[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17868-17872]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7868]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0993; FRL-9134-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of New Mexico for the purpose of addressing the
``good neighbor'' provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone standards and the 1997
PM2.5 standards. This SIP revision satisfies a portion of
the State of New Mexico's obligation to submit a SIP revision that
demonstrates that adequate provisions are in place to prohibit air
emissions from adversely affecting another state's air quality through
interstate transport. This rulemaking action is being taken under
section 110 of the CAA and addresses one element of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to prohibiting air pollutant emissions
from within New Mexico from significantly contributing to nonattainment
of the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in any state.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 7, 2010 without
further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by May 10,
2010. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2007-0993, by one of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD (Multimedia)'' and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-
0993. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The state submittal is also available for public inspection during
official business hours, by appointment, at the New Mexico Environment
Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emad Shahin, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Outline

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is a SIP?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submission?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    We are approving a submission from the State of New Mexico
demonstrating that New Mexico has adequately addressed one of the
required elements of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), the element that
prohibits air pollutant emissions from sources within a state from
significantly contributing to nonattainment of the relevant NAAQS in
any other state. We have determined that emissions from sources in New
Mexico do not significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 1997
ozone standards or of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in any other
state. The remaining three

elements of section 110(a)(2)(D) are SIPs addressing: (i) Interference
with the maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state; (ii) interference
with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in any other state; and (iii) interference with measures
required to protect visibility in any other state. The aforementioned 3
elements will be evaluated and addressed in future rulemakings.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments
are received. This rule will be effective on June 7, 2010 without
further notice unless we receive adverse comment by May 10, 2010. If we
receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

II. What Is a SIP?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires each state to develop a plan
that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA establishes
NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA. Currently, the NAAQS address six
criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    The plan developed by a state is referred to as the state
implementation plan (SIP). The content of the SIP is specified in
section 110 of the CAA, other provisions of the CAA, and applicable
regulations. SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or
other enforceable measures and various types of supporting information,
such as emissions inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling
demonstrations.
    A primary purpose of the SIP is to provide the air pollution
regulations, control strategies, and other means or techniques
developed by the state to ensure that the ambient air within that state
meets the NAAQS. However, another important aspect of the SIP is to
ensure that emissions from within the state do not have certain
prohibited impacts upon the ambient air in other states through
interstate transport of pollutants. This SIP requirement is specified
in section 110(a)(2)(D). Pursuant to that provision, each state's SIP
must contain provisions adequate to prevent, among other things,
emissions that significantly contribute to violations of the NAAQS in
any other state.
    States are required to update or revise SIPs under certain
circumstances. One such circumstance is EPA's promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS. Each state must submit these revisions to EPA for
approval and incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP.

III. What Is the Background for This Action?

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new standards for 8-hour ozone
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is being
taken in response to the July 18, 1997 revision to the 8-hour ozone
standards and PM2.5 standards. This action does not address
the requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 standards or the 2008 8-
hour ozone standards; those standards will be addressed in a later
action.
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to
address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of
such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs must address,
as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) which pertains to
interstate transport of certain emissions. On August 15, 2006, EPA
issued its ``Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to
Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (``Guidance'') for SIP submissions that states should use
to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA developed
this guidance to make recommendations to states for making submissions
to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards.
    On September 17, 2007, we received a SIP revision from the State of
New Mexico to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
both the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5
standards. This SIP submittal follows EPA's Guidance. As identified in
the Guidance, the ``good neighbor'' provisions in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each State to submit a SIP that prohibits
emissions that adversely affect another state in the ways contemplated
in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct
requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport; however,
in this rulemaking EPA is addressing only the requirement that pertains
to preventing sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts
which will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards in any other state.
In its submission, the State of New Mexico indicated that its current
SIP is adequate to prevent such significant contribution to
nonattainment in any other state, and thus no additional emissions
controls are necessary at this time to alleviate interstate transport.

IV. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submission?

