DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 1 Debottlenecking, Aggregation and Project Netting Proposed Rule Qualitative Environmental Analysis I. OVERVIEW In May 2001, President Bush's National Energy Policy Development Group issued findings and key recommendations for a National Energy Policy. This document included numerous recommendations for action, including a recommendation that the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and other relevant agencies, review NSR regulations, including administrative interpretation and implementation. The recommendation requested that we issue a report to the President on the impact of the regulations on investment in new utility and refinery generation capacity, energy efficiency, and environmental protection.

In response, in June 2001, we issued a background paper giving an overview of the NSR program. We solicited public comments on the background paper and other information relevant to the NSR 90 day Review and Report to the President. During our review of the NSR program, we met with more than 100 groups, held four public meetings around the country, and received more than 130,000 written comments. Our Report to the President and our recommendations in response to the energy policy were issued on June 13, 2002.

We previously finalized responses to the energy policy recommendations on December 31, 2002 ( 67 FR 80186) and October 27, 2003 ( 68 FR 61248). We are now proposing regulations for " aggregation" and " debottlenecking" that are two remaining recommendations. We also are proposing a change to our past policy for project netting. This document analyzes the environmental impact of these proposals. As described below, we have determined that these proposed reforms for debottlenecking, aggregation, and project netting will provide greater regulatory certainty without sacrificing the current level of environmental protection and benefit derived from the NSR program. We believe that these changes will facilitate the safe, efficient, and reliable operation of affected facilities.

This document is not intended to be a formal Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA) or Economic Impact Analysis as those terms are used in Agency rulemaking. The proposed NSR DAPN rule does not require a formal RIA under Executive Order 12866 because the rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.

This analysis qualitatively examines whether changes in emissions are likely to occur as a result of these proposed rule provisions, but does not attempt to assign monetary values to any DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 1 For an explanation of major sources and the major NSR program, see 67 FR 80187 80188 2 such changes. This analysis also does not assign monetary values to the other types of benefits that we expect to occur as a result of this rule proposal, such as the reduction in administrative costs from the streamlining of the permit process and the decreased opportunity cost from delayed changes. Quantifying these non environmental benefits is outside the scope of this analysis.

II. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to provide information on the potential environmental effects of the NSR rules that EPA is proposing. This information is intended to provide additional information to the public as a basis for developing these rules. Indeed, the EPA's long and detailed records support the need for improving the NSR program, and, consistent with standard rulemaking processes, we are fully explaining the legal and policy basis for our actions. The proposed rules are fully justified as a legal and policy matter, and the soundness of EPA's qualitative basis for the rule does not depend on its ability to specifically quantify the environmental impact of the rule.

It is important to note that NSR is one of many programs created by the Clean Air Act to control or reduce emissions of air pollutants   particularly criteria pollutants   that are emitted from a wide variety of sources and have an adverse impact on human health and the environment. Other key programs include: the Title IV Acid Rain Program, Maximum Achievable Control Technology ( MACT) and other air toxics standards for control of Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAPs), New Source Performance Standards, the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR), the 22 state NOx " SIP Call," the Clean Air Visibility Rule ( CAVR) and the Regional Haze program, numerous mobile source programs, and the basic state and local air control programs to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS). Together, these programs have achieved, and will continue to achieve, tens of millions of tons per year of reductions which are completely unaffected by this proposed rule.

While the variety of programs mentioned above will continue to play the dominant role in reducing emissions of air pollution, the NSR program will continue to serve its intended role of assuring that new and significantly modified sources, when they increase their emissions, are wellcontrolled and permitted consistent with these overall air quality management programs. NSR is a broad program that covers new and modified sources across a wide range of source categories, and only a small portion of the sources covered by NSR   specifically, those major sources that undergo physical changes or changes in the method of operation   would be affected by these proposed regulatory revisions. 1 The NSR recommendations by the Energy Policy Task Force provide a targeted set of rule changes that focus on issues related to modifications to existing DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 2 See October 17, 2001 Memorandum from Karen Blanchard, US EPA, entitled " Benefits of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program"

