Unifour Early Action Plan March 31, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION          .             1 1.1 Background                     .. 1 1.2 Modeling Background                 .. 1 1.3 Stakeholder Involvement                .. 2 II. OVERVIEW OF AIR QUALITY IN THE UNIFOUR AREA      6 2 1 Figure Unifour Area Ozone Monitor Locations         7 2 1 Table Ozone Monitor Design Values 00 02 and 01 03     . 7 2 2 Table Historical 8 hour Ozone Values 94 03          8 2 3 Table Air Quality Index Color Guide             8 III. OZONE AND ITS HEALTH EFFECTS AND SOURCES      . 9 3.1 Overview of Ozone                   9 3.2 Ozone Health Effects                   9 3.3 Ozone Sources                    .. 10 3.3.1 Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOC's)           10 3.3.2 Nitrogen Oxides ( Nox)                 10 3.3.3 Sources of NOx and VOC's               11 IV. EMISSIONS INVENTORIES                12 V. Introduction                      . 12 4.1 Current Year Inventories                  12 4.2 Future Year Inventories                  14 4.3 1 Future Year Modeling Emissions              15 4.4 Comparison of 2000 and 2007 Inventories           15 4.4 1 Estimated NOx and VOC Emission in tons per day      16 4.4 2 Estimated Highway NOx Emissions by vehicle type      17 4.4 3 Non road Equipment NOx Sources            18 4.5 Comparison of 2000 and 2010 Inventories          19 4.5 1 Estimated NOx and VOC Emissions, in tons per day     . 20 4.6 Future Year Inventories                  20 V. CONTROL MEASURES                     21 5.1 State Control Measures                  21 5.1.1 Clean Air Bill                     21 5.1.2 NOx SIP Call Rule                   21 5.1.3 Clean Smokestacks Act                 21 5.1.4 Open Burning Ban                   21 5.2 Federal Control Measures                22 5.2.1 Tier 2 Vehicle Standards                22 Unifour Early Action Plan March 31, 2004 5.2.2 Heavy Duty Gasoline and Diesel Highway Vehicle Standards  22 5.2.3 Large Non road Diesel Engines Proposed Rule         22 5.2.4 Non road Spark Ignition Engines and Recreational Engine Standards                .. 22 5.3 Local EAC Control Measures                23 VI. ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION             29 6.1 Status of Current Modeling                 29 6.2 Preliminary Modeling Results              29 6.2 1 2000 Current year 8 hour Ozone Episodic Max for 1996 Episode  30 6.2 2 2007 Future year 8 hour Ozone Episodic Max for 1996 Episode  31 6.2 3 Difference plot between 2007 future year and 2000 current year  31 6.2 4 2000 Current Year 8 hour Ozone Episodic Max for 1997     32 6.2 5 2007 Future Year 8 hour Ozone Episodic Max for 1997     32 6.2 6 Difference plot between 2007 and 2000 current year       33 6.2 7 2010 Future year 8 hour Ozone Episodic Max for 1996 Episode  33 6.2 8 Difference plot between 2010 future year and 2000 current year  34 6.2 9 2010 future year 8 hour Ozone Episode Max for 1997 Episode . 34 6.2 10 Difference plot between 2010 future year and 2000 current year  35 6.3 Geographic Area Needing Further Controls          35 6.4 Anticipated Resource Constraints              36 APPENDIX A Stationary Point Sources Emissions in tons/ day APPENDIX B June 30, 2003 EAC Report APPENDIX C Tool Box for Local Control Measures APPENDIX D Resolutions Adopted by EAC Local Governments


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		9/29/14

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Lora Strine, EPA

SUBJECT:	8/1/14, ECOS Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on 8/1/14 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.        ATTENDEES

Janet McCabe, AAA OAR EPA Mark Rupp, DAA, OCIR, EPA

Please see attached list of state participants.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22408-22414]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08842]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0262; FRL-10022-98-OW]

Re-Issuance of a General Permit to the National Science
Foundation for the Ocean Disposal of Man-Made Ice Piers From Its
Station at McMurdo Sound in Antarctica

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; proposed permit.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to re-issue
a general permit under the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) authorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF) to
dispose of ice piers in ocean waters. Permit re-

issuance is necessary because the current permit is due to expire on
May 21, 2021. EPA does not propose substantive changes to the content
of the current permit.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed general permit will be
accepted until May 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: This proposed permit is identified as Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2013-0262.
    Submit your comments to the public docket for this proposed permit
at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. All submissions received must include the Docket
ID No., and comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with
limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our
Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://www.regulations.gov or email, as there may be a
delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA
Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betsy Valente, Physical Scientist,
Freshwater and Marine Regulatory Branch, Oceans, Wetlands, and
Communities Division (4504T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-
9895; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    EPA has issued three MPRSA permits to NSF for the ocean disposal of
man-made ice piers from its station at McMurdo Sound in Antarctica: an
emergency permit issued on February 1, 1999; a general permit published
in the Federal Register on February 14, 2003 (68 FR 7536); and the
current general permit published in the Federal Register on April 22,
2014 (79 FR 22488). The current permit is valid for a term of seven
years that began on May 22, 2014.
    The purpose of this proposed general permit is to authorize NSF to
ocean dispose of man- made ice piers from McMurdo Station in Antarctica
for another seven-year period. EPA proposes to re-issue the general
permit under sections 102(a) and 104(c) of the MPRSA.
    NSF is the agency of the United States Government responsible for
oversight of the United States Antarctic Program. NSF currently
operates three major stations in Antarctica: McMurdo Station on Ross
Island, adjacent to McMurdo Sound; Palmer Station, near the western
terminus of the Antarctic Peninsula; and Amundsen-Scott South Pole
Station, at the geographic South Pole. McMurdo Station is the largest
of the three stations and serves as the primary logistics site for
operations at McMurdo and South Pole Stations, with the great majority
of personnel and supplies arriving here via vessel. To unload supplies,
ships dock at a man-made ice pier.
    The service life of past man-made ice piers has ranged from 1 to 10
years. NSF constructed the current ice pier in 2020. Prior to the
current pier, the three most recently constructed ice piers averaged
two years of use before disposal in ocean waters. The proposed permit
would allow NSF to ocean dispose of ice piers at the end of their
service life, including the pier currently in use and any additional
ice piers constructed at McMurdo Station. Eight is the maximum number
of man-made ice piers estimated for ocean disposal during the seven-
year effective period of the proposed permit; however, NSF anticipates
that four or fewer piers will need to be ocean disposed during this
period.
    When an ice pier is at the end of its effective life, all
structures, operational equipment and materials, debris, and any
objects of anthropogenic origin are removed from the surface of the
pier to the safest extent possible. The pier then is cast loose from
its moorings at the base and is transported to McMurdo Sound for ocean
disposal, where it would float freely within the ice pack, mix with the
annual sea ice, and eventually disintegrate naturally with any
remaining internal pipes or cables eventually dropping out and falling
to the seafloor. Re-issuance of this general permit is necessary
because ice piers must be released from shore and transported to sea
for disposal at the end of their effective life. While it is preferable
to tow these ice piers out to sea for disposal before releasing them to
ensure they do not lodge on shore near McMurdo Station, which this
proposed general permit would authorize, this is not often possible due
to the lack of availability of an appropriate towing vessel. Thus, many
past ice piers have been merely released directly from shore and been
allowed to float freely with the wind and current. This general permit
is intended to protect the marine environment by setting forth specific
permit terms and conditions, including operating conditions that occur
over the life of the pier and required clean-up actions prior to
disposal, with which NSF would need to comply in advance of any ice
pier disposal. The majority of permit terms involve activities that
occur in advance of any anticipated disposal of the ice pier,
regardless of the method of release to ocean waters.

