility data obtained through a survey they conducted that was not made available to EPA. While the EPA cost estimates included consideration of all plants with a DIF >2 MGD, this study focuses on compliance costs for requiring closed-cycle cooling for power plants with a design flow >50 MGD that fell within the scope of the 316(b) Phase II Rule. This memo identifies the changes EPRI made in the methodology since 2007 and an analysis of differences in the cost methodology approach and resulting cost estimates between EPA and EPRI for CCRS technology retrofits at generating facilities. The discussion below is divided into major cost components.

Capital Costs

EPA based the Proposed Rule cost estimates for closed-cycle cooling systems on EPRI cost factors and calculations from their draft Tower Calculation Worksheet provided to EPA by EPRI in September 2007. These data are assumed to reflect 2007 dollars. The 2007 EPRI worksheet developed capital costs for three scenarios; easy, average, and difficult. For the capital cost component for power plants EPA made a reasonable assumption that the average difficulty cost would be borne by the typical plant. Using the EPRI Cost Worksheet plus regional cost factors EPA derived a national cost for an average difficulty retrofit of $249/gpm (in 2007 dollars) which becomes $263/gpm when adjusted to 2009 dollars. However, EPA realized that a requirement to install cooling towers at all power plants may include a larger portion of those with more difficult and costly retrofit design components, such as plume and/or noise abatement, than was included in the facilities considered by EPRI in the development of the average difficulty cost factor. To account for this EPA adjusted the costs upward by approximately 11% from $263/gpm to $293/gpm (both costs are adjusted to 2009 dollars) to account for the need for plume/noise abatement at an estimated 25% of the facilities. EPA did not apply a different capital cost factor for nuclear plants since EPRI did not make such a distinction in the 2007 spreadsheet and the EPRI supporting data was inconclusive in this respect, indicating a cost difference of no greater than 10%.

The 2011 EPRI Study (EPRI Report # 1022491) used a slightly more complex approach than presented in their 2007 Cost Worksheet which included the same three retrofit difficulty categories (Easy, Average, Difficult) plus 3 more categories: an additional "More Difficult" category for fossil-fuel plants and two for nuclear plants (Less Difficult Nuclear, More Difficult Nuclear). The EPRI cost estimates used survey data obtained independently by EPRI that was not available to EPA to assign different factors for different subsets of facilities. This allowed EPRI to conduct a more complex cost analysis utilizing site-specific data. No details are provided concerning the assignment of retrofit level of difficulty to different facilities. An overall EPRI $/gpm value can be derived by dividing the EPRI estimated total capital cost for all Phase II Facilities of $62,060 Million by the total EPRI cooling flow of 182,296,000 gpm (EPRI 102491 Table 8-18). The resulting EPRI 2010 overall capital cost factor is $340/gpm. The EPA equivalent value of $302/gpm ($293 adjusted for inflation from 2009 to 2010) used in the EPA cost estimates for all generating plants is only 11% lower the EPRI average. This difference is well within the expected range of accuracy of preliminary estimates of this type.

EPRI included re-optimization of the cooling system for all nuclear plants and about half of base-load fossil-fuel plants. Re-optimization is the redesign of the cooling system such that the cooling flow is reduced and condenser temperature rise (range) is increased allowing for smaller towers, smaller pumps and piping and less pumping energy requirements. Re-optimization involves modifying the cooling system design to operate efficiently at a lower cooling flow rates requiring an additional retrofit cost associated with upgrading the condensers (e.g., from single-pass to double-pass) plus the required additional downtime to modify the condensers. The EPRI re-optimization scenario assumes the cooling flow would be cut in half but EPRI does not reduce the cooling tower retrofit capital costs associated with a smaller tower, pumps, and pipes because they concluded that the added costs of upgrading the condensers from single-pass to double-pass would offset any cost savings of the smaller closed-cycle system. The assumption that these costs would offset each other is reasonable. While EPRI's approach to including re-optimization did not affect capital costs, it did include a substantial increase in downtime duration and a reduction in operating energy requirements.

Downtime

EPRI stated that their downtime duration estimate for nuclear plants was based on a limited number of independent engineering studies and information from a few actual retrofits at fossil plants. EPRI states that "there is relatively little information available to support generalized estimates of this cost element." EPRI used their site-specific survey data to assign different downtime estimates to individual plants based on assumed downtime estimates for assigned categories. Based on available data, EPA used a simpler approach assuming an average net downtime of one month for fossil fuel plants and either zero months or six months for nuclear plants depending on whether they would have the opportunity to schedule the closed-cycle retrofit to coincide with an extended capacity uprating (ECU). See the Economic Analysis for Final 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule for more details. Table 1 presents a comparison of the downtime duration assumptions used by EPRI and EPA in estimating downtime costs. Table 2 shows the reported distribution of retrofit difficulty by generating capacity and the corresponding months of downtime duration.
                                    Table 1
          Summary of Assumed Downtime Duration Used by EPRI and EPA
             For Estimating Cooling Tower Retrofit Downtime Costs
                                   Fuel Type
                              Retrofit Difficulty
                                 EPRI Downtime
                                 EPA Downtime

                                    Months
                                    Months
Fossil-fuel
Easy & Average
                                       0
                                       1
Fossil-fuel
Difficult
                                       4
                                       1
Fossil-fuel
More Difficult
                                       6
                                       1
Fossil-fuel
Re-optimized
                                       6
                                       1
Nuclear
All
                                       6
                                    0 or 6

                                    Table2
     EPRI Distribution of Generating Capacity by Retrofit Difficulty Type
                                   Fuel Type
                                  Difficulty
                             Percent of Fuel Type
                                    Months*
                                  Fossil-fuel
                                     Easy
                                      22%
                                       0
                                  Fossil-fuel
                                Easy to Average
                                      10%
                                       0
                                  Fossil-fuel
                                    Average
                                      26%
                                       0
                                  Fossil-fuel
                             Average to Difficult
                                      13%
                                       2
                                  Fossil-fuel
                                   Difficult
                                      24%
                                       4
                                  Fossil-fuel
                                More Difficult
                                      5%
                                       6
                                  Fossil-fuel
                               Weighted Average
                                     100%
                                      1.5
                                    Nuclear
                                Less Difficult
                                      30%
                                       6
                                    Nuclear
                                More Difficult
                                      30%
                                       6
                                    Nuclear
                                 Intermediate
                                      40%
                                       6
* Assumes average value was applied (e.g., Average to Difficult is assumed 2 - average of 0 and 4)

One major difference in the EPRI approach that affected downtime costs was to assume that certain facilities would chose to re-optimize their cooling system. It is reasonable to expect that the decision to re-optimize would be based on an economic analysis to determine the least cost option over the long term. It is expected that a facility would only choose to re-optimize if it would result in a reduction in the overall costs over the long term. Such a cost analysis would take into consideration, expected plant life, capital costs, downtime costs, operating costs (materials, chemical treatment, labor, auxiliary pump and fan energy) , and the effect on heat rate penalty. For plants with high capacity factors and substantial remaining plant life, the added downtime and condenser costs should be more than offset by the savings in O&M and auxiliary energy and heat rate penalty costs.