    In accordance with EPA's Guidance, the State of New Mexico has made
a SIP submission addressing interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards. The State has made
a showing that emissions from New Mexico do not significantly
contribute to violations of either NAAQS in other states by two
different means. For PM2.5 the State has relied primarily
upon technical analysis performed by EPA in connection with another
regional rulemaking that addresses interstate transport. For ozone, the
State has relied primarily on additional modeling to address the extent
of interstate transport. We believe that the submission adequately
establishes that emissions from New Mexico do not significantly
contribute to violations of either NAAQS in other states, for the
reasons explained below.
    To support a determination of no ``significant contribution'' for
the 1997 PM2.5 standards, the state has relied on EPA's
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) \1\ analysis. This approach is
consistent with EPA's Guidance to states for this SIP submission. In
CAIR, EPA evaluated which states significantly contribute to violations
of the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and 1997 PM2.5 standards
in other states. Based upon its analysis, EPA did not include New
Mexico in the CAIR region. In the CAIR preamble, EPA provided its
rationale for the exclusion

of the western states, including New Mexico, from further consideration
of transport for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 and the requirements
of CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, ``Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). Information regarding CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D) SIPs can be found beginning of page 25263.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Technical Support Document for the Interstate Air Quality
Rule Air Quality Modeling Analysis'', January 2004 (available at http://www.epa.gov/cair/technical.html) contains documentation of the
modeling used to support CAIR. This modeling included an analysis of
the maximum impact of emissions from States without CAIR controls
applied on areas projected in PM2.5 nonattainment in 2010. A
maximum impact level of 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ was considered significant
for this analysis (Note: In the final CAIR EPA changed the maximum
impact level for this significance test to 0.20 [micro]g/m\3\). EPA's
modeling indicated that the maximum impact from emissions from sources
in New Mexico on any projected nonattainment area in another state was
0.03 [micro]g/m\3\. This value is 20% of the significant impact level
that EPA used in the CAIR proposal, and therefore EPA determined that
emissions from the state of New Mexico do not significantly contribute
to pollutant levels in any area projected to be nonattainment of the
PM2.5 standard in that analysis.
    CAIR was remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, and EPA is currently in the process of developing a
replacement rule to address interstate transport for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 standards. We do not believe that the
CAIR remand affects New Mexico's reliance on EPA's CAIR analysis for
the purpose of evaluating New Mexico's PM 2.5 impacts on
other states. Specifically, EPA's modeling was conducted without
including the impact of any CAIR controls, and thus the evaluation is
not impacted by any uncertainty in the implementation of CAIR controls
due to the remand. Also, despite remand of the CAIR rules, EPA's
reliance on the maximum impact level of 0.20 [micro]g/m\3\ as the
cutoff for the inclusion of a state in the CAIR region was upheld by
the court. Therefore, with respect to the 1997 PM2.5
standards, we believe that New Mexico's submission adequately
establishes that sources in that state are not significantly
contributing to violations of that NAAQS in any other state.
    To support a determination of no ``significant contribution'' for
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, New Mexico could not rely upon EPA's CAIR
analysis because western states including New Mexico were not included
in the area modeled for ozone. Instead, New Mexico provided an
additional modeling analysis of the impact of emissions from the state
on projected 8-hour ozone nonattainment in downwind states. We note
that modeling is not necessarily required to support this type of SIP
submission, but this approach is consistent with EPA's Guidance to
states for this SIP submission.
    The modeling relied upon by the state is described in greater
detail in its technical support document in the submission, and is
available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-
0993. We note that EPA assisted the state with this analysis, including
the development of the modeling demonstration. In order to develop a
model scenario that could evaluate New Mexico's impacts, the state and
EPA determined that it was appropriate to rely on data developed by the
Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP). Modeling was
conducted using a 2002 third quarter CENRAP modeling dataset that
included New Mexico in the modeling domain. While a more recent dataset
might be assumed to be more appropriate to support this action, a 2010
dataset was not available from CENRAP. However, we believe that the use
of the 2002 dataset is adequate to evaluate the degree of contribution
of New Mexico emissions sources to violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standards. Because the analysis is based on year 2002 emissions, we
believe it is a conservative estimate of potential transport impacts in
2010, as New Mexico's emissions have been decreasing since 2002 due to
various recent federal control programs (including On-Road and Nonroad
reductions). This trend is confirmed by available 2005 inventory. In
other words, if data from 2002 establish that there is no significant
contribution to violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in other
states, then New Mexico sources would have even lower impacts currently
and consequently no significant contribution.
    In the Guidance, we recommended a number of ways that states might
elect to evaluate whether or not there is significant contribution, and
we suggested that states might consider assessing the potential for
contribution using assumptions similar to those used by EPA in CAIR.
The state's analysis considered three factors comparable to those used
by EPA as screening criteria in determining significance for states in
CAIR: (a) The magnitude of the contribution, (b) the frequency of the
contribution, and (c) the relative amount of contribution. The
additional modeling yielded consistent results showing New Mexico
emissions do not contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment
in any of the areas analyzed. New Mexico's highest overall contribution
to total nonattainment for any nonattainment area at the time of the
modeling was for Dallas/Fort Worth. New Mexico's highest impact on the
Dallas/Fort Worth area was a daily average contribution of 0.4%, with a
contribution average of 0.4 ppb. By EPA's own metrics (as established
in CAIR and upheld by the court), these impacts are considered to be
small and infrequent and well below screening criteria established at
1% and 2 ppb, respectively. Moreover, not a single metric of the three
contribution factors was found to be above the significance threshold
established by EPA for any of the downwind counties. For more details
please see the document titled ``Modeling Data and Report for New
Mexico from EPA Regions 6 and 7'' that is included in the docket
materials for this action.
    At the time the modeling was performed, Denver's air quality was
meeting the standard. (The 2004-2006 8-Hour Ozone Design Value (DV) was
81 ppb). Therefore the state did not evaluate New Mexico's ozone
impacts on Denver. Denver had a very high ozone season in 2007 that
temporarily pushed the area into nonattainment. The preliminary 2007-
2009 DV (awaiting final data validation) is 82 ppb so the area appears
to now be back in attainment. The preliminary 2007-2009 DV is based
upon 4th High values of 90 ppb in 2007, 79 ppb in 2008, and 79 ppb in
2009 (preliminary). With the last two 4th Highs of 79 ppb, Denver would
have to monitor a 4th High value of 97 ppb in 2010 to go back into
nonattainment for the period 2008-2010. Denver has not had a 4th High
value of more than 92 ppb in the last 15 years, so it is unlikely that
Denver will be in nonattainment at the end of the 2010 ozone season for
the 84 ppb standard. Since based on preliminary 2007-2009 data, Denver
is attaining the standard, New Mexico's emissions should not be
considered as contributing to nonattainment in Denver.
    With respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, we believe that
New Mexico's submission adequately establishes that sources in that
state are not significantly contributing to violations of that NAAQS in
any other state. As noted previously, EPA will be acting on the other
elements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate rulemakings.