A. Background on McMurdo Station Ice Pier

    NSF constructs ice piers during the austral winter, beginning when
the frozen pack ice in McMurdo Sound reaches a thickness of
approximately three feet. First, a berm of snow is created on the ice
pack to define the perimeter of what will become the ice pier. Heavy-
duty pumps are used to flood the bermed area with approximately four
inches of seawater. The water freezes in about 24 to 48 hours. The
process is repeated, each time creating another four-inch layer until
the ice reaches a total thickness of approximately five to seven feet.
At this stage, holes are drilled in the ice and sections of eight-inch
diameter steel pipe are inserted vertically into the holes. One- inch
steel cable is woven around the steel pipes; this cable is used to keep
the pier ``strung together'' in case of cracking, rather than to
provide structural strength. The entire aforementioned process is
repeated; approximately five to seven feet of ice is added on the first
layer, a second layer of cable is added, and approximately five to
seven feet of ice is added on top of that. The final target thickness
of the pier is a maximum of 20 feet. Throughout construction, at
intervals dictated by environmental conditions, cuts are made around
the edge of the pier to separate it from the surrounding ice. This can
be done using trenching equipment or a drill.
    Several steel pipe sections are frozen around the proximal edge of
the pier to attach the pier to the mainland via cables and to serve as
bollards to moor vessels. Following completion of the ice portion of
the pier, a six- to eight-inch layer of one-inch locally sourced gravel
is applied to the surface of the pier to insulate the structure during
the warmest part of the year and to provide a non-slip working surface.
A tracking device is also placed on the ice pier during this process.
At the end of each austral summer season, the gravel is removed and
stored for use the following season.
    A typical ice pier measures 550 feet (168 meters) long, 250 feet
(76 meters) wide, and 20 feet (6 meters) in

thickness. Ice piers are generally constructed using (1) 13,000 feet
(3,962 meters) of one-inch steel cable; (2) 150 feet (46 meters) of
eight-inch steel pipe; (3) 150 feet of 12-inch steel pipe; and (4)
4,000 cubic yards of one-inch or smaller gravel.
    On occasion, cracks develop in the ice pier and must be repaired to
ensure that the pier is safe for use. One repair method uses additional
steel pipe and cable to ``suture'' the surface of the pier. A second
method uses passive thermosyphons (a device that transfers heat via
natural convection in a fluid, known programmatically as a ``freeze
cell'') to repair cracks in the ice pier. In 1998, thermosyphons filled
with food grade glycol were used on an experimental basis to stimulate
ice growth to repair cracks in the ice pier. The cells stimulated
adequate ice growth and were removed with no impact to the environment.
Because the technique has proven to be successful, thermosyphons may be
used when cracks develop that require additional ice growth to effect
repair. Thermosyphons are constructed of approximately 40-foot lengths
of 3.5-inch diameter steel pipe filled with glycol and are placed into
holes drilled into an ice pier. Approximately half of the pipe's length
is embedded in the ice while the remaining half is exposed above the
surface. Thermosyphons are fully removed once the repairs are
completed.
    Spills of materials such as food grade glycol, hydraulic fluid,
oil, and diesel fuel may occur on an ice pier. All spills are
thoroughly reported, documented and cleaned up to the extent
practicable; however, some spilled material may penetrate the ice and
full recovery would damage the pier to the point that it may become
unusable. Locations of spills are marked and mapped. Before a pier is
transported and disposed at sea, recovery of the any residual spill
material is executed, if possible. Since 2011 there have been sixteen
small spills, eight of which related to the use of thermosyphons.
Procedures for the installation and removal of thermosyphons have since
been reviewed and revised to minimize the possibility of further spills
associated with this activity.
    The other eight spills were primarily the result of mechanical
equipment failures due to the extreme environmental conditions (e.g.,
failed hydraulic line). Spill amounts since 2011 ranged from 0.25 to 9
gallons.
    The effective lifespan of previous man-made ice piers has ranged
from 1 to 10 years and is highly dependent on regional environmental
conditions in the years following construction. Wave action or contact
with vessels may cause erosion of the seaward face of an ice pier.
Local meltwater drainage may erode parts of the mainland side of an ice
pier. Periods of unseasonably warm weather can also decrease the
lifespan of an ice pier. Factors such as stress cracking and erosion
can cause an ice pier to deteriorate and become unsafe for use. In the
period between the late 1970s through 2009, ocean current and wave
action reaching McMurdo Sound were reduced due to more stable ice over
and the grounding of the world's largest iceberg in the early 2000s.
Since that time period, conditions, temperatures, and storminess have
been more variable. When an ice pier has deteriorated to the point that
it is not capable of being used the following year, it is prepared for
disposal. Prior to the disposal of an ice pier, all structures,
operational equipment and materials, debris, and any objects of
anthropogenic origin are removed from the surface of the pier to the
safest extent possible. Additionally, all steel pipes are cut at the
ice surface and removed from the pier leaving only the portion embedded
in the ice. The gravel cover is removed to the maximum extent possible
and transported to the mainland for subsequent use or storage. Due to
the extreme Antarctic environment, and at times unpredictable weather,
the safety of personnel will always be considered a higher priority
than achieving maximum material removal.
    Before a new ice pier can be constructed during the austral winter
(March through September), the existing ice pier must first be ocean
disposed. Ocean disposal of an ice pier typically occurs following the
annual delivery of fuel and supplies to McMurdo Station at the end of
the austral summer (approximately late February-March) when there are
18 to 24 hours of daylight per day. If possible, an ice pier may be
towed from its location by vessel (e.g., by a United States Coast Guard
icebreaker) for ocean disposal in McMurdo Sound. The chartered
icebreaker is typically at McMurdo Station for very limited periods
(i.e., no more than one month), and it has been rare for an icebreaker
to be at the station when an ice pier needs to be transported for ocean
disposal. An ice pier was last towed from McMurdo Station in 1990. An
ice pier is more likely to be freely released from its site of
attachment at the shore in Winter Quarters Bay when winds and tide
conditions are favorable to move the pier north out of McMurdo Sound.
The pier is then carried north by the Ross Sea gyre and may enter the
Antarctic Circumpolar Current which flows from west to east and carries
the ice pier away from the seasonal sea ice and along the coast of
Antarctica. This path has been well documented from the tracking device
reporting, as required under the current and 2003 general permits.
Occasionally, a large storm has broken an ice pier loose and caused the
unexpected release of a pier; in such cases, the piers were either
transported along the same current paths or became frozen in McMurdo
Sound. Regardless of method of release, the disposal site is McMurdo
Sound, where the pier would float freely within the ice pack, mix with
the annual sea ice, and eventually disintegrate due to wind or waves.
    The materials dumped under this proposed general permit (other than
ice, which melts naturally) include those materials used in the
construction of the ice pier that cannot be removed prior to disposal,
and generally consist of: (1) 13,000 feet of one-inch steel cable; (2)
150 feet of eight-inch steel pipe; and (3) 150 feet of 12-inch steel
pipe. Although the proposed general permit would generally require NSF
to remove above-surface materials on the piers and to place a tracking
device on the pier prior to release, this is not always possible due to
safety concerns when conditions deteriorate rapidly; the proposed
permit recognizes emergency circumstances. Over the past decade, the
placement of materials on the ice pier has been significantly reduced.
No structures, power poles or other unnecessary items are allowed on
the pier. This reduces the potential for materials to enter the ocean
if an unplanned release of the pier occurs. The tracking devices are
now secured on the pier and turned on before the arrival of the ice
breaker in case there is an event which causes the pier to be
inadvertently released. When offload operations are complete and the
pier is securely frozen in place for the winter, the tracking device is
turned off and removed from the pier for use in the following year.

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

1. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries (MPRSA)

    Section 102(a) of the MPRSA, 33 U.S.C. 1412(a) requires that
agencies or instrumentalities of the United States obtain a permit to
transport any material from any location for the purpose of dumping
into ocean waters. MPRSA section 104(c), 33 U.S.C. 1414(c), and EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 220.3(a) authorize the issuance of a general
permit under the MPRSA for the

dumping of materials which have a minimal adverse environmental impact
and are generally disposed of in small quantities. The transportation
of ice piers from McMurdo Station for disposal at sea constitutes
transportation of material for the purpose of dumping in ocean waters,
and thus is subject to the MPRSA. EPA has determined that ocean
disposal of the material associated with the ice piers is likely to
cause only a minimal adverse environmental effect and represents
comparatively small quantities of unrecoverable non-ice materials. In
the United States, the MPRSA implements the requirements of the
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and Other Matter of 1972, known as the London Convention.