EPRI's re-optimized system costs only included the increase in downtime duration costs plus a reduction in fan and pumping auxiliary energy costs by 50% commensurate with the reduced cooling flow. EPRI's increase in downtime for re-optimization was six months and resulted in an additional lost generation cost for downtime for roughly 15% of the total fossil-fuel generating capacity analyzed by EPRI. None of the other potential savings in operating costs or heat rate penalty are included in EPRI's cost estimates and, as a result, it appears that their application of re-optimization resulted in a net increase in overall costs. A properly designed re-optimization cost estimate should result in long term cost savings when compared to a system designed for the existing condenser flow for units that choose to re-optimize. Recognizing that re-optimization should result in lower costs, EPA chose the more conservative approach and did not consider the potential cost savings of re-optimization because of the limited data available and complex nature of such an analysis. EPA's selection of relatively high values for the heat rate penalty is consistent with this approach.

If re-optimization is not included in the EPRI analysis, based on the distribution in Table 2, the aggregated average EPRI downtime duration for fossil-fuel plants would be around 1.5 months. This is roughly comparable to the EPA estimate of 1.0 month for all fossil-fuel retrofits given the uncertainty of the true value of the estimated downtime duration assigned. Factoring in the 6 months extra downtime for re-optimized plants, the average downtime assigned to fossil-fuel plants is 2.4 months. EPA's revised net nuclear downtime is the same as that used by EPRI. However, for many nuclear facilities that have not yet conducted an ECU, EPA has assumed the net downtime value will be zero.

The decision to include re-optimization I the analysis increased the average downtime duration by nearly one month for fossil-fuel plants. One inconsistency in EPRI's downtime analysis is that the extra costs of downtime for the re-optimized units are much greater than the projected savings in energy costs over a 30 yr. timeframe. Since facilities would choose re-optimization only if it would reduce long term costs, then it is likely the EPRI assumptions regarding re-optimizations are either incorrect or incomplete in that there are likely to be additional cost savings that are not accounted for. One of these savings is that re-optimization may result in a smaller heat rate penalty. Thus a portion of the EPRI downtime costs should be offset by savings in long term operating costs that are not included in the EPRI analysis.

In support of 6 month longer downtimes for complex retrofits, EPRI cited engineering estimates for four large nuclear plants. The estimated total downtime ranged from 5 months for Oyster Creek, 10 months for Indian Point Units 2 and 3, 17 months for Diablo Canyon, and just under 22 months for San Onofre (ENERCON 2010, URS 2006). EPRI assumed that since nuclear plants operate as base-load and would have relatively long remaining service life (NRC license renewals are typically 20 years), re-optimization would be included in the retrofit design. EPA arrived at the same 6 month net downtime estimate using a different approach based on a gross downtime derived under Phase III minus the expected 8 week minimum duration of in-service inspection conducted every 5 years.

Heat Rate Energy Penalty

The heat rate penalty associated with conversion from once-through to closed-cycle cooling is the direct result of the difference in turbine backpressure that result from changes in the cooling water temperature that is associated with the change in cooling water source. These changes vary considerably for different locations, time of year, meteorological conditions, source water conditions, tower design and operation, and turbine design. As such, the lack of site-specific conditions and system design data for the model facilities make it very difficult to estimate "typical" or "annual average" heat rate penalties. In the EPA cost analysis heat rate penalties are expressed as a percent of steam generation. Estimates of heat rate penalties from different source have varied considerably. For the cost estimation for estimating heat rate penalty costs EPA selected a value of 1.5% for fossil steam generating units and 2.5% for nuclear steam generating units. EPA selected these relatively conservative (on the high side) values based on the range of 1.5-2.0% provided by EPRI previously. A larger value was selected for nuclear because penalties tend to be greater for steam units that operate at lower throttle pressures.

The analysis included a detailed evaluation of heat rate penalties at several example facilities in seven different waterbodies/regions of the US. Since the slope of turbine performance curves varies with temperature, EPRI estimated heat rates for different conditions. They estimated that for higher temperatures on hot days the average heat rate will change by 2.0% for each 1.0 inch of Hg difference in backpressure. And that for the general range of temperatures over the entire year the average heat rate will change by 1.0% for each 1.0 inch of Hg difference in backpressure. Thus, for the annual average, a difference in backpressure of 0.5 in Hg will result in a heat rate penalty of 0.5%. For the cost estimates, EPRI assumes that the hot day period lasts for 10% of the year and that the equivalent cost is $35/Mwh. Table 3 presents the calculated hot day and annual average differences in turbine backpressure for the seven different waterbody /region example facilities along with the calculated heat rate penalty based on assumptions which are not shown in the EPRI Report. This data shows that the average heat rate penalty for the seven facilities evaluated by EPRI can vary from <0% to 2.3%, depending on the time of the year and location. EPRI's description of their heat rate penalty cost calculations indicates that they used the average hot day and annual average values of the seven case studies. EPRI's only distinction between nuclear and fossil-fuel units was in the assumed capacity utilization rates. EPA used a similar approach of applying average heat rate penalty values for the entire nation.

The EPRI estimation methodology described should produce an equivalent annual average heat rate penalty of 0.9%. However, in reviewing heat rate penalty costs reported in Table 8-17 of the EPRI Technical Report #1022491, it is apparent that the EPRI estimated heat rate penalty costs are not calculated as described in the text. The EPRI calculations use the "%/in Hg" heat rate penalties of 2.0% and 1.0%, for hot day and annual average periods, respectively, instead of the 1.2% and 0.9% values that are derived by multiplying the backpressure increase with the "%/in Hg" shown in Table 3. As a result, the EPRI costs are based on an estimated average value of 1.1% which is approximately 20% higher than it should be if the described method were followed. Regardless, with respect to heat rate penalty, the EPA estimated annual average heat rate penalty of 1.5% for fossil-fuel and 2.5% for nuclear facilities is greater than those used by EPRIs by factors of 1.4 to 2.3, respectively.