V. Final Action

    We are approving revisions to the New Mexico SIP which adequately
demonstrates that air pollutant emissions from sources within New

Mexico do not add significantly to nonattainment of the relevant NAAQAS
on any other state.
    Based on the information provided by NMED in the technical
demonstration, it has sufficiently been demonstrated that emissions
from New Mexico do not significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment. Thus, EPA concludes that the New Mexico SIP complies
with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 7, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 30, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart GG--New Mexico

0
2. The second table in Sec.  52.1620(e) entitled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New
Mexico SIP'' is amended by adding an entry to the end to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

            EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
       Name of SIP provision        Applicable geographic    submittal/      EPA approval date      Explanation
                                    or nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP--        New Mexico...........        09/17/07  04/08/10 [insert FR    ..............
 Interstate Transport.                                                      page number where
                                                                            the document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-7868 Filed 4-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, October 29, 2015 11:40 AM
To:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Will send ICR update list tomorrow - Friday 10/30/15

Hi David and Katie  -  We are almost finished with our work on addressing concerns brought forward about the testing planned for the coke oven ICR. I will send you late today or early tomorrow, the list of specific changes along with some supporting material. We did the best we could so I hope that this new plan is better for the industry. We made the following changes that you should appreciate:

 Combined testing for some HAP into one sampling method/train
 Reduced the number of tests that are required to be done simultaneously (now six groups of simultaneous test methods, with 1 to 3 tests in each group)
 Added alternate methods to be used on pushing machine that are more mobile than previous methods
 Eliminated all HAP tests at oven door (flow direction and opacity remain)
 Eliminated most of HAP tests during charging
 Added two options for quench tower testing at a reduced number of tests or facilities (the default is all facilities to all quench tower tests):
 One option is for only two by-product facilities to do all the quench tower tests;
 Second option is for each by-product facility to do one set of simultaneous tests at quench tower so that each test group is done at two facilities.
 Nonrecovery choices are to do an entire test series at one facility or split the test method groups between all three heat recovery facilities.