2. Obligations Under International Law

    The Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996
amended the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This law is designed to
implement the provisions of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to
the Antarctic Treaty (``the Protocol''). The United States Senate
ratified the Protocol on April 17, 1997, and it entered into force on
January 18, 1998. The Protocol builds on the Antarctic Treaty to extend
its effectiveness as a mechanism for ensuring protection of the
Antarctic environment. The Protocol designates Antarctica as a natural
reserve, devoted to peace and science, and sets forth basic principles
and detailed, mandatory rules applicable to human activities in
Antarctica. The Protocol prohibits all activities relating to mineral
resources in Antarctica, except for scientific research, and commits
signatories to the Protocol (known as Parties) to environmental impact
assessment procedures for proposed activities, both governmental and
private. Among other things, the Protocol also requires Parties to
protect Antarctic flora and fauna and imposes strict limitations on
disposal of wastes in Antarctica, and discharges of pollutants into
Antarctic waters.
    Several sets of regulations implement the legislation that, in
turn, implements the Protocol, including: (a) NSF regulations regarding
environmental impact assessment of proposed NSF actions in Antarctica
(45 CFR part 641); (b) NSF waste regulations for Antarctica (45 CFR
part 671); and (c) EPA regulations regarding environmental impact
assessment of non-governmental activities in Antarctica (40 CFR part
8).
    In this regard, EPA notes that NSF completed a United States
Antarctic Program (USAP) Environmental Impact Statement (June 1980), a
USAP Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (October 1991),
a Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation for Continuation and
Modernization of McMurdo Station Area Activities (August 2019), and an
Initial Environmental Evaluation (May 1992). Since then, NSF issued two
Records of Environmental Review: Installation of Freeze Cells in Ice
Piers (1998) and Use of Freeze Cells in Ice piers to Repair Cracks
(2000). All these documents address various aspects of the
construction, operation, and disposal of ice piers at McMurdo Station
in Antarctica. The documents are available for review through the EPA
docket for this action and at the Office of Polar Programs of NSF, 2515
Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. (For further information from
NSF, please contact Polly Penhale, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.) None of these
documents identified any potential environmental impacts from the
disposal of ice piers, other than the minor navigational hazard
equivalent to that posed by an ice floe or a small iceberg. The Agency
considered the analyses contained in these six documents in re-issuance
of the general permit for NSF.

C. Potential Effects of Ice Pier Disposal

    EPA's decision is based on findings regarding three areas of the
ocean disposal of ice piers in ocean waters off the Antarctic: (1) The
fate of the materials disposed in the ocean, (2) the potential effects
of ice pier disposal on organisms in the polar marine environment,
large whales, seals, bird species, and (3) environmental concerns
associated with any operational discharges, leaks, or spills that may
have contaminated the surface of the pier.
    The materials contained in the ice pier that cannot be removed
(approximately 13,000 feet of one-inch steel cable, 150 feet of eight-
inch steel pipe, and 150 feet of 12-inch steel pipe) will, eventually,
sink to the sea floor after the surrounding ice has disintegrated.
While the ice is slowly disintegrating into the Antarctic Sea or the
Southern Ocean, it is possible that loops of cable from partially
disintegrated layers of ice may hang temporarily from the floating
pier. However, considering the normal behavior and mating habits of
whales, seals, and sea birds, it is unlikely that these materials pose
any danger to these species. EPA is nonetheless considering the effects
of this permit on threatened and endangered species and designated
critical habitat and, if required, may consult under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. The final permit may include additional
provisions for the protection of listed species and/or designated
critical habitat.
    In 1993 and again in 1994, NSF sampled the ice on the surface of
the pier to assess the potential for contamination from discharges of
gasoline and antifreeze. Contamination was detected in only one
location directly under two 55-gallon fuel drums. In response, NSF
issued a directive that all fuel drums shall be underlain with
secondary containment methods. Also, as one of the conditions of the
2003 permit, NSF developed and now implements a spill prevention,
control, and countermeasure (SPCC) plan for its station at McMurdo
Sound under NSF jurisdiction in Antarctica to reduce the potential for
adverse effects associated with any such spills. That plan, updated in
2017, is titled: Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC)
Plan, McMurdo Station, McMurdo Sound, Antarctica. The SPCC plan
includes a section addressing fuel storage and transfer systems for the
ice pier at McMurdo Station. With the implementation of new protective
measures in the updated 2017 plan, such as longer length hoses for
unloading petroleum products from the annual supply tanker and new
precautions taken in the handling and return to facilities outside
Antarctica of used or contaminated chemicals, solvents, and hazardous
materials, the risks of any spill or any discharge of these materials
is now lower than under the 2012 SPCC plan. There is considerable
vehicular traffic on the ice pier during the austral summer season, and
the possibility of engine block leaks or discharges from these vehicles
cannot be totally avoided. However, NSF has provided EPA reasonable
assurance that every effort to mitigate the risk of leakages or
discharges is being taken, including limits on the time that vehicles
are parked on the pier and that no vehicles are ever parked on the pier
overnight.

D. Discussion

    Considering the information presented in the previous section, EPA
finds that the potential effects of this disposal are minimal and in
accordance with the statutory standards applicable to permit issuance
under the MPRSA.
    The general permit that EPA proposes to re-issue to NSF and its
agents for the ocean disposal of man-made ice piers from the NSF
station at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, is subject to nine specific
conditions, outlined below,

applicable during the use and disposal of ice piers. First, the general
permit requires that NSF continue to maintain and implement an SPCC
plan, consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 112.3, for man-made
ice piers. The SPCC plan shall address procedures for loading and
unloading the following materials, and shall include methods to
minimize the accidental release or discharge of any of the following
materials to an ice pier:
    (1) Petroleum products unloaded from supply tankers to the storage
tanks at McMurdo Station;
    (2) Drummed chemicals, petroleum products, and materials unloaded
from cargo freighters to supply depots at McMurdo Station; and
    (3) Materials loaded to freighters destined to be returned to
facilities outside Antarctica.
    (4) Material spilled as a result of thermosyphon use or related
activities.
    Second, the general permit requires that if a spill or discharge
occurs on an ice pier, it will be completely cleaned up, such that no
visible evidence remains, unless 100% removal would result in greater
environmental risk or put the safety of personnel at risk. All spills
or discharges on an ice pier should be cleaned up soon as possible.
    Third an official record of the following information shall be kept
by NSF:
    (1) The date and time of all spills or discharges, the location of
the spill or discharge, a description of the material that was spilled
or discharged, the approximate volume of the spill or discharge, clean-
up procedures employed, the amount of gravel and/or ice removed, photos
of the spill sites before and after clean-up, if lighting allows, and
the results of clean-up procedures (e.g., estimate of percentage of
spill removed);
    (2) The length of the steel cables and steel pipe used in
construction of the ice pier;
    (3) The length of the steel cables and steel pipe remaining on the
ice pier at the time of its release;
    (4) Any other materials remaining on the ice pier at the time of
its release; and
    (5) The date of detachment of the ice pier from McMurdo Station, as
well as the geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) of the
point of its release if the release occurs at a location other than
directly from shore at McMurdo Station.
    Fourth, NSF shall place a tracking device on the pier prior to ship
operations each season.
    The fifth condition refers to incidents where NSF finds that towing
an ice pier to sea for disposal is not feasible due to the planned
release from shore due to the absence of vessels capable of towing,
rapid deterioration of the pier threatening safety, or because
anticipated weather conditions (e.g., strong storms) are likely to
break an ice pier loose from its moorings. In these instances, the pier
may be directly released from shore and the following actions shall be
required:
    (1) With safety as a primary consideration, an attempt shall be
made to meet all four of the requirements for cleaning and preparing
the ice pier;
    (2) Photographic evidence of the condition of the pier prior to the
cleanup and just prior to and during release shall be taken, if
lighting allows;
    (3) A report shall be developed which includes documentation about
the circumstances that led to release of the pier from shore, what
cleaning was conducted prior to release of the pier, what was present
on the pier at the time of the release, how the pier was released, and
the location to which the pier was transported after release, as
determined by visual observations and by tracking device.
    The sixth condition describes actions that shall be taken by NSF
prior to the towing of an ice pier to sea for ocean disposal, or the
planned release from shore due to the absence of vessels capable of
towing, including:
    (1) Other than the matter embedded in the ice pier (i.e., the ends
of pipes frozen in the pier, and the strengthening cables), all other
objects (including the non-embedded portions of materials used for
maintaining a connection between the pier and the mainland and any
removable equipment, debris, or objects of anthropogenic origin), shall
be removed from the pier and shall not be disposed in the ocean.
    (2) The gravel non-slip surface of the pier shall be removed to the
maximum extent practicable.
    (3) NSF shall implement a methodology using a tracking device to
track the ice piers disposed of under this permit for as long as the
device remains active. NSF shall include the tracking data from this
effort in the annual report that NSF is required to submit to EPA under
paragraph G below.
    (4) Documentation including photographs, if lighting allows, of the
cleanup and release shall be developed.
    Seventh, NSF shall submit a report by June 30 of every year to the
Director of the Oceans, Wetlands, and Communities Division in EPA's
Office of Water. The report must identify:
    (1) Any spills, discharges, or clean-up procedures on the ice pier
at McMurdo Station, including but not limited to:
    a. Amount of surface gravel removed due to spills,
    b. Description of removal of potentially contaminated ice layers,
    c. Images, if lighting allows, describing the spill sites before
and after clean-up, and
    d. Copies of spill and clean-up records and other records as
developed under Section C above.
    (2) Detailed reports of all ice pier ocean disposals from McMurdo
Station for the year, including:
    a. Detailed descriptions and photographs of release, and if towed,
the name and activity of the vessel associate with the disposal,
    b. The time, date, and geographic coordinates (latitude and
longitude) of the point of release (if released from a location other
than directly from shore at McMurdo Station) in McMurdo Sound or the
Ross Sea and the tracking data as the ice pier moves on its trajectory
in the Southern Ocean,
    c. Other reports and materials generated under permit,
    d. Details of cleanup procedures,
    e. Amounts of all materials remaining on the piers at the time of
release, and
    f. Any tracking efforts of ice piers released from McMurdo Station
under this general permit for the year preceding the date of the annual
report.
    (3) A current copy of the SPCC, if revised or updated since
previous submission. The eighth and ninth conditions define the term
``ice pier'' and explain that the permit shall be valid for seven
years, as per the MPRSA, respectively.
    Any contaminants remaining on the surface of the piers after
release are expected to be minimal and insignificant. The area over
which the disintegration of the piers occurs is immense. Thus, the
dilution of contaminants in ocean waters should be adequate such that
the potential for damage to the environment from ocean disposal of any
McMurdo Station ice piers is minimal. In addition, the possibility of
entanglement of large organisms in suspended loops of cable from the
disintegrating ice piers has been determined by EPA to be very minimal.
(Further discussion of this issue can be found in ``C. Potential
Effects of Ice Pier Disposal,'' above.)
    Finally, the proposed re-issuance of this permit to NSF does not in
any way relieve NSF of meeting the United States' obligations under the
Antarctic Protocol, the Antarctic Conservation Act, or the implementing
regulations.

E. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., is intended to
minimize the reporting and record-keeping burden on the regulated
community, as well as to minimize the cost of Federal information
collection and dissemination. In general, the Act requires that
information requests and record-keeping requirements affecting ten or
more non-Federal respondents be approved by the Office of Management
and Budget. Because this general permit affects only Federal agency
record-keeping and reporting requirements, it is not subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Brian Frazer,
Director, Oceans, Wetlands, and Communities Division.
    For the reasons stated above, EPA proposes to re-issue the general
permit for NSF as follows:

Disposal of Ice Piers From McMurdo Station, Antarctica

    The United States National Science Foundation (NSF) and its agents
are hereby granted a general permit under sections 102(a) and 104(c) of
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. 1412(a)
and 1414(c), to transport ice piers from the McMurdo Sound, Antarctica,
research station for the purpose of ocean dumping, subject to the
following conditions:
    (A) The NSF shall implement a spill prevention, control, and
countermeasure (SPCC) plan, consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR
112.3, for the McMurdo Station ice pier. The SPCC plan shall address
procedures for loading and unloading the following materials, and shall
include methods to minimize the accidental release or discharge of any
of the following materials to the ice pier:
    (1) Petroleum products unloaded from supply tankers to the storage
tanks at McMurdo Station;
    (2) Drummed chemicals, petroleum products, and materials unloaded
from cargo freighters to supply depots at McMurdo Station;
    (3) Materials loaded to freighters destined to be returned to
facilities outside Antarctica; and
    (4) Material spilled as a result of thermosyphon use or related
activities.
    (B) If a spill or discharge occurs on an ice pier, it will be
completely cleaned up, such that no visible evidence remains, unless
100% removal would result in greater environmental risk or put the
safety of personnel at risk. All spills or discharges on an ice pier
should be cleaned up soon as possible.
    (C) An up-to-date record of the following information shall be kept
by NSF:
    (1) The date and time of all spills or discharges, the location of
the spill or discharge, a description of the material that was spilled
or discharged, the approximate volume of the spill or discharge, clean-
up procedures employed, the amount of gravel and/or ice removed, photos
of the spill sites before and after cleanup, if lighting allows, and
the results of the cleanup procedures (e.g., estimate of percentage of
spill removed);
    (2) The length of the steel cables and steel pipe used in the
construction of the ice pier;
    (3) The length of the steel cables and steel pipe remaining on the
ice pier at the time of its release;
    (4) Any other materials remaining on the ice pier at the time of
its release; and
    (5) The date of detachment of the ice pier from McMurdo Station and
the geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) of the point of its
release if the release occurs at a location other than directly from
shore at McMurdo Station.
    (D) NSF shall place a tracking device, as specified in paragraph
(F)(3), on the pier prior to ship operations each season.
    (E) If NSF finds that towing a pier to sea for disposal is not
feasible due to the planned release from shore due to the absence of
vessels capable of towing, rapid deterioration of the pier threatening
safety, or because anticipated weather conditions (e.g., strong storms)
are likely to break an ice pier loose from its moorings, the pier may
be released from shore and the following actions shall be required:
    (1) With safety as a primary consideration, an attempt shall be
made to meet all four of the requirements for cleaning and preparing
the ice pier described in paragraph F below;
    (2) Photographic evidence of the condition of the pier prior to the
cleanup conducted to implement condition (E)(1) and just prior to and
during release shall be taken if lighting allows;
    (3) The report specified in paragraph (G) shall include
documentation about the circumstances that led to release of the pier
from shore, what cleaning was conducted prior to release of the pier,
what was present on the pier at the time of the release, how the pier
was released, and the location to which the pier was transported after
release, as determined by visual observations and by tracking device.
    (F) Prior to the towing of an ice pier to sea for ocean disposal,
or the planned release from shore due to the absence of vessels capable
of towing, the following actions shall be taken by NSF:
    (1) Other than the matter embedded in the ice pier (i.e., the ends
of pipe frozen in the pier, and the strengthening cables), all other
objects (including the non-embedded portions of materials used for
maintaining a connection between the pier and the mainland and any
removable equipment, debris, or objects of anthropogenic origin), shall
be removed from the pier and shall not be disposed in the ocean.
    (2) The gravel non-slip surface of the pier shall be removed to the
maximum extent practicable.
    (3) NSF shall implement a methodology using a tracking device to
track the ice piers disposed of under this permit for as long as the
device remains active. NSF shall include the tracking data from this
effort in the annual report that NSF is required to submit to EPA under
paragraph G below.
    (4) Documentation including photographs, if lighting allows, of the
cleanup and release shall be developed.
    (G) NSF shall submit a report by June 30 of every year to the
Director of the Oceans, Wetlands and Communities Division, in EPA's
Office of Water, on
    (1) any spills, discharges, or clean-up procedures on the ice pier
at McMurdo Station, including but not limited to:
    a. Amount of surface gravel removed due to spills,
    b. Description of removal of potentially contaminated ice layers,
    c. Images, if lighting allows, describing the spill sites before
and after clean-up, and
    d. Copies of spill and clean-up records and other records as
developed under Section C above.
    (2) Detailed reports of all ice pier ocean disposals from McMurdo
Station for the year, including:
    a. Detailed descriptions and photographs of release, and if towed,
the name and activity of the vessel associate with the disposal,
    b. The time, date, and geographic coordinates (latitude and
longitude) of the point of release (if released from a location other
than directly from shore at McMurdo Station) in McMurdo Sound or the
Ross Sea and the tracking data as the ice pier moves on its trajectory
in the Southern Ocean,
    c. All reports/materials generated under paragraphs C, D, E, and F
above,
    d. Details of cleanup procedures,
    e. Amounts of all materials remaining on the piers at the time of
release, and
    f. Any tracking efforts of ice piers released from McMurdo Station
under

this general permit for the year preceding the date of the annual
report.
    (3) A current copy of the SPCC, if revised or updated since
previous submission.
    (H) For the purpose of this permit, the term ``ice pier(s)'' means
those manmade ice structures containing embedded steel cable, and pipe,
and any remaining gravel frozen into the surface of the pier, that are
constructed at McMurdo Station, Antarctica, for the purpose of off-
loading the annual provision of material and supplies for McMurdo and
South Pole Stations and for loading the previous year's accumulation of
wastes, which are returned to the United States.
    (I) This permit shall be valid for a period of seven years
beginning 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal
Register.