                                    Table 3
                Results of EPRI Case Study Heat Rate Penalties
                                    Region/
                                   Waterbody
                                    Hot Day
                                Annual Average
                 Heat Rate Penalty - Time Weighted Average[2]

                      Backpressure Increase (inch Hg) [1]
                          Assumed Penalty per Inch Hg
                               Heat Rate Penalty
                      Backpressure Increase (in. Hg) [1]
                          Assumed Penalty per Inch Hg
                               Heat Rate Penalty

1 North Atlantic--Off-shore
                                     1.15
                                      2%
                                     2.3%
                                     1.13
                                      1%
                                     1.1%
                                     1.2%
2 South Pacific -- Offshore
                                     0.74
                                      2%
                                     1.5%
                                     0.95
                                      1%
                                     1.0%
                                     1.0%
3 South Atlantic--Shoreline intake
                                     0.46
                                      2%
                                     0.9%
                                     0.61
                                      1%
                                     0.6%
                                     0.6%
4 Great Lakes
                                     0.34
                                      2%
                                     0.7%
                                     1.41
                                      1%
                                     1.4%
                                     1.3%
5 Large River--North Central
                                     1.12
                                      2%
                                     2.2%
                                     0.79
                                      1%
                                     0.8%
                                     0.9%
6 Small River--Mid Atlantic
                                     0.57
                                      2%
                                     1.1%
                                     0.72
                                      1%
                                     0.7%
                                     0.8%
7 Small lake -- South Central
                                     -0.09
                                      2%
                                     -0.2%
                                     0.55
                                      1%
                                     0.6%
                                     0.5%
Average[3]
                                      0.6
                                      2%
                                     1.2%
                                      0.9
                                      1%
                                     0.9%
                                     0.9%
Values Used by EPRI[4]

                                     2.0%

                                     1.0%
                                     1.1%
1 Source: Tables 7-3 and 7-4 of EPRI Technical Report #1022491
[2] Equivalent EPRI overall annual rate based on assumption that hot day penalty applies to 10% of hours in the year
3 Average of values reported in Tables 7-3 and 7-4
[4] Values based on costs provided in Table 8-17 of EPRI Technical Report #1022491

Auxiliary Pump and Fan Energy Requirements

EPA used a factor of 0.0000245 MW/gpm as the basis for estimating the auxiliary (pump and fan) energy requirement. This factor was derived from aggregated model facility data and the draft EPRI cooling tower cost worksheet and certain assumptions plus modifications to account for partial use of plume abatement. The EPRI Technical Report #1022491 estimates that the auxiliary energy requirement will range from 0.85% to 1.5% of plant output. Using the EPA factor this is equivalent to cooling flow values of 350 to 700 gpm/MW of generation. EPRI reports in Table 7-1 that the expected range of cooling water flow, expressed in gpm/MW, is a low of 400 and a high of 800. The general agreement of these ranges confirms that the EPA estimates are similar in magnitude to those of EPRI.

Comparison of EPA to Powers Engineering (Riverkeeper) Costs

Appendix D to Riverkeeper's public comment to the Proposed Rule contains "Powers Engineering comments on EPA 316(b) March 28, 2011 TDD". Powers Engineering is hereafter referred to as PE. The PE comment document includes among other things an analysis of the reasonableness of cooling tower retrofit capital costs identified by EPA, the turbine efficiency penalties, cooling tower auxiliary fan and pump loads, and retrofit downtime.

Capital Costs

The PE analysis compares the more recent EPA closed-cycle cooling system capital costs estimates to the previous estimates generated by EPA under Phase II and concludes that the new EPA capital costs based on the EPRI model is 45% higher than those estimated using EPA's previous model for in-line wet cooling towers. A more detailed analysis that compares EPA's composite (25% plume abatement) cost estimate used in the national cost estimate to an equivalent cost based on the previous EPA model and vendor quotes for plume abatement towers concludes that the revised EPA estimate is 30% greater. PE notes that the previous EPA closed-cycle model that EPA abandoned was well documented. This is true for the cooling tower component which was based on Phase I Rule estimates. However, the Phase I costs were for new construction and one important component added for the Phase II estimates was a retrofit factor which EPA assumed to be 20% of installed cooling tower capital costs. This factor was intended to cover the added costs for demolition, reconstruction, and other items not included in estimates for a greenfield installation since retrofits do not include some offsetting costs associated with the once-through alternative that must otherwise be built in a greenfield project. While the Phase II EPA model did include a nominal cost component for intake and blowdown piping and for condenser upgrades at some systems, it did not include costs for the recirculating water piping since it was assumed to be included in the 80% factor added to tower equipment costs to cover installation and associated equipment. While this may be valid for greenfield applications where the costs for the baseline alternative once-through piping would provide some offset, the costs of rerouting and installing new and often longer circulating water piping while working around many existing structural interferences can add significantly to the costs. In fact, the differences associated with the relative difficulty encountered when installing recirculating piping is a major driver of the differences between the EPRI easy and difficult retrofit costs. This 20% retrofit factor was a BPJ estimate that was not based on any supporting analysis or documentation. This 20% factor likely represents an easy retrofit scenario. And in fact, Exhibit 12-2 of the TDD presents a comparison of closed-cycle retrofit costs using EPAs Phase II model and the EPRI model and found that the Phase II model costs are comparable to the EPRI "easy" difficulty costs. EPA presented this table to demonstrate that the costs of new cost model based on EPRI data were comparable to the EPA Phase II model. PE takes the position that they aren't comparable since EPA selected the "average" difficulty cost factor. While PE presents additional arguments suggesting the Phase II model costs are conservative because EPA used an assumed range of 10 [o]F instead of 12 [o]F and potentially inflated condenser upgrade costs, the resulting total capital costs all rely upon the same potentially unrepresentative methodology. The decision to revise the closed-cycle cost model was based in part on the fact that the retrofit costs are very site specific and EPA chose to use the EPRI methodology which was based on detailed project estimates and actual costs at a wide range of different facilities. PE noted that the actual costs for retrofits at the Palisades, Pittsburg, and Yates facilities presented in Phase II Proposal TDD (to support the Phase II model) supports their argument. As can be seen, when adjusted for inflation, the capital costs of the Palisades and Pittsburg plants are comparable to the EPRI "easy" costs. The Yates project which was described as requiring additional sitework to prepare the tower location and reinforcement of the cooling water piping, is closer to the EPRI average costs. Additional cost estimates at two more recent retrofit projects at the McDonough and Brayton Point plants suggest that the EPA estimate is more representative of the full range of costs than the three cited in the Phase II Proposal TDD. Table 4 presents the calculated unit capital costs adjusted for inflation to 2009 Dollars.