3 U. S. EPA. " Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR Improvement Rules." November 21, 2002.

3 emissions units. EPA estimates that more than 80 percent of the NSR's benefits come from regulating new sources and new units at existing sources. 2 Having set forth the overall context of this analysis, there are fundamental limitations on the ability to do a full quantitative analysis of the environmental benefits of these proposed NSR reforms. In many EPA air rules, it is possible to do a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the health and environmental benefits of the regulation. These types of analyses rely upon the ability to estimate the effects that the regulation is expected to have on emissions over time. If the locations of the projected emissions changes are reasonably well known, models can be used to estimate air quality impacts, and this information can be used to estimate resulting health and environmental benefits. Thus, where one can reasonably quantify the projected emissions impacts of a particular rule, it is possible to estimate that rule's impact on public health. However, for reasons explained below, the EPA cannot quantify with specificity the emissions changes for a given pollutant or pollutants, if any, that could result from these proposed NSR rule changes, nor can we reliably determine the anticipated locations of any emissions changes. The following list illustrates the reasons why a more detailed provision by provision health analysis of the proposed NSR revisions is not possible:

° New vs. Modified sources. EPA's previously reported estimates of the magnitude of NSR benefits are calculated based on permitting data for all types of sources   new " greenfield" facilities, new units at existing facilities, and modifications to existing units. 3 However, these proposed NSR reforms apply primarily to modifications at existing units. As noted above, less than one fifth of the 1997 99 PSD benefits were from projects that involved modifications to existing units. However, the data available do not allow identification of modified units with sufficient specificity ( e. g., location, number, size of affected units) to develop any more detailed estimate of the possible benefits of these proposed rules.

° Difficult to link permits to environmental results. The proposed NSR rule changes relate primarily to the provisions governing whether a source must obtain an NSR permit. Although we believe that slightly fewer sources will undergo the full NSR permitting process as a result of these proposed rule changes, many of these sources will still be subject to alternate NSR provisions that the EPA finalized in 2002 ( e. g., the requirement to cap emissions). There is not a straightforward relationship between the changes in number of permits and the real changes in emissions resulting from the collection of these proposed reforms and the previously finalized DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 4 reforms. Also, the number of NSR permits is a poor indicator for the program's environmental benefit for several reasons:

° The emissions benefits that result from an NSR permit process vary widely. They may be quite large in cases such as a new greenfield source, but can be negligible ( or zero) in such cases as a modification to an already well controlled unit.

° The avoidance of a permitting process does not necessarily mean that emissions will increase. As discussed in our June 2002 report to the President, we concluded that the NSR program, in a variety of ways, has impeded or resulted in the cancellation of projects that would have maintained and improved the reliability, efficiency, or safety of existing energy capacity. The impediments exist for nonenergy sources as well. In short, we believe that our past policies, some of which are simply unclear, and have lead to conflicting interpretations, can have the effect of leading sources to artificially constrain production and have discouraged plant owners or operators from engaging in projects that are important to restoring, maintaining and improving plant safety, reliability, and efficiency.

° The type of benefit, if any, that results from a permit process depends on the type of source, the pollutants it will emit, and the air quality in the area where it locates. We cannot resolve these differences as they may relate to these proposed reforms, because it is not possible to model source behavior with sufficient specificity. This not only affects the ability to generate emissions estimates, but also severely hinders any ability to relate this to health benefits.

° The NSR program can lead to changes in source behavior that have environmental effects even for sources that do not get an NSR permit. Many of these effects may be such that elimination of a permit requirement actually yields an environmental benefit. Similarly, the rule removes barriers and creates incentives for more energy efficient or lower emitting processes, but does so without requiring a full NSR permit process. Permitting data tell us little about these effects, and it is very difficult to model source behavior to predict these effects some other way.

° The NSR program allows for emissions increases to occur, as long as they are well controlled. From an overall air quality standpoint, the facilities that go through NSR do not necessarily get emissions reductions needed to attain and maintain air quality standards, and may, in fact, increase emissions. Absent other air quality management programs, emissions avoided by NSR may simply appear elsewhere in the same airshed. Thus, a higher level of NSR permitting in an area does not necessarily indicate cleaner air. DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 4 For an explanation of the term " debottlenecked" emissions units, or " debottlenecking," see preamble section III. A. 2 of the proposed rule.