[FR Doc. 2021-08842 Filed 4-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41033-41040]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17262]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0092; FRL-9930-50-OAR]

Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Cotton
(Gossypium spp.) Seed Oil for Use in Biofuel Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting comment
on its analysis of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to
the production and transport of Gossypium spp. seed oil (``cottonseed
oil'') feedstock for use in making biofuels such as biodiesel,
renewable diesel, and jet fuel. This document explains EPA's analysis
of the feedstock production and transport-related components of the
lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel made from cottonseed oil, including
both direct and indirect agricultural and forestry sector emissions.
This notice also describes how EPA may apply this analysis in the
future to determine whether biofuels produced from cottonseed oil meet
the necessary GHG reductions required for qualification as renewable
fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard program. Based on this analysis,
we anticipate that biofuels produced from cottonseed oil could qualify
as biomass-based diesel or advanced biofuel if typical fuel production
process technologies are used.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0092, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Air and Radiation
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0092.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0092, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail

code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention
Air and Radiation Docket, ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0092. 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-
2015-0092. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and
Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Ramig, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This document is organized as follows:

I. Introduction
II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated With Use of Cottonseed Oil
as a Biofuel Feedstock
    A. Feedstock Description, Production, and Distribution
    1. Production of Cottonseed Oil-Based Biofuels
    2. Cottonseed Oil Production Economics
    3. Replacement of Cottonseed Oil in Vegetable Oil Markets
    4. Upstream GHG Implications of Cottonseed Oil Use as a Biofuel
Feedstock
    B. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG Emissions
    C. Fuel Production and Distribution
III. Summary

I. Introduction

    As part of changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program
regulations published on March 26, 2010 \1\ (the ``March 2010 rule''),
EPA specified the types of renewable fuels eligible to participate in
the RFS program through approved fuel pathways. Table 1 to 40 CFR
80.1426 of the RFS regulations lists three critical components of an
approved fuel pathway: (1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock; and (3) production
process. Fuel produced pursuant to each specific combination of the
three components, or fuel pathway, is designated in Table 1 to 40 CFR
80.1426 as eligible for purposes of the Clean Air Act's (CAA)
requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions to qualify as
renewable fuel or one of three subsets of renewable fuel (biomass-based
diesel, cellulosic biofuel, or advanced biofuel). EPA may also
independently approve additional fuel pathways not currently listed in
Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 for participation in the RFS program, or a
third-party may petition for EPA to evaluate a new fuel pathway in
accordance with 40 CFR 80.1416.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 75 FR 14670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA received a petition from the
National Cottonseed Products Association (NCPA), requesting that EPA
evaluate the lifecycle GHG emissions for biofuels produced using
Gossypium spp. seed oil (``cottonseed oil''), and that EPA provide a
determination of the renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such
biofuels may be eligible. EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess
the overall GHG impacts of a fuel throughout each stage of its
production and use. The results of these analyses, considering
uncertainty and the weight of available evidence, are used to determine
whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG reductions required under the
CAA for it to be considered renewable fuel or one of the subsets of
renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis includes an assessment of emissions
related to the full fuel lifecycle, including feedstock production,
feedstock transportation, fuel production, fuel transportation, fuel
distribution, and tailpipe emissions. Per the CAA definition of
lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's lifecycle analyses also include an
assessment of significant indirect emissions, such as indirect
emissions from land use changes, agricultural sector impacts, and
production of co-products from biofuel production.
    In this document, we are describing EPA's evaluation of the GHG
emissions associated with the feedstock production and feedstock
transport stages of the lifecycle analysis of cottonseed oil when it is
used to produce a biofuel, including the indirect agricultural and
forestry sector impacts. We are seeking public comment on the
methodology and results of this evaluation. For reasons described in
Section II below, we believe that, as a conservative estimate, it is
reasonable to apply the GHG emissions estimates we established in the
March 2010 rule for the production and transport of soybean oil to
cottonseed oil.
    If appropriate, EPA will update its evaluation of the feedstock
production and transport phases of the lifecycle analysis for
cottonseed oil based on comments received in response to this action.
EPA will then use this feedstock production and transport information
to evaluate facility-specific petitions, received pursuant to 40 CFR
80.1416, that propose to use cottonseed oil as a feedstock for the
production of biofuel. In evaluating such petitions, EPA will consider
the GHG emissions associated with the production and transport of
cottonseed oil feedstock as described in this document, including the
potential

indirect impacts. In addition, EPA will determine--based on information
in the petition and other relevant information, including the
petitioner's energy and mass balance data--the GHG emissions associated
with petitioners' biofuel production processes, as well as emissions
associated with the transport and use of the finished biofuel. We will
then combine our assessments into a full lifecycle GHG analysis and
determine whether the fuel produced at an individual facility satisfies
CAA renewable fuel GHG reduction requirements.

II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated With Use of Cottonseed Oil as
a Biofuel Feedstock

    EPA has evaluated the production and transport portion of the
lifecycle GHG impacts of using cottonseed oil as a biofuel feedstock,
based on information provided in the petition and other data gathered
by EPA. Based on this evaluation, EPA believes that new agricultural
sector modeling is not needed to evaluate this portion of the lifecycle
GHG impacts of using cottonseed oil as a biofuel feedstock. As
explained below, our analysis makes the conservative assumption that
cottonseed oil diverted from the vegetable oil markets for food and
industrial use to biofuel production will be replaced with soybean oil
rather than result in additional production of cottonseed oil or any
other vegetable oil. Therefore, in this analysis, we are applying the
same agricultural sector impacts for soybean oil to cottonseed oil on a
per-pound-of-feedstock basis. Based on this analysis (described below),
we propose to evaluate the agricultural sector GHG emissions impacts of
using cottonseed oil in responding to petitions received pursuant to 40
CFR 80.1416 by assuming that GHG emissions are similar to those
associated with the use of soybean oil for biofuel production. We
invite comment on this proposed approach.