                                    Table 4
                    Costs for Actual Closed-Cycle Retrofits

                                     Year
                                  Flow (gpm)
                        Capital Cost (Million Dollars)
                              Unit Capital Costs

$/gpm
                                   $/gpm in
                                2009 Dollars[1]
Palisades[2]
                                     1998
                                    410,000
                                     55.9
                                      136
                                      197
Pittsburg[2]
                                     1998
                                    352,000
                                     34.4
                                      98
                                      142
Yates[2]
                                     2002
                                    460,000
                                      87
                                      189
                                      248
McDonough
                                     2008
                                    272,900
                                      96
                                      352
                                      363
Brayton Point
                                     2011
                                    720,000
                                      570
                                      792
                                      748
2007 EPRI "Easy"
                                     2007
                                       -
                                       -
                                      160
                                      172
EPA/EPRI "Average"  w/o Plume Abatement
                                     2009
                                       -
                                       -
                                      263
                                      263
2007 EPRI "Difficult"

                                       -
                                       -
                                      415
                                      446
EPRI Recent Average
                                     2010
                                       -
                                       -
                                      340
                                      330
EPA/EPRI Cost Model
                                     2009
                                       -
                                       -
                                      293
                                      293
	[1] Adjusted for inflation using ENR CCI
      [2] Source: PE analysis
	[3] Source: McDonough EPA Site Visit Report

The inflation adjusted 2009 unit cost for the Yates project is within 6% of the EPA average retrofit estimate of $263/gpm for non-plume abated systems. The McDonough retrofit which would be considered as a somewhat difficult retrofit shows a unit cost that is consistent with EPAs cost estimates. Items that added to the difficulty of this retrofit included: need for plume abatement, space constraints, need to replace pumps and piping, lack of plans/blueprints for existing underground piping. The Brayton Point unit cost is much higher because the project involved natural draft towers which were chosen to avoid a potentially serious plume related fogging/icing problem for a nearby highway. Natural draft towers costs more in up-front capital costs but have lower operating costs. Rough calculations suggest the Brayton Point power savings could have a net present value as high as $125/gpm. Even after adjusting for these savings, the nearly $623/gpm equivalent cost for a mechanical draft tower at Brayton Point shows just how high "difficult" retrofit costs can be. Also, as discussed below EPA did not include any added cost for nuclear facility retrofits which were assumed to be included in the aggregated EPRI costs. These data demonstrate that the selection of the "average" rather than "easy" EPRI costs factor used in the EPA cost model was a reasonable decision and clearly represents a reasonable approximation of the range of costs that may be incurred nationwide.

The PE concerns regarding condenser upgrade costs are irrelevant since the EPA costs are based on aggregated total project costs that include condenser upgrades where necessary.

Nuclear Plant Retrofits

PE expressed concern that EPA repeated the previous error regarding the application of a cost premium for nuclear facilities. EPA did not include a cost premium for closed-cycle retrofits at nuclear facilities. EPA did apply a cost premium for the installation of impingement technologies for nuclear facilities in the final rule cost analysis because these costs were built up costs derived from vendor and other sources which did not factor in the added costs associated with working at nuclear facilities. However, since the EPRI cost estimates were based on aggregated cost data that included nuclear facilities, EPA assumed that such costs were already factored in to the aggregated cost.

Auxiliary Pump & Fan Energy Requirement

PE noted that the EPA auxiliary pump and fan energy requirement was 30% higher than the model estimate provided in the 2002 Phase II TDD. EPA agrees that these requirements are higher but that was the result of a change in the assumed system design. The primary difference is that the 2002 EPA estimate assumed a pumping configuration where a single set of pumps would pump water through both the condenser and cooling tower in series. While this configuration would be the likely choice for a newly built system, EPA decided that the design for retrofits at existing units would in many instances leave the existing circulating pumps in-place and install a second set of pumps that would pump water from the condenser outfall to the existing pump inlet. Both the EPA and EPRI estimates are based on this design configuration and, as a result, do not deduct the once-though pumping energy component. The auxiliary pump and fan energy requirements are based on engineering calculations using typical design parameters and should be reasonably representative of actual requirements.

Heat Rate Penalty

PE expressed concern that EPA's heat rate penalty used in the final rule analysis for fossil-fuel plants was 4 times the EPA model estimates in the 2002 Phase II Proposal TDD and nuclear estimate was 10 times the penalty measured for the Jeffries Plant as presented in the 2002 TDD. PE is also concerned that EPA is using an estimate based on assumed maximum values for annual estimates. EPA's revision of the heat rate penalty from the 2002 Proposal is the result of new information. As noted in the analysis of heat rate energy penalty estimates (DCN 10-6670), the EPA estimated heat rate energy penalty values are consistent with the upper range of estimates provided by DOE and with a nuclear heat rate penalty lower than the somewhat conservative estimates for California coastal power plants. Calculation of national average heat rate penalty is difficult because the penalty for each plant is highly variable, being subject to site-specific conditions including equipment design and factors that vary considerably over time, including operating conditions, meteorological and ambient water conditions. Based on comments, the EPA estimates of the heat rate penalty are representative of the upper end of the possible range of penalty values. Therefore EPA considers the approach and resulting estimates as reasonable.