On this last point, it may take some significant coordination on your part (for by-product side) to implement the testing options, since taking advantage of these options will involve either facilities volunteering to be one of the two test facilities (doubtful, right?) or for the industry to coordinate the cost of the tests so that the two facilities doing the testing do not have to bear the cost of the entire test series. My reason for allowing a reduced number of facilities to do entire test series is that some facilities may already have capability to test one of their quench towers (e.g., stairs alongside with test ports in place), and also that if a stand-alone platform is to be built for testing the towers, it would make sense for all the testing to be done at these facilities. The option for all by-product facilities to do one group of tests may be easier to implement from a management perspective.

I also looked into the small dataset issue and unfortunately from your perspective I will be increasing the test runs by one run (total of seven) because the small dataset is defined to be six or lower test runs. I will send supporting information about this decision. Hopefully the reduced number of sampling trains will compensate for the increased number of runs. There will be a payoff at the end if we end up having to set any new standards, since the UPL will be more statistically sound.

If you want to talk after you receive the information, I am free from other meetings all afternoon Friday this week, and then all day (for now) Monday, Wednesday, and Friday next week.
_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

<< Iron&Steel-Sector-Coke-10-14-14-DLJ.ppt >>


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26721-26725]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11211]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9302-9]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to re-issue a permit authorizing the National
Science Foundation (NSF) to dispose of ice piers in ocean waters.
Permit re-issuance is necessary because the current permit has expired.
EPA does not propose changes to the content of the permit because ocean
disposal under the terms of the previous permit will continue to meet
the ocean disposal criteria.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed general permit will be
accepted until June 8, 2011. All comments must be received or
postmarked by midnight of June 8, 2011, or must be delivered by hand by
the close of business of that date to the address specified below.

ADDRESSES: This proposed permit is identified as Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2011-0306. Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
    Mail: Send an original and three copies of your comments and
enclosures (including references) to Water Docket, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822-IT, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0306.
    Hand delivery: EPA Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0306. Deliveries to the docket are
accepted only during their normal hours of operation: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For access to
docket materials, call: 202/566-2426, to schedule an appointment.
    E- mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-
0306. To ensure that EPA can properly respond to comments,

commenters should cite the paragraph(s) or sections in the proposed
permit to which each comment refers. Commenters should use a separate
paragraph for each issue discussed, and must submit any references
cited in their comments. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment. Electronic files should avoid any form of
encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Amson, Senior Marine
Scientist, Marine Pollution Control Branch, Oceans and Coastal
Protection Division (4504T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 202/566-
1276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 14, 2003, EPA issued a general
permit to the National Science Foundation (NSF) for ocean disposal of
man-made ice piers from its base at McMurdo Station in Antarctica. This
ocean dumping permit had a term of seven years. It remains in effect
under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), after its
February 18, 2010 expiration because NSF applied for re-issuance prior
to expiration. The purpose of today's proposed general permit is to re-
issue the 2003 permit for another seven-year period. The re-issued
permit will allow the NSF to ocean dispose the ice pier currently in
use at McMurdo Station, which is at the end of its service life.
    EPA proposes to re-issue the general permit under Sections 102(a)
and 104(c) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) to authorize the NSF to dispose of man-made ice piers in ocean
waters from McMurdo Station in Antarctica. The NSF is the entity of the
United States Government responsible for oversight of the United States
Antarctic Program. The NSF currently operates three major bases in
Antarctica: McMurdo Station on Ross Island, adjacent to McMurdo Sound;
Palmer Station, near the western terminus of the Antarctic Peninsula;
and Amundsen-Scott Station, at the geographic South Pole. McMurdo
Station is the largest of the three bases, and serves as the primary
logistics base for Antarctica. The great majority of personnel and
supplies destined for the three stations are unloaded at, and pass
through, McMurdo Station. To unload supplies, ships dock at an ice
pier. Man-made ice piers have a normal life span of three to five
years; the current ice pier, constructed in 1999, is over ten years
old, and is effectively at the end of its service life.
    When an ice pier is at the end of its effective life, all
transportable equipment, materials, and debris are removed; the pier is
cast loose from its moorings at the base. It is then towed out to
McMurdo Sound for disposal, where it disintegrates naturally. Re-
issuance of this general permit is necessary because the pier must be
towed out to sea for disposal at the end of its effective life. This
proposed 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. It also
describes required clean-up actions that the NSF must comply with
before the disposal of any ice pier can take place.