A. Feedstock Description, Production, and Distribution

1. Production of Cottonseed Oil-Based Biofuels
    Cottonseed oil is the fourth most produced vegetable oil in the
U.S., after soybean oil, corn oil, and canola oil respectively. It is
the seventh most consumed vegetable oil in the U.S., behind soybean
oil, canola oil, palm oil, corn oil, coconut oil, and olive oil
respectively. It accounts for about 2.5-4 percent of U.S. production
and about 1.5-2.5 percent of U.S. consumption of vegetable oil.\2\
Internationally, cottonseed oil is the sixth most produced and consumed
vegetable oil, representing about 3-3.5 percent of global production
and consumption.\3\ Over the last decade, annual U.S. cottonseed oil
production has averaged just under 800 million pounds.\4\ If this
entire supply were used for biodiesel and/or renewable diesel
production, which is highly unlikely for reasons discussed below, it
would generate approximately 100 million gallons of fuel. Since U.S.
biodiesel and renewable diesel production was approximately 1.5 billion
gallons in 2014, the potential contribution of cottonseed oil is
relatively small in comparison to the overall biodiesel and renewable
diesel market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ United States Department of Agriculture, ``National Oil
Crops Yearbook 2014'', available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/oil-crops-yearbook.aspx (Last Accessed: January 14th,
2015). United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization,
``FAOSTAT'', available at: http://faostat.fao.org/ (Last Accessed:
January 29th, 2015).
    \3\ Ibid.
    \4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cottonseed oil is preferred for a number of specialty uses by
certain producers, including the frying of potato chips and the
preservation of smoked shellfish. According to industry experts in
government and the private sector consulted by EPA, many producers
strongly prefer cottonseed oil over its alternatives, believing that
the type of oil used for these products has a very significant impact
on the quality of the product itself. Market experts also noted to EPA
that these producers have historically been willing to pay a
significant premium to maintain their supply of cottonseed oil when
supplies become limited.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Based on conversations with Michael Dowd of the USDA
Agricultural Research Service on December 30th, 2014 and June 17th,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This behavior is supported by available historical data. Figure
II.A.1-1 below illustrates one of multiple examples from recent
history. In the 2012/13 crop year, cottonseed oil production was near
the ten-year average.\6\ However, in the 2013/14 crop year, cottonseed
oil production was down significantly, about 20 percent below the ten-
year average.\7\ Conversely, these two crop years were both good for
soybean oil, with production levels just above the ten-year average.\8\
In 2012/13, when both oilseeds produced around their recent averages,
the peak monthly price spread between soybean oil and cottonseed oil
was about 3 cents per pound.\9\ However, in 2013/14 when cottonseed oil
supply was heavily constrained, the monthly average price spread grew
to as much as 43.5 cents per pound.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In the USDA data considered here, crop years begin in
October of the first year listed and end in September of the second
year listed.
    \7\ U.S. cottonseed oil production has averaged about 800
million pounds since the 2003/04 crop year. According to the USDA
Oil Crops Yearbook 2014, production in 2012/13 was also about 800
million pounds and production in 2013/14 was approximately 630
million pounds.
    \8\ U.S. soybean oil production has averaged about 19.5 billion
pounds since the 2003/04 crop year. According to the USDA Oil Crops
Yearbook 2014, production in 2012/13 was about 19.8 billion pounds
and production in 2013/14 was approximately 19.7 billion pounds.
    \9\ This occurred in December 2012, when, according to USDA
data, soybean oil averaged 47.16 cents per pound and cottonseed oil
averaged 49.05 cents per pound.
    \10\ This occurred in May of 2014, when, according to USDA data,
soybean oil averaged 40.68 cents per pound and cottonseed oil
averaged 84.25 cents per pound.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14JY15.011

    As Figure II.A.1-1 illustrates, cottonseed oil can approach price
parity with soybean oil at times of average or above-average supply of
cottonseed oil. However, the price trend shown above for 2013 should
not be taken as representative of the full historical record.
Cottonseed oil does not often achieve actual price parity with soybean
oil. According to historical monthly price data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the national average monthly price
for cottonseed oil was approximately equal to or below that of soybean
oil in only 23 of the last 180 months (15 years).\12\ Even in the
middle months of 2013, when soybean oil and cottonseed oil prices
appear to converge in Figure II.A.1-1, cottonseed oil actually
maintained a small premium over soybean oil, though in a few months of
2013 this premium was less than a cent per pound. In only one month out
of the last fifteen years, September 2004, was the monthly average
price of cottonseed oil more than one cent per pound cheaper than that
of soybean oil. For the majority of the recent historical record,
cottonseed oil has maintained a significant price premium over soybean
oil, averaging approximately 7 cents per pound over the last 15 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ United States Department of Agriculture, ``National Oil
Crops Yearbook 2014'', available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/oil-crops-yearbook.aspx (Last Accessed: January 14th,
2015).
    \12\ USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, ``Monthly Feedstuff
Prices and Milling and Baking News'', multiple editions. In this
example, by ``approximately equal'' we mean that there was less than
a 1 cent difference between the prices of cottonseed oil and soybean
oil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information from USDA vegetable oil market experts, demand
for cottonseed oil for specialty uses like those cited above is
extremely inelastic, meaning that demand for this volume of cottonseed
oil would not be significantly impacted by an increase in the price of
cottonseed oil.\13\ It is therefore highly unlikely that biofuel
producers could bid cottonseed oil away from such specialty uses. This
inelasticity of demand dramatically shrinks the potential amount of
cottonseed oil that might be utilized for biofuel production and the
potential impact that approving a pathway for cottonseed oil might have
on vegetable oil markets. The data suggest that, in most years,
cottonseed oil would not be price competitive with soybean oil for
biofuel feedstock use in most locations. This suggests that cottonseed
oil is unlikely to be used for biofuel production except in years where
cottonseed oil prices are significantly lower than normal relative to
soybean oil. Even then, as discussed below, cottonseed oil is likely to
be used as a feedstock predominantly by biofuel production facilities
located near cottonseed crushing facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Based on conversations with Michael Dowd of the USDA
Agricultural Research Service on December 30th, 2014 and June 17th,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, the data also suggest that in some circumstances,
cottonseed oil may achieve approximate price parity with soybean oil.
This trend in pricing indicates cottonseed oil could compete on price
with soybean oil as biofuel feedstock in times of abundant supply, or
possibly in a year with low soybean oil production but normal
cottonseed oil production, both of which might be expected to narrow
the normal price gap. This trend also indicates that, when cottonseed
oil prices are relatively low, the U.S. market values cottonseed oil at
about the same price as soybean oil, rather than cheaper alternatives
like palm oil or waste oils and greases or more expensive alternatives
like sunflower seed oil. In other words, the historical pricing data
available indicates that the primary competitor of cottonseed oil under
these circumstances is soybean oil, since the prices converge, or at
least nearly converge, under such circumstances.
    Based on consultation with USDA and private sector vegetable oil
industry experts and given the historical data presented above, we
believe that the actual potential for biodiesel and non-ester renewable
diesel production from cottonseed oil is considerably smaller than the
100 million gallons noted above.\14\ Based on a conversation with NCPA
we believe that the actual potential is more likely in the range of 20
million gallons of biodiesel per year (representing roughly 150-160
million pounds of cottonseed oil), and could be considerably smaller
than that

depending on market conditions.\15\ As noted above, this is largely due
to the inelastic nature of cottonseed oil demand for specialty uses,
which have demonstrated their willingness to pay prices for cottonseed
oil that would be prohibitive to biofuel producers when forced to
compete for limited supplies of cottonseed oil. Except in years with
high levels of cottonseed oil production or uncharacteristically low
demand from specialty users (for example, if potato chip production
were to be unusually low in a particular year), we do not expect that
there will be significant quantities of cottonseed oil available at
prices that biodiesel producers would consider competitive. As a
result, were EPA to approve pathways for cottonseed oil-based fuels and
begin registering producers, we would not expect it to have a
significant impact on U.S. biofuel production or U.S. vegetable oil
production, consumption, and trade patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Based on conversations with Michael Dowd of the USDA
Agricultural Research Service on December 30th, 2014 and June 17th,
2015; based also on memo from NCPA [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0092-0001; EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0092-0002].
    \15\ Based on memo from NCPA [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0092-0001; EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0092-0002].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Cottonseed Oil Production Economics
    The methods of producing cottonseed oil are nearly identical to
those of other vegetable seed oils. The seeds are crushed, oil and meal
are separated, and the two products are sold separately into the
vegetable oil and animal feed markets respectively. However, the
production of the cotton oilseed is unique among major oilseeds because
the seed itself is not a primary crop product. Rather, it is generally
considered a byproduct of the production of cotton lint for fiber.
Fiber production is the primary purpose of cotton farming, representing
approximately 85 percent of the value of the average U.S. acre of
cotton, and it drives the decisions of farmers regarding whether to
plant cotton and what types of farming practices to utilize.\16\ The
cotton seed and its products represent the remaining approximately 15
percent of average value per acre. Conversely, for soybeans and other
major oilseeds, the seed itself comprises nearly 100 percent of the
value per acre.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ According to the USDA NASS database, cotton lint has
represented about 85 percent of revenue per acre fairly consistently
since at least the year 1980. (Source: United States Department of
Agriculture, ``National Agricultural Statistical Service Database'',
available at: http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ [Last Accessed:
January 14th, 2015]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While cottonseed does have value and provides farmers with a
secondary revenue stream, most cotton farmers consider it to be a
byproduct of producing cotton lint. The efforts of cotton breeders over
a long time period to maximize lint yields relative to seed yields,
demonstrated by yield trends in cottonseed and cotton lint, support
this hypothesis. Since 1985, the U.S. average cottonseed yield per bale
of cotton lint produced has declined from nearly 800 pounds per bale to
less than 700 pounds per bale (See Figure II.A.2-1 below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14JY15.012

    Conversely, over that same period, the U.S. average cotton lint
yield has increased from 630 pounds per acre harvested to over 800
pounds per acre harvested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ United States Department of Agriculture, ``National
Agricultural Statistical Service Database'', available at: http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ (Last Accessed: January 14th, 2015).