Downtime

PE states that EPA overestimated downtime duration at fossil-fuel plants by a factor of two and states that EPA presented a strong case for one month as a reasonable and conservative outage period. PE notes that at the Canadys Station and Jefferies Station sites, the closed-cycle system hook-up was completed within the scheduled plant outage period. EPA agrees that in many instances, like those cited, the net downtime may be zero which is supported by the EPRI estimate of zero net downtime for "easy" to "average" retrofits (see Table 2). However, the single value used by EPA represents a national average and should be representative of the full range of downtime values that would occur. As noted elsewhere in this analysis, the weighted average of the EPRI net downtime estimates which represent the full range of difficulties is 1.5 months (if much longer estimates for optimization are excluded). Also, EPA has obtained new data that supports the 2 month total (one moth net) estimate. During the site visits EPA learned that both the McDonough and Yates Plants in GA, experienced a tie-in outage for the cooling tower retrofit of 6-8 weeks (see DCN 10-6536 and DCN 10-6537). These projects would be classified as average to difficult retrofits. This new information supports EPA's estimate used in the cost analysis of 4 weeks net (8 weeks minus the assumed 4 weeks of scheduled maintenance). Since there are a limited number of examples to draw from and EPA's estimate falls between the values suggested by Riverkeeper and EPRI, EPA feels that its estimate is reasonable and that the new data supports the assumption.

PE believes there is no justification for the 7 month downtime for nuclear facilities. Based on data regarding recent nuclear generating system upgrades, PE states that the additional outage should be no longer than 2 months.  In response to comments received since proposal and upon evaluation of additional data, EPA has revised the downtime estimates for closed-cycle retrofits at nuclear facilities in a way that substantially reduces the overall downtime estimate to an aggregate value similar to that suggested by PE.  In the revised approach, facilities are divided into two groups: those that have conducted or are currently planning to conduct an extended capacity uprate (ECU) and those that have not.  An important characteristic of an ECU is that it involves considerably more construction activities compared to simple refueling outages (including replacement of portions of the generating system) and therefore involves outages much longer than those for refueling. These projects provide an ideal opportunity to further reduce downtime if the closed-cycle retrofit is performed concurrently.  Data regarding ECU scheduling was readily available and revisions to the final rule have given the Director greater flexibility in establishing compliance schedules for entrainment requirements would allow for scheduling of the closed-cycle retrofit to occur concurrently with an ECU. For those facilities where ECUs are unlikely to occur in the future (i.e., facilities where an ECU has been performed or is currently planned), EPA took a more conservative approach similar to the approach used at proposal but with the duration adjusted downward to a level consistent with new information. At proposal, EPA used the 7 month (28 week) closed-cycle retrofit outage for all nuclear facilities on the Phase II NODA estimate which was based on the only nuclear closed-cycle retrofit actually performed at an existing nuclear facility (Palisades) in the 1970s. For the revised final rule estimate, EPA evaluated the EPRI net downtime estimate of 6 months used in their cost estimate (EPRI Report Number 1022491, provided as an attachment to EPRI's comments on the proposed rule; see EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-2200). In support of the 6 month estimate, EPRI cited engineering estimates for four nuclear plants that ranged from 5 to 22 months and noted that the expected downtime was difficult to predict since there was a great degree of uncertainty given the lack of actual data. A closed-cycle retrofit for these facilities that will not conduct an ECU would likely occur concurrently with a refueling outage which now typically takes about 4 to 6 weeks (See DCN 12-6876). Thus, the EPRI net downtime estimate of 6 months or 24 weeks would be consistent with a total retrofit downtime of about 28 weeks. EPA notes that this 28 week value is consistent with the duration of the first steam generator replacement project for SONGs Unit 2 and while this outage length is the higher of the two similar projects at SONGS, the difference demonstrates that complex projects for which contractors and engineers have little previous experience will tend to take longer. The actual duration of the outage required for a nuclear closed-cycle retrofit is still unknown and will be influenced by site-specific factors. Given this uncertainty, EPA concluded that a 24 week estimate was reasonable and applied this value in the economic analysis.
For the remainder of facilities that are likely to conduct an ECU in the future, EPA estimates that under favorable conditions, ECUs typically have a duration of two to four months (see DCN 12-6875) but can also take much longer. For this analysis, EPA assumed that facilities performing an ECU would be capable of completing the retrofit concurrently with the ECU and that the scope of the ECU would be extensive enough to push the duration toward the longer end of the 2 to 4 month or longer range. For these projects, EPA assumed zero downtime which is actually a shorter duration than the 2 months suggested by PE. Based on data from the NRC, EPA estimates that roughly one-third of existing nuclear generating units have already performed or have applied for an ECU and therefore are assumed the a 24 week downtime. As a result, the equivalent average net downtime across all nuclear units should be about 8 weeks (2 months). Thus, while the 24 week estimate is still longer than PE's suggested length, EPA has adjusted the overall nuclear closed-cycle retrofit downtime to a value that is consistent with PE's position.

EPA notes that while the replacement of condenser tubing or steam turbines, including those where the containment structure must be opened, are indeed very involved projects, they generally involve only the replacement of existing equipment and do not involve substantial modifications to existing structures (except maybe for access). Whereas, the installation, construction, and tying-in of the new circulating water system to the existing condenser's intake/discharge piping are more involved.

As noted in the EPRI report analysis above, engineering estimates of outage duration for four nuclear plants ranged from 5 to 22 months (about 3.5 to 20.5 months assuming 43 days for refueling). While it is possible that these industry-supplied estimates may be conservative (i.e., on the high side), there are no actual examples of retrofits at nuclear plants where shorter durations occurred upon which EPA could rely to support a duration shorter than its current net of 7 months.

Conclusion

In summary, this analysis supports the following conclusions:
   * The EPA capital cost estimate is much higher than the model estimates used in support of the Phase II Rule but is lower than the EPRI cost estimate by about 13%. The EPA and EPRI estimated capital costs are similar in magnitude. The Phase II Rule model estimates were based on the well documented Phase I Rule model for the cooling towers but the retrofit component was BPJ and not well documented. The EPA capital costs for the existing facility final rule are based on the EPRI model which is based on actual and planned system costs.
   * The EPRI and EPA cost estimates for the O&M component for auxiliary pumping and fan energy appear to be similar in magnitude. Both are based on well documented engineering calculations and on a reasonable assumption that separate pumps will supply water to the condensers and cooling towers. EPRI provided no estimate of non-energy O&M.
   * The aggregated EPRI estimate for construction downtime is higher than EPAs but much of the difference is based on an assumption that many base-load facilities would re-optimize. In practice a re-optimized design should reduce long term costs but such savings are only partially accounted for in the EPRI analysis resulting in a higher cost for re-optimized systems. The EPA and EPRI downtime estimates are similar when re-optimization is not included.
   * The EPA estimate for the heat rate energy penalty is higher than EPRIs and represent a conservative overestimate. The higher heat rate penalty assumed by EPA will help account somewhat for the less efficient performance of the non-re-optimized system design assumed by EPA.