A. Background on McMurdo Station Ice Pier

    For background information on the McMurdo Station ice pier, the
reader is referred to the Federal Register notice of January 7, 2003
(68 FR 775-780), which is hereby incorporated by reference into this
notice. None of the stipulated facts of Section A (``Background on
McMurdo Station Ice Pier'') of the January 7, 2003, notice have changed
since its issuance on that date. The materials to be dumped (other than
the ice in the pier itself, which melts naturally) include materials
used in construction of the ice pier that cannot be removed prior to
disposal. As explained in the January 7, 2003, notice, construction of
an ice pier at McMurdo Station involves the following types and
approximate quantities of materials that are normally used: (a) 6,300 m
(21,000 ft) of one-inch steel cable; (b) 200 m (650 ft) of two-inch
steel pipe; (c) three or four chemically-untreated wooden utility poles
approximately one-foot in diameter, (d) several steel bollards; and (e)
4,200 cubic meters (5,000 cubic yards) of gravel, 2 cm or smaller in
size. When the pier has deteriorated to the point that it is no longer
capable of being used during the next operating season, the wooden
poles are cut off just above the surface of the ice, the steel bollards
are blasted loose and removed, the gravel is scraped off and stored for
use during the next operating season, all transportable equipment,
materials, and debris are removed, and the pier is separated from its
attachment at McMurdo Station at the end of the austral summer. It is
then towed by a ship into McMurdo Sound past the northern end of the
open channel in the ice, as close to the Ross Sea currents as possible.
The pier is cast loose in a direction to allow it to flow with the Ross
Sea currents, away from the open channel in the ice. The pier will then
float amidst the ice pack, where it mixes with the annual Antarctic sea
ice, and eventually disintegrates.

B. Statutory and Regulatory Background

1. Obligations Under United States Law

    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 proposed towing of ice piers by the NSF from
McMurdo Station for disposal at sea constitutes transportation of
material for the purpose of dumping in ocean waters; thus, it is
subject to the requirements of the MPRSA. Ocean disposal of the
materials incorporated into the ice pier will have a minimal adverse
environmental impact, and represents comparatively small quantities of
non-recoverable, non-ice matter.
    The NSF has completed a United States Antarctic Program (USAP)
Environmental Impact Statement (June 1980), a USAP Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (October 1991), and an Initial
Environmental Evaluation (May 1992). More recently, the NSF has 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, and are available for review at the Office of Polar
Programs of the NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. (For
further information, contact Polly Penhale, at 703/292-7420). 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 the five documents in developing
this proposed re-issuance of the general permit for the NSF.

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. It designates Antarctica as a natural reserve,
devoted to peace and science, and sets forth basic principles as well
as detailed mandatory rules that are applicable to human activities in
Antarctica. It prohibits all activities relating to mineral resources
on the continent, except for scientific research. It commits
signatories (known as Parties) to the Protocol to complete
environmental impact assessment procedures for proposed activities,
both governmental and private. Among other things, it requires Parties
to protect Antarctic flora and fauna, and it imposes strict limitations
on disposal of wastes on the continent, as well as discharges of
pollutants in Antarctic waters.
    Several sets of regulations exist that assist in the implementation
of the Protocol. These include: (a) NSF regulations regarding
environmental impact assessment of proposed Foundation 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).
    EPA's proposal to re-issue a general permit under the MPRSA does
not conflict with obligations under the Protocol and any implementing
legislation. EPA has coordinated with other responsible authorities, as
appropriate, in EPA's consideration of the issuance of a general permit
under the MPRSA.

C. Potential Effects of Ice Pier Disposal

    EPA's findings regarding (a) the fate of materials disposed in the
ocean, (b) the potential effects of ice pier disposal on organisms in
the polar marine environment, such as cetaceans (whales), pinnipeds
(seals), avian species, and endangered or threatened species, and (c)
environmental concerns associated with any operational discharges,
leaks, or spills that may have contaminated the surface of the ice pier
over the period of its existence are explained in Section C of the
January 7, 2003, notice, and have not changed, with one exception. That
exception is the updated spill prevention, control, and countermeasures
(SPCC) plan, which is described below.
    EPA notes that the NSF has a SPCC plan for all the stations and
bases under NSF jurisdiction in Antarctica. That plan, initially
formulated in 1994, has been updated by NSF, and is titled: SPCC Plan
for McMurdo Station, McMurdo Sound, Antarctica; the final document is
dated January 7, 2010. The SPCC plan includes a section addressing fuel
storage and transfer systems for the ice pier at McMurdo Station. EPA
adopts the findings from the January 7, 2010, notice in its proposed
permit today.