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14JY15.013

    The secondary nature of cottonseed production for cotton farmers
has significant implications for our study of the impacts of cottonseed
oil production for use in making biofuels. In a given year, weather
conditions may reduce lint yields and force farmers to rely more on
seed revenue. But when making decisions about what to plant, when to
plant, and what types and quantities of crop inputs to utilize, lint
yields are the first priority of cotton farmers. Further, the fact that
cottonseed oil will only be competitive as a biofuel feedstock under
certain relatively uncommon and unpredictable circumstances makes it
even more unlikely that establishing pathways for cottonseed oil-based
fuels under the RFS would have any impact on planting decisions. While
farmers will seek to maximize the price they receive for cottonseed, it
is highly unlikely that an increase in cottonseed value would have any
significant impact on the behavior of cotton farmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ United States Department of Agriculture, ``National
Agricultural Statistical Service Database'', available at: http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ (Last Accessed: June 2nd, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because changes in cottonseed oil prices are unlikely to affect
overall cotton production decisions, it is highly unlikely that the use
of cottonseed oil as a biofuel feedstock will significantly affect
cottonseed production or the supply of cottonseed oil in the U.S.
vegetable oil markets. Imports of cottonseed oil are approximately
zero. We do not expect demand for cottonseed oil as biofuel feedstock
to change this, since the costs of creating and operating new trade
routes would make cottonseed oil uncompetitive with alternative oil
feedstocks, especially soybean oil. Instead, we expect that, in the
rare instances when cottonseed oil prices approach parity with soybean
oil prices, biofuel producers might utilize some quantity of cottonseed
oil. Since, in most previous historical instances of this near price
parity, cottonseed oil is still somewhat more expensive than soybean
oil, we would expect to only see this behavior amongst biofuel
producers with renewable fuel production facilities near cottonseed
crushing locations, since this oil could be sourced with minimal
transport costs. If some quantity of cottonseed oil is diverted from
the vegetable oil markets to the biofuel market, any unfilled demand
for vegetable oil will most likely be met with increased consumption of
other vegetable oils, for the reasons outlined in the next section.
3. Replacement of Cottonseed Oil in Vegetable Oil Markets
    As noted in Section II.A.1 above, cottonseed oil demand in the U.S.
tends to be inelastic until the needs of specialty consumers are fully
met, and the amount of cottonseed oil that could be bid away from such
users for biofuel production is likely small until that threshold is
reached. Whether or not any of this remaining cottonseed oil will
actually be used for biofuel production will depend on the price of
cottonseed oil relative to soybean oil at that time.
    In the event that cottonseed oil is used as a biofuel feedstock,
the small volume likely to be available in any given region makes it
highly unlikely that cottonseed oil could meet the total feedstock
needs of a biofuel production facility. Rather, we expect that U.S.
biofuel producers who are already utilizing vegetable oil feedstocks
and are located near cottonseed crushing facilities will have the
option to include some amount of cottonseed oil in their mix of
feedstocks when the price is right.
    There are two likely ways that biofuel producers may include some
amount of cottonseed oil in their feedstock mix. First, biofuel
producers may at times substitute cottonseed oil for some amount of
soybean oil and produce the same volume of fuel as before. Second, they
may at times use low-priced cottonseed oil to increase their total
volume of fuel production. While the market response is likely to be
some combination of both scenarios, for this analysis we have assumed
the more conservative scenario from a lifecycle

GHG perspective. This second scenario is more conservative because in
the first scenario the displaced soybean oil could backfill in other
vegetable oil markets for the cottonseed oil consumed for biofuel
production and total vegetable oil production is unlikely to change. In
the second scenario, where total biofuel production increases,
cottonseed oil is being diverted away from some other use, creating a
shortfall in vegetable oil supplies for some portion of the market.
Either prices for vegetable oil will rise (in which case it is less
likely that biofuel producers would still consume the cottonseed oil,
since they were only purchasing it because of the low price) or
additional vegetable oil will need to be supplied. In either case, the
GHG emissions will be greater in the second scenario, where there is an
incentive to expand crop production. If the results of analyzing the
conservative scenario associated with greater GHG emissions indicates
that biofuels produced from cottonseed oil satisfy the 50 percent
lifecycle GHG emissions reduction requirement for biomass-based diesel
and advanced biofuels, we can conclude that the threshold determination
would be the same under the less conservative but more likely scenario.
    If the use of cottonseed oil for biofuel does create an increase in
total demand for vegetable oil, we believe the direct result will be a
corresponding increase in soybean oil consumption in the United States.
As we established above, cotton farmers are unlikely to respond to
increased demand for cottonseed oil. Instead, we are likely to see an
increase in production of the vegetable oil most competitive with the
cottonseed oil being diverted to biofuel feedstock use. Based on
consultation with oilseed market experts at USDA and recent historical
data (see Section II.A.1), which shows cottonseed oil prices tracking
soybean oil prices, the marginal users of cottonseed oil are largely
indifferent between cottonseed and soybean oil when they approach price
parity.\19\ Therefore, it follows that if vegetable oil is needed to
backfill for cottonseed oil used as biofuel, soybean oil would be the
most likely vegetable oil to meet this demand in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Based on conversations with Michael Dowd of the USDA
Agricultural Research Service on December 30th, 2014 and June 17th,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that soybean oil is used to satisfy U.S. domestic
demand for vegetable oil that would have otherwise been met with
cottonseed oil, there would likely be secondary impacts on the
production and consumption of other vegetable oils internationally and
the agricultural sector more broadly. In the modeling we conducted for
the March 2010 rule, we projected that the use of soybean oil for
biofuel feedstock would cause a global increase in vegetable oil
production. In that analysis, we projected that the majority of this
increase would come in the form of additional soybean oil production,
but that additional canola, palm, peanut, and sunflower oil production
would also occur in some parts of the world, with secondary impacts on
other parts of the agricultural sector.\20\ Therefore, by assuming that
cottonseed oil would have similar indirect impacts on other vegetable
oils, our analysis takes into account the ripple effects in the
vegetable oil and other agricultural markets resulting from an increase
in biofuel demand in the U.S. We invite comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-3173.9 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161-
3173.10 for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Upstream GHG Implications of Cottonseed Oil Use as a Biofuel
Feedstock
    Our analysis indicates that the most likely market impact of the
use of cottonseed oil as biofuel feedstock is some feedstock swapping
between cottonseed oil and soybean oil and some increase in total
biofuel production from vegetable oil, as explained in the previous
section. However, as a conservative assumption, we assume in our
analysis that any use of cottonseed oil as biofuel feedstock will
result in an increase in total biofuel production and that there would
be a corresponding increase in U.S. demand for vegetable oil. In such a
hypothetical situation, the alternative product used by marginal U.S.
consumers of vegetable oil is likely to be soybean oil. We do not
expect any shift in the supply of cotton or cottonseed oil. The GHG
emissions associated with cottonseed oil at the feedstock production
and transport stages of the lifecycle are likely to be similar to or
less than those we have previously estimated for soybean oil on a
normalized basis.\21\ Therefore, we are proposing to use the upstream
GHG emissions associated with an increase in soybean oil in our
lifecycle analysis for cottonseed oil. In the March 2010 rule, we
determined that the GHG emissions associated with soybean oil at the
feedstock production and transport stages of the lifecycle were
approximately 646 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent (gCO2e)
per pound of soybean oil.\22\ Based on our evaluation, we believe that
it is reasonable, as a conservative estimate, to apply the same value
for the emissions associated with cottonseed oil at the feedstock
production and transport stages of the lifecycle. We invite comment on
this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA's lifecycle analysis of soybean oil biodiesel for the
March 2010 RFS rule evaluated the GHG impacts for a scenario with
increased soybean oil biodiesel production compared to a control
case. To calculate the results on a normalized basis for the
scenario evaluated, we divide the increase in GHG emissions by the
increase in the amount of soybean oil used for biodiesel production,
which gives the normalized results in units of gCO2e per
pound of soybean oil. The lifecycle GHG analysis that EPA conducted
for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil
feedstock is described in section <IP_ADDRESS> (Biodiesel Results) of the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule (EPA-420-R-
10-006).
    \22\ EPA's soybean oil biodiesel assessment uses a biodiesel
conversion efficiency of 7.76 pounds of soybean oil per gallon of
biodiesel, and biodiesel lower heating value of 118,000 British
Thermal Units (Btu) per gallon. Therefore, GHG emissions of 646
gCO2e/lb soybean oil converts to 41,247 gCO2e per million
Btu of soybean oil biodiesel. This value includes the emissions
associated with soybean oil delivered to a biodiesel production
facility, including the emissions from growing and harvesting the
soybeans, transporting the soybeans to a crushing facility,
extracting the soybean oil, transporting the soybean oil to a
biodiesel facility, and all of the significant indirect emissions
such as from land use change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of Agricultural Sector GHG Emissions