5 ° Detailed records not usually kept. These proposed reforms relate mainly to the NSR applicability process, which is an element of the NSR program for which there is only limited quantitative information available. While sources may do detailed applicability calculations to determine whether to apply for a permit, EPA does not have records of these calculations because ( 1) when a source determines not to apply for an NSR permit, EPA is usually not notified, and ( 2) when a source does apply for an NSR permit, it is not required to prove to EPA or the State permitting agency that it is subject.

Because of these and other difficulties, it is very difficult to model the likely changes in emissions or air quality that will occur as a result of these proposed provisions and, thus, to carry forward a health analysis of these changes. Clearly, the following assessment is qualitative, not quantitative. Nonetheless, the EPA understands that, where available, quantitative information can provide a useful supplement to these conclusions. For that reason, we are specifically requesting data through this rule proposal on the potential environmental impacts of these reforms. If we are presented with usable data to analyze, we will include that information in the analysis for the final rule.

III. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS A. Debottlenecking Our current regulations define a " major modification" as one in which a physical change or a change in the method of operation of a major stationary source results in a significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant (" Step 1" of NSR applicability) and a significant net emissions increase of that pollutant at the source (" Step 2"). The total increase in emissions that must be included in determining if there will be a post change significant emissions increase includes: ( 1) increases occurring at all new or modified units, and ( 2) any other increases at existing emissions units not being modified which could experience emissions increases related to the change. Thus, for a new project at an existing unit, the emission increase associated with the project is based on the " actual to projected actual" test and includes increases projected not only from the unit( s) undergoing the change but also from all other unit at the major stationary source that result from the change, such as units that are debottlenecked. 4 When an emissions increase is projected at a debottlenecked emissions unit as a result of a change occurring at another unit, the increase must be added to the increase projected at the changed unit, along with the sum of all contemporaneous emissions increases and decreases, to determine whether NSR applies to the source. Consequently, even when a project increases DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 5 While Step 1 of the NSR applicability analysis currently only counts emissions increases from units in calculating the emissions change that results from a project, we are proposing to also include emissions decreases in the Step 1 calculation ( see section III. C. of this document).

6 We have proposed rule language for only the legal causation approach, which is our preference of the three causation approaches.

6 emissions by less than a significant amount at the changed unit, the project would trigger major NSR if: ( 1) it debottlenecks another unit at the source; ( 2) the emissions increase ( of that same pollutant) is large enough at the debottlenecked unit that there is a significant emissions increase resulting from the project; 5 and ( 3) the contemporaneous emissions decreases and increases ( of that same pollutant) at the source equal or exceed the levels that define a significant net emissions increase. If NSR applies, then the source goes through permitting, the changed unit undergoes a Best Available Control Technology ( BACT) or Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate ( LAER) analysis, and the net emissions increase is accounted for in the air quality analysis.

The proposed provisions would apply the same actual to projected actual test to debottlenecked units as do the current rules, but only in cases where " causation" is established. Thus, when a project at an emissions unit debottlenecks an upstream or downstream unit, the proposed rules do not automatically assume that any emissions change at the unchanged unit resulted from the project unless the emissions increase could not have been accommodated prior to the change. This approach is consistent with how our " actual to projected actual" emissions test is structured, allowing a source to subtract from its post project emissions those emissions that the unit could have accommodated during the baseline period and that are unrelated to the change ( referred to as the " demand growth exclusion"). That is, the source can emit up to its current maximum capacity without triggering major NSR under the actual to projected actual emissions test, as long as the increase is unrelated to the physical or operational change. We are proposing that causation can take any ( and possibly a combination or all) of the following three forms: ° Legal ( i. e., previously authorized through a permit at the unchanged unit) 6; ° Physical ( i. e., the unit previously able to accommodate the increased productive capacity from demand at the other parts of the plant or off site of the plant); and ° Economic ( i. e., same as physical but considers how economically feasible it would have been to previously operate at higher levels).

We expect that any of the three causation principles presented above would