D. Discussion

    This new general permit that EPA proposes to re-issue to NSF and
its agents for the ocean dumping of man-made ice piers from NSF's
McMurdo Station, Antarctica, is subject to specific conditions. This
proposed general permit applies only to the ocean dumping of man-made
ice piers from the NSF base at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Agents of
the NSF are included in the permit because transportation for the
purpose of dumping an ice pier may be by vessels which are not under
the direct ownership or operational control of the NSF. Section 104(a)
of the MPRSA provides that permits shall be issued for a period not to
exceed seven years (33 U.S.C. 1414(a)); thus, the term of this proposed
permit is limited to seven years from the date of issuance.
    With the institution of new protective measures, such as longer
length hoses for unloading petroleum products from the annual supply
tanker, and new precautions taken in the handling and return to bases
outside of Antarctica of used and contaminated chemicals, solvents, and
hazardous materials, the chance of a spill or discharge of these
materials is low. There is considerable vehicular traffic on the ice
pier during the austral summer season, and the possibility of leaks or
discharges from these vehicles cannot be totally avoided. However, the
NSF has informed EPA that vehicles are parked on the pier for only
brief periods of time, ranging from a few minutes to less than an hour,
and that no vehicles are ever parked on the pier overnight.
Additionally, such small discharges are typically contained within the
temporary gravel cover, which is removed prior to ocean disposal.
    The proposed general permit establishes several specific conditions
that shall be met during the life of, and prior to the dumping of, the
ice pier. In addition, it requires the NSF to report by June 30 of
every year to the Director of the Oceans and Coastal Protection
Division, in EPA's Office of Water, on any spills, discharges, or
clean-up procedures on the ice pier, and on any dumping of ice piers
from McMurdo Station that are conducted under this general permit.
    This general permit requires that the NSF have an SPCC plan in
place for the ice pier. This plan must address (specified in Item 1 in
the permit):
    (a) The unloading of petroleum products from supply tankers to the
storage tanks at McMurdo Station;
    (b) The unloading of drummed chemicals, petroleum products, and
material from cargo freighters to supply depots at McMurdo Station; and
    (c) The loading of materials to freighters that are destined to be
returned to bases outside of Antarctica.
    The proposed permit requires that the SPCC plan include methods to
minimize the accidental release or discharge of any products to the ice
pier. In addition, the proposed general permit requires that the
following clean-up and reporting procedures must be followed by NSF in
the event of a spill or discharge on the pier (specified in Item 2 in
the permit):
    (a) All spills or discharges must be cleaned up within two hours of
the spill or discharge, or as soon as possible thereafter;
    (b) If a spill or discharge occurs, clean-up procedures must be
completed to a level below any visible evidence of the spill or
discharge;
    (c) As part of normal permit monitoring requirements, an official
record of the following information shall be kept by NSF (specified in
Item 3 in the permit):
    (1) The date and time of all spills or discharges, the location of
the spill or discharge, the approximate volume of the spill or
discharge, the clean-up procedures employed, and the results of those
procedures;
    (2) The number of wooden poles remaining in the pier at the time of
release from McMurdo Station, and their approximate length;
    (3) The approximate length of the steel cables remaining in the
pier at the time of its release;
    (4) Any other non-ice substances remaining on the pier at the time
of its release; and
    (5) The date of detachment of the pier from McMurdo Station, and
the geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) of the point of
final release of