    Based on our comparison of cottonseed oil to soybean oil, EPA
proposes to apply the estimate of upstream soybean oil feedstock
production and transport emissions, including indirect agricultural and
forestry sector impacts, to future evaluations of petitions proposing
to use cottonseed oil as a feedstock for biofuel production. We believe
this approach will provide a conservative estimate of potential
emissions associated with the production and transport of cottonseed
oil. EPA solicits comment on this proposed approach.

C. Fuel Production and Distribution

    Cottonseed oil has physical properties that are similar to soybean
oil, and is suitable for the same conversion processes as soybean oil
feedstock. In addition, the fuel yield per pound of oil is expected to
be the same for each of these feedstocks. After reviewing comments
received in response to this action, we will combine our evaluation of
agricultural sector GHG emissions associated with the use of cottonseed
oil feedstock with our evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with
individual producers' production processes and finished fuels to
determine whether any proposed pathway satisfies CAA lifecycle GHG
emissions reduction requirements for RFS-qualifying renewable fuels.
Each

biofuel producer seeking to generate RINs for non-grandfathered volumes
of biofuel produced from cottonseed oil will first need to submit a
petition requesting EPA's evaluation of their new renewable fuel
pathway pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 of the RFS regulations, and include
all of the information specified at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(1). Because EPA
is evaluating the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the
production and transport of cottonseed oil feedstock through this
action and comment process, petitions requesting EPA's evaluation of
biofuel pathways involving cottonseed oil feedstock will not have to
include the information for new feedstocks specified at 40 CFR
80.1416(b)(2).\23\ Based on our evaluation of the lifecycle GHG
emissions attributable to the production and transport of cottonseed
oil feedstock, EPA anticipates that fuel produced from cottonseed oil
feedstock through the same transesterification or hydrotreating process
technologies that EPA evaluated for the March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel
derived from soybean oil and the March 2013 RFS rule for biofuel
derived from camelina oil would qualify for biomass-based diesel (D-
code 4) renewable identification numbers (RINs) or advanced biofuel (D-
code 5) RINs.\24\ However, EPA will evaluate petitions for fuel
produced from cottonseed oil feedstock on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ For information on how to submit a petition for biofuel
produced from cottonseed oil see EPA's Web page titled ``How to
Submit a Complete Petition'' (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/new-pathways/how-to-submit.htm) including the
document on that Web page titled ``How to Prepare a Complete
Petition.'' Petitions for biofuel produced from cottonseed oil
should include all of the applicable information outlined in Section
3 of the ``How to Prepare a Complete Petition'' document, but they
do not need to provide the information outlined in section 3(F)(2)
(Information for New Feedstocks).
    \24\ The transesterification process that EPA evaluated for the
March 2010 RFS rule for biofuel derived from soybean oil feedstock
is described in section <IP_ADDRESS> (Biodiesel) of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the March 2010 RFS rule (EPA-420-R-10-006). The
hydrotreating process that EPA evaluated for the March 2013 rule for
biofuel derived from camelina oil feedstock is described in section
II.A.3.b of the March 2013 rule (78 FR 14190).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary

    EPA invites public comment on our analysis of GHG emissions
associated with the production and transport of cottonseed oil as a
feedstock for biofuel production. EPA will consider public comments
received when evaluating the lifecycle GHG emissions of biofuel
production pathways described in petitions received pursuant to 40 CFR
80.1416 which use cottonseed oil as a feedstock.

    Dated: June 30, 2015.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2015-17262 Filed 7-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 4281]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01313]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0913]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Helicopter
Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91 Helicopter Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on July 7, 2022. The collection involves information related
to rules governing Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and
Part 91 Helicopter Operations. The information to be collected supports
the Department of Transportation's strategic goal of safety.
Specifically, the goal is to promote the public health and safety by
working toward the elimination of transportation-related deaths and
injuries.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 23, 2023.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Luipersbeck by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<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.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0756.
    Title: Helicopter Air Ambulance, Commercial Helicopter, and Part 91
Helicopter Operations.
    Form Numbers: 2120-0756, Helicopter Air Ambulance Mandatory Flight
Information Report.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on July 7, 2022 (87 FR 40579). The requirements in part
135 are addressed specifically to helicopter air ambulances, often
referred to as emergency medical services (EMS), and to on-demand
operations including overwater operations. The National Transportation
Safety Board recommended several changes following accident
investigations. The FAA aims to improve the safety record of helicopter
air ambulances through better oversight of their operations. The FAA
will use the information it collects and reviews to ensure compliance
and adherence with regulations and, if necessary, to take enforcement
action on violators of the regulations.
    Under the authority of title 49 CFR, section 44701, title 14 CFR
prescribes the terms, conditions, and limitations as are necessary to
ensure safety in air transportation. Title 14 CFR parts 91 and 135
prescribes the requirements governing helicopter air ambulance,
commercial helicopter, and part 91 helicopter operations. The
information collected is used to determine air operators' compliance
with the minimum safety standards and the applicants' eligibility for
air operations certification. Each operator which seeks to obtain, or
is in possession of an operating certificate, must comply with the
requirements of part 91 or 135, as applicable, which include
maintaining data which is used to determine if the air carrier is
operating in accordance with minimum safety standards.
    Respondents: Part 135 Helicopter Air Ambulance Operators, Part 135
Helicopter Commercial Operators, or Part 91 Helicopter Operators.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Varies by response type.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 115,979 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 19, 2023.
Sandra L. Ray,
Aviation Safety Inspector, AFS-260.
[FR Doc. 2023-01313 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31075-31077]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14229]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8535]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program

regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We
recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the
required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management
measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual
suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will
continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice
withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the
Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV

South Carolina:
    Columbia, City of,                450172  January 16, 1974,   July 5, 2018..........  July 5, 2018.
     Lexington and Richland                    Emerg; September
     Counties.                                 2, 1981, Reg;
                                               July 5, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Lexington, Town of,               450134  May 27, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Lexington County.                         Emerg; May 1,
                                               1980, Reg; July
                                               5, 2018, Susp.
    Springdale, Town of,              450138  December 4, 1973,   ......do..............   Do.
     Lexington County.                         Emerg; May 1,
                                               1980, Reg; July
                                               5, 2018, Susp.
    Swansea, Town of,                 450139  June 24, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Lexington County.                         Emerg; June 10,
                                               1977, Reg; July
                                               5, 2018, Susp.

           Region V

Illinois: Quincy, City of,            170003  March 25, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
 Adams County.                                 Emerg; October
                                               15, 1981, Reg;
                                               July 5, 2018,
                                               Susp.

          Region VII

Nebraska:
    Adams County,                     310411  March 24, 1982,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; June 1,
                                               1988, Reg; July
                                               5, 2018, Susp.
    Clay Center, City of, Clay        310040  N/A, Emerg; July    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   29, 1998, Reg;
                                               July 5, 2018,
                                               Susp.
    Hastings, City of, Adams          310001  July 24, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; August 17,
                                               1981, Reg; July
                                               5, 2018, Susp.

    Juniata, Village of, Adams        310293  June 14, 1979,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 18,
                                               1990, Reg; July
                                               5, 2018, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-do- = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: June 26, 2018.
Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-14229 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P