It was not possible to directly compare the aggregated costs of all components for the EPRI and EPA models due to the use of a different universe of facilities and different economic measurements. However, the two approaches appear to be in agreement regarding the general magnitude of the costs. Also, EPRI's estimation of higher downtime costs resulting from the inclusion of re-optimization should be offset by EPA's use of higher heat rate energy penalty costs and inclusion of non-energy O&M costs.

EPRI's approach including some re-optimization is probably a better model of the real world but an approach that includes such a long term costs saving measure should not result in an overall increase in costs by including consideration of added downtime and operating energy savings only. The EPA heat rate energy penalty estimates were not based on a detailed analysis and relatively conservative values were chosen. Given though EPRI's more rigorous estimates are based calculations using several example facilities, their lower estimates are probably more accurate. The effect these differences would have on overall long term costs should be offsetting.

References

American Association of Costs Engineers. AACE. Skills and Knowledge of Cost Engineering. 5th Edition. 2004. Table 9-2

EPRI. Technical Report #1022491. "Closed-Cycle Cooling System Retrofit Study." January 2011.

EPRI. Closed Cycle Cooling Cost Worksheet. 2007. (DCN 10-6930A)

Enercon. "Engineering Feasibility and Costs of Conversion Of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-loop Condenser Cooling Water Configuration." February 12, 2010.

Enercon. "Diablo Canyon Power Plant; Cooling Tower Feasibility Study, March, 2009.

Enercon. "Feasibility Study for Installation of Cooling Towers and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station." 2009.

Powers Engineering. "Powers Engineering comments on EPA 316(b) March 28, 2011 TDD." August 11, 2011.

URS Corporation, "Determination of Cooling Tower Availability for Oyster Creek Generating Station." March, 2, 2006.

NEI. U.S. Nuclear Refueling Outage Days (Average, 1990-2011).
Accessed at: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/Documentlibrary/Reliable-and-Affordable-Energy/graphicsandcharts/refuelingoutagedays


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 208 (Monday, November 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60330-60331]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23680]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0179]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Clearance of Renewed
Approval of Information Collection: Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) invites public comments about our
intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
approval to renew an information

collection. The collection involves information on voluntary airport
noise compatibility programs. The information to be collected is
necessary because noise compatibility program measures are eligible for
Federal grants in- aid if they are provided to FAA for review and
approval in advance. The respondents are airport sponsors that
voluntarily submit noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs
to the FAA for review and approval.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the FAA's request
for OMB's approval to renew this information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function. Comments may also be submitted via electronic mail
to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Staehle by electronic mail at:
[email protected] or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0517.
    Title: Airport Noise Compatibility Planning.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an Information Collection.
    Background: The voluntarily submitted information from the
collection process pursuant to Tile 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 150, (e.g., airport noise exposure maps and airport noise
compatibility programs, or their revisions) is used by the FAA to
conduct reviews of the submissions to determine if an airport sponsor's
noise compatibility program is eligible for Federal grant funds. If
airport sponsors did not voluntarily submit noise exposure maps and
noise compatibility programs for FAA review and approval, the airport
sponsor would not be eligible for the set aside of discretionary grant
funds. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day review period
soliciting comments on this information collection of information was
published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2021 (86 FR 18586) and no
public comments were received.
    Respondents: Approximately 15 airport sponsors.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 2,080 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 31,200 hours.

    Issued in: Washington, DC, October 26, 2021.
Susan Staehle,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Airports, Planning and
Environmental Division, APP-400.
[FR Doc. 2021-23680 Filed 10-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


From:
"Ulatowski, Rhiannon"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wed, 07 Dec 2022 10:28:59
To:
"Jones; DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"French; Chuck"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>"McGinn; Kevin"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Shappley; Ned"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Kistler, Katie E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Beranek, Rob<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Maicher, Thomas W<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kurdila, Julianne<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Cleveland-Cliffs Steel  -  Burns Harbor, IN - Cooling tower tests
Dr. Jones,

Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor does not have a light oil condenser or sulfur recovery/desulfurization unit. Please let me know if you have any more questions.

Thank you,

Rhiannon ulatowski
Environmental Engineer-Air
p<PHONE_NUMBER>   m<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC.

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 9:26 AM
To: Ulatowski, Rhiannon<EMAIL_ADDRESS>French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>McGinn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Kistler, Katie E<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Beranek, Rob<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Maicher, Thomas W<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kurdila, Julianne<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Cleveland-Cliffs Steel  -  Burns Harbor, IN - Cooling tower tests

Thank you for the clarification. Does the facility have a Light Oil Condenser and Sulfur Recovery/Desulfurization unit?

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Ulatowski, Rhiannon<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 7:27 AM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>; McGinn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Cc: Kistler, Katie E<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Beranek, Rob<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Maicher, Thomas W<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Kurdila, Julianne<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: RE: Cleveland-Cliffs Steel  -  Burns Harbor, IN - Cooling tower tests

Good morning, Dr. Jones,

  Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor does not have a cooling tower in the Coke Plant By-Product Recovery Plant.  Therefore, this testing is not applicable.  Please call me if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Rhiannon ulatowski
Environmental Engineer-Air
p<PHONE_NUMBER>   m<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC.

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 11:50 AM
To: Ulatowski, Rhiannon<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>; McGinn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Cc: Kistler, Katie E<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Beranek, Rob<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Maicher, Thomas W<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Kurdila, Julianne<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Cleveland-Cliffs Steel  -  Burns Harbor, IN - Cooling tower tests

Hi. I don't see any submittal for your Burns Harbor cooling tower test report. I apologize if I've missed it. Can you please tell me the status if you are still working on it? Thanks

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Ulatowski, Rhiannon<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 1:15 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Cc: Kistler, Katie E<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Beranek, Rob<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Maicher, Thomas W<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Kurdila, Julianne<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: Cleveland-Cliffs Steel  -  Burns Harbor, IN Coke Ovens Section 114 Request - Enclosure 2 Submittals

Dear Mr. French and Dr. Jones:

Attached are Enclosure 2 responses to the Coke Clean Air Act Section 114 Information Collection Request (ICR) dated June 28, 2022, for Cleveland-Cliffs Burns Harbor LLC .  The EPA-provided Excel answer files, Method 22 sheets, and certifications are attached to this email.