the pier in McMurdo Sound or the Antarctic Sea.
    (d) A copy of this record shall be submitted to the Director of the
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, in the Office of Water, at EPA
Headquarters, by June 30 of every year as part of the annual reporting
requirements.
    The conditions specified in the proposed permit are intended to
protect the Antarctic environment against release of contaminants from
the McMurdo Station ice pier following its ocean dumping and subsequent
disintegration and melting.
    Furthermore, the NSF is directed, as a condition of this permit, to
utilize a methodology to track any ice piers released from McMurdo
Station for a period of one year from the date of release of the pier
(specified in Item 5(c) of the permit). Such methodologies may include
the use of satellite-tracked pingers placed on the ice pier, or any
other methodology that will allow data to be collected on the course,
speed, and location of the released ice pier. The results of these
tracking efforts shall be included in the reports that NSF is required
to submit to EPA. The period of one year was chosen by EPA for several
reasons. First, batteries for pinger-tracking operations beyond a
period of one year become considerably heavier and bulkier (and a
greater source of pollution to the marine environment when the ice pier
eventually disintegrates and melts); and second, one year's tracking
measurements should provide substantial evidence about the geographic
track of ice piers during the disintegration process. The NSF shall
submit tracking reports to EPA for all releases of ice piers from
McMurdo Station under this permit. If tracking results demonstrate that
all ice piers released have generally followed the same geographic path
and time of disintegration for the one year following release, EPA will
consider whether further tracking efforts and reports shall be required
from NSF in any future issuances of this permit.
    EPA received the tracking records from NSF of the last release of
an ice pier from McMurdo Station. The pier was released on February 14,
1999, and travelled in a generally northern direction into the Southern
Ocean; it was tracked until the pinger signal was lost on December 7,
1999. However, the ice pier only showed movement from the time of its
release until May 1, 1999; from that time until December 7th, there was
no further travel of the pier, and it is assumed it was frozen into the
Antarctic ice pack. The following table provides information on the
path of the ice pier from February 14 to May 1, 1999:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Date                       Latitude              Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 14, 1999            77.75[deg] S.                166.37[deg] E.
February 28, 1999            76.92[deg] S.                162.90[deg] E.
March 15, 1999               75.43[deg] S.                167.35[deg] E.
March 30, 1999               73.48[deg] S.                170.91[deg] E.
April 10, 1999               70.77[deg] S.                169.46[deg] E.
April 20, 1999               70.53[deg] S.                168.06[deg] E.
May 1, 1999                  70.38[deg] S.                167.22[deg] E.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using a great circle distance calculator, it can be determined
that, from the time of its release until the pier was frozen into the
ice pack, the ice pier travelled a total distance of 526 statute miles,
or 457 nautical miles.
    Considering that any contaminants remaining on the surface of the
pier are expected to be extremely small, and that the area over which
the disintegration and melting of the piers is immense (and probably
incalculable), the potential for damage to the environment from the
ocean dumping of ice piers from McMurdo Station, in Antarctica, is
minimal. In addition, the possibility of entanglement of any large
organisms in suspended loops of cable from the melting 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'', in the
January 7, 2003 notice.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. 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. Since this proposed general permit affects only a single
Federal agency's record-keeping and reporting requirements, it is not
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

B. Endangered Species Act

    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) imposes duties on Federal agencies
regarding endangered species of fish, wildlife, or plants and habitat
of such species that have been designated as critical. Section 7(a)(2)
of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 402) require
EPA to ensure, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior or
Commerce, that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by EPA in
the United States or upon the high seas, is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or
adversely affect their critical habitat.
    In compliance with Section 7 of the ESA, an endangered species list
for the affected area of ocean dumping of ice piers from the NSF
facility at McMurdo Station in Antarctica was requested by EPA and
received from both the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) of the
Department of the Interior, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. No endangered, threatened,
or candidate species are reported to potentially occur in the affected
area.
    EPA has discussed this matter with both the USF&WS and the NMFS
pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, and both agencies have agreed that
the ocean dumping of ice piers by the NSF or its agents from McMurdo
Station in Antarctica will have no effect on endangered or threatened
species. EPA will consider any comments offered by either the USF&WS or
the NMFS on this issue before promulgating a final general permit on
the ocean dumping of ice piers.

    Dated: May 3, 2011.
Paul Cough,
Director, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division.

Paul Cough,
Director, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division.
    EPA proposes to re-issue a general permit for the NSF as follows:

Disposal of Ice Piers From McMurdo Station, Antarctica

    The U.S. National Science Foundation 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 McMurdo Station, Antarctica, for
the purpose of ocean dumping, subject to the following conditions:
    (1) The NSF shall have a spill prevention, control, and
countermeasures (SPCC) plan in place, 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 these materials to the ice pier:
    (a) Petroleum products unloaded from supply tankers to storage
tanks at McMurdo Station;
    (b) Drummed chemicals, petroleum products, and all materials
unloaded from cargo freighters to supply depots at McMurdo Station; and
    (c) All materials loaded to freighters destined to be returned to
bases outside Antarctica.
    (2) If a spill or discharge occurs on an ice pier, clean-up
procedures must be completed by NSF or its contractors to a level below
any visible evidence of the spill or discharge. All spills or
discharges on an ice pier must be cleaned up within two hours of the
spill or discharge, unless circumstances prevent cleanup within that
time frame. In that event, the spill or discharge shall be cleaned up
as soon as possible thereafter.
    (3) As part of normal monitoring requirements, a record of the
following information shall be kept by NSF:
    (a) 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, and the results of those procedures;
    (b) The number of wooden poles remaining in the pier at the time of
its release from McMurdo Station, and their approximate length;
    (c) The approximate length of the steel cables remaining in the
pier at the time of its release from McMurdo Station;
    (d) Any other non-ice materials remaining on the pier at the time
of its release from McMurdo Station; and
    (e) The date of detachment of the pier from McMurdo Station, and
the geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) of the point of
final release of the pier in McMurdo Sound or the Antarctic Sea.
    (4) The non-embedded ends of all wooden utility poles or bollards
shall be cut off from the ice pier prior to disposal, and shall not be
disposed of in the ocean.
    (5) Prior to the ocean dumping of any ice piers, the NSF shall take
the following actions:
    (a) Other than the matter physically embedded in the ice pier (such
as the ends of wooden light poles frozen in the pier, and the
strengthening steel cables), all other objects (including the non-
embedded portions of the wooden poles used for lighting, power, or
telephone connections, and any removable cables, equipment debris, or
objects of anthropogenic origin), shall be removed from the ice pier
prior to dumping;
    (b) The gravel non-slip surface of the ice pier shall be removed to
the maximum extent possible, and shall be stored on the mainland for
subsequent use during the next operating season; and
    (c) A methodology to track any ice piers released from McMurdo
Station shall be established and utilized for a period of one year from
the date of release of the ice pier. The results of these tracking
efforts shall be included in the annual reports that the NSF is
required to submit to the Agency.
    (6) The NSF shall submit a report by June 30 of every year to the
Director, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, Office of Water, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460, on:
    (a) Any spills, discharges, or clean-up procedures on the ice pier
at McMurdo Station;
    (b) Any ocean dumping of ice piers from McMurdo Station; and
    (c) Any tracking efforts of ice piers released from McMurdo Station
under this general permit, for the year preceding the date of the
annual report.
    (7) For the purpose of this permit, the term ``ice pier(s)'' means
those man-made ice structures containing embedded steel cable, wooden
pole ends, 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 provisions of fuel, supplies, and
materiel for use by NSF activities in Antarctica, as well as for the
purpose of loading the previous year's accumulation of wastes, which
can be returned to the United States for recycling and disposal.
    (8) This permit shall be valid until (month)(day), 2018.

[FR Doc. 2011-11211 Filed 5-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60992-60993]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27706]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0326; FRL-9970-31-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Asphalt Processing and Roofing
Manufacture (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Asphalt Processing and
Roofing Manufacture (40 CFR part 60, subpart UU) (Renewal), EPA ICR
Number 0661.12, OMB Control Number. 2060-0002, to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through April 30, 2018. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register (82 FR 29552) on
June 29, 2017 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor and a person is not required
to respond to, any collection of information unless it displays a
currently-valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 25,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0326, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's

public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of facilities subject the NSPS for
Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacture are required to comply with
reporting and record keeping requirements for the General Provisions
(40 CFR part 60, subpart A), as well as for the specific requirements
at 40 CFR part 60, subpart UU. This includes submitting initial
notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and
maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These
reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with these standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Asphalt processing and roofing
manufacture plants.
    Respondent's Obligation To Respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart UU).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 144 (total).
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Total Estimated Burden: 34,100 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total Estimated Cost: $8,820,000 (per year), which includes
$5,240,000 for both annualized capital/startup and operation &
maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the
respondent labor hours as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. The
change in the burden and cost estimates occurred due to a change in
assumption. In accordance with the Terms of Clearance, this ICR assumes
all existing respondents will have to familiarize with the regulatory
requirements each year.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-27706 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P