Please let me know if you have any questions,

Rhiannon ulatowski
Environmental Engineer-Air
p<PHONE_NUMBER>   m<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40111-40113]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16981]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75381; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-065]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change to Extend a Pilot Program that Eliminates Position
and Exercise Limits for Physically-Settled SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
(``SPY'') Options

July 7, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 1, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The

Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to
Rule 4.11 (Position Limits) to extend the duration of the SPY Pilot
Program.\3\ The SPY Pilot Program is currently scheduled to expire on
July 12, 2015 and this proposal would extend the SPY Pilot Program
through July 12, 2016. There are no substantive changes being proposed
to the SPY Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67937 (September
27, 2012), 77 FR 60489 (October 3, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-091); 70878
(November 14, 2013), 78 FR 69737 (November 20, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-
106) and 74149 (January 27, 2015) 80 FR 5606 (February 2, 2015) (SR-
CBOE-2015-008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange
reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported its
original proposal to establish the SPY Pilot Program, which include:
(1) the liquidity of the option and the underlying security; (2) the
market capitalization of the underlying security and the securities
that make up the S&P 500 Index; (3) options reporting requirements; and
(4) financial requirements imposed by CBOE and the Commission.
    When the SPY Pilot Program was most recently renewed in January
2015, CBOE submitted a report providing an analysis of the SPY Pilot
Program covering the first twelve months during which the SPY Pilot
Program was in effect (the ``Pilot Report''). In the January extension,
the Exchange stated that if it were to submit a proposal to either
extend the SPY Pilot Program, adopt the SPY Pilot Program on a
permanent basis, or terminate the SPY Pilot Program, it would submit
another Pilot Report covering the period since the previous extension.
\4\ Accordingly, the Exchange is submitting another Pilot Report that
details CBOE's experience with the SPY Pilot Program. The Pilot Report
now includes the period of January 2015 through May 2015. The Pilot
Report is attached as Exhibit 3. CBOE notes that it is unaware of any
problems created by the SPY Pilot Program and does not foresee any as a
result of the proposed extension. In extending the SPY Pilot Program,
the Exchange states that if CBOE were to propose another extension,
permanent approval or termination of the SPY Pilot Program, the
Exchange will submit another Pilot Report covering the period since the
previous extension, which will be submitted at least 30 days before the
end of the proposed extension. If the SPY Pilot Program is not extended
or adopted on a permanent basis by July 12, 2016, position limits in
SPY will revert to their Pre-Pilot levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 80 FR at 5607.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that extending the SPY
Pilot Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by
permitting market participants, including market makers, institutional
investors and retail investors, to establish greater positions when
pursuing their investment goals and needs. Extending the SPY Pilot
Program will give the Exchange and the Commission additional time to
evaluate the pilot and its effect on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any aspect of competition, whether between the
Exchange and its competitors, or among market participants. Instead,
the proposed rule change is designed to allow the SPY Pilot Program to
continue as the Exchange expects other SROs will propose similar
extensions.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \8\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \9\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay, noting
that such waiver will allow the Exchange to extend the pilot program
prior to its expiration on July 12, 2015. In addition, the Exchange
believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow
for the least amount of market disruption as the pilot will continue as
it currently does maintaining the status quo. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such

action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-065 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-065. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-065, and should be
submitted on or before August 3,2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16981 Filed 7-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Memorandum

FROM:  Larry Sorrels

	  US EPA/OAQPS/HEID/ABCG

TO: 	  Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708

SUBJECT:  Data for Economic Impact, Energy, and Small Entity Analyses
for Final Stationary

                    SI RICE NESHAP

The spreadsheet
“SINESHAP_RIA_final_economicenergyandsmallentitydata.xls” contains
all data used in the preparation of the economic impact, energy impact
(for purposes of compliance with Executive Order 13211), and small
entity impact analyses (to comply with the RFA as modified by SBREFA)
included in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the final
Stationary Spark-Ignition (SI) Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine
(RICE) NESHAP.   This data is taken from the Energy Information
Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) for 2010, the 2002 and
2007 Economic Censuses, and the Power Systems Research (PSR) data used
by US EPA/OAQPS/SPPD in preparation of their cost analyses for this
final rule.  The rule will be promulgated on August 10, 2010.


[Federal Register: August 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 158)]
[Notices]
[Page 47594-47596]
[DOCID:fr14au08-30]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0052; FRL-8704-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions To
Modify the List of Regulated Substances Under Section 112(r) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).; EPA ICR No. 1656.13; OMB Control No. 2050-0144

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on January 31, 2009. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
2003-0052, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0052. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency
Management, Mail code 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-
564-8019; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0052 which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested In?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate 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) evaluate 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) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through 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 particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.

    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply To?

    Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0052.
    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
chemical manufacturers, petroleum refineries, water treatment systems,
non-chemical manufacturers, etc
    Title: Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions to Modify
the List of Regulated Substances under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air
Act.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 1656.13, OMB Control No. 2050-0144.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January
31, 2009. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The 1990 CAA Amendments added section 112(r) to provide
for the prevention and mitigation of accidental releases. Section
112(r) mandates that EPA promulgate a list of ``regulated substances''
with threshold quantities and establish procedures for the addition and
deletion of substances from the list of regulated substances. Processes
at stationary sources that contain more than a threshold quantity of a
regulated substance are subject to accidental release prevention
regulations promulgated under CAA section 112(r)(7). These two rules
are codified as 40 CFR part 68. Part 68 requires that sources with more
than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process develop
and implement a risk management program and submit a risk management
plan to EPA. The compliance schedule for the part 68 requirements was
established by rule on June 20, 1996. Burden to sources that are
currently covered by part 68, for initial rule compliance, including
rule familiarization and program implementation was accounted for in
previous ICRs. Sources submitted their first RMPs on June 21, 1999. The
next compliance deadline for most sources was June 21, 2004, five years
after the first submission. Some sources revised and submitted their
RMPs between the five-year deadlines. These sources were then assigned
a new five-year compliance deadline based on the date of their revised
plan submission. The next submission deadline of RMPs for most sources
is June 21, 2009. However, as only some regulated entities have a
compliance deadline of June 2009, the remaining sources have been
assigned a deadline in 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013 (the last two years are
after the period covered by this ICR) based on the date of their most
recent submission. The period covered by this ICR includes the
regulatory reporting deadline, June 2009. In this ICR, EPA has
accounted burden for new sources that may become subject to the
regulations, currently covered sources with compliance deadlines in
this ICR period (2009 to 2011), sources that are out of compliance
since the last regulatory deadline but are expected to comply during
this ICR period, and sources that have deadlines beyond this ICR period
but are required to comply with certain prevention program
documentation requirements.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
    (i) Evaluate 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) evaluate 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) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through 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.
    Burden Statement: The public reporting burden will depend on the
size of the sources complying with 40 CFR part 68 requirements. In this
ICR, the public reporting burden for rule familiarization for new
sources is estimated to range from 12 to 32 hours per source. The
public reporting burden to prepare and submit a RMP for new sources is
estimated to range from 8.25 to 33 hours. The public reporting burden
for new sources to develop a prevention program is estimated to range
from 7 to 188 hours per source. The public reporting burden for those
sources that claim CBI is estimated to be 9.5 hours per source. The
public reporting burden for currently covered sources to prepare and
submit RMP is estimated to range from 5 to 28 hours. The public record
keeping burden to maintain on-site documentation for currently covered
sources is estimated to range from 4.5 to 124 hours. The total annual
public reporting burden for all sources is 84,729 hours (254,187 hours
over three years). The total annual burden estimated for 16
implementing agencies is 9,253 hours (27,759 hours for three years).
Therefore, the total annual burden for all sources and states is
estimated to be 93,982 hours (281,946 hours for three years).
    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
which have subsequently changed; 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.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 13,718 for this
ICR period.
    Frequency of response: Every five years, unless the facilities need
to

update their previous submission earlier to comply with a rule
requirement.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
one.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 93,982 hours including burden
for implementing agencies.
    Estimated total annual costs: $9,785,371.00. There are no capital
or operating and maintenance costs associated with this ICR since all
sources are required to submit RMPs on-line using the new electronic
reporting system, RMP e*submit.
    There is a decrease of 4,617 hours for all sources and states from
the previous ICR. There are two primary reasons for this decrease in
burden. First, as explained in section 1 of the supporting statement
for this ICR renewal (the supporting statement is available at http://
www.regulations.gov), the burden varies from ICR to ICR due to
different compliance deadlines based on the sources' RMP re-submission
deadlines and other regulatory deadlines. Therefore, the burden
increases or decreases each year depending on how many sources have to
submit their RMP and comply with certain prevention program
requirements. Second, the number of sources subject to the regulations
is lower than in the previous ICR (16,634 in the previous ICR and
13,718 sources in this ICR period).

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: August 7, 2008.
Deborah Y. Dietrich,
Director, Office of Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. E8-18840 Filed 8-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 60507]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24344]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26367]

Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC): Public
Subcommittee Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting of Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA)
Subcommittee of Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC).

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the CSA Subcommittee of the MCSAC will
hold a meeting on Tuesday--Wednesday, October 16-17, 2012. Established
at the August 2012 meeting of the MCSAC in accordance with Task 12-03,
the subcommittee will provide the MCSAC with concepts, ideas, and
recommendations on the CSA program. The entire subcommittee meeting
will be open to the public, with a public comment period to occur
during the last one-half hour of each day.

TIME AND DATES: The meetings will be held on Tuesday--Wednesday,
October 16-17, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time
(E.D.T.). The meeting will be held at the National Training Center
(NTC), 1310 N. Courthouse Road, Suite 600, Arlington, VA in the Western
Conference Room. The NTC is accessible by the Courthouse Metro station.
    Copies of MCSAC Task Statement 12-03 and an agenda are available at
http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor
to the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Services for Individuals With Disabilities
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Elizabeth Turner at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>by
Wednesday, October 10, 2012.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

MCSAC

    Section 4144 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, Public Law
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005) required the Secretary of
Transportation to establish the MCSAC. The MCSAC provides advice and
recommendations to the FMCSA Administrator on motor carrier safety
programs and regulations, and operates in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 5 U.S.C. App 2).

II. Meeting Participation

    Oral comments from the public will be heard during the last half-
hour of the meeting on each day. Should the subcommittee conclude its
deliberations prior to the time stated in this notice, the public
comment period will occur at that time. Additionally, should all public
comments be exhausted prior to the end of the specified period, the
comment period will close. Members of the public may submit written
comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by
Wednesday, October 10, 2012, to the Docket, referencing Docket Number
FMCSA-2006-26367 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., E.T. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: September 26, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-24344 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: March 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 11994-11995]
[DOCID:fr20mr09-120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2009-0048]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

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 reinstatement of previously approved collections.
    This document describes one collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 19, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-
2009-0048] by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Telephone: 1-800-647-5527.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of this request for
collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Dennis
Flemons, NHTSA 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W53-448 NVS-412,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Flemons telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to
its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first 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 regulation (at 5CFR
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;
    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 for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    Title: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0006.
    Form Number: HS214, HS 214A, HS214B, HS 214C.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Abstract: Under both the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the responsibility to
collect accident data that support the establishment and enforcement of
motor vehicle regulations and highway safety programs. These
regulations and programs are developed to reduce the severity of injury
and the property damage associated with motor vehicle accidents. The
Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) is a major system that acquires
national fatality information directly from existing State files and
documents. Since FARS is an on-going data acquisition system, reviews
are conducted yearly to determine whether the data acquired are
responsive to the total user population needs. The total user
population includes Federal and State agencies and the private sector.
    Changes in the forms usually involve clarification adjustments to
aid the user population in conducting more precise analyses, to remove
ambiguity for the respondents and to differentiate data by data
collection year. These changes are annual and do not affect the
reporting burden of the respondent (State employees utilize existing
State highway safety related files).
    Other changes may involve removing outdated data elements
introducing new data elements or redesigning data elements to capture
higher quality data and to respond more to the needs of the user
population. These changes are less frequent and affect burden very
gradually. Advances in technology and systems design are incorporated
to minimize the burden on the respondents.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 82,407 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 53.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

Marilena Amoni,
Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. E9-6040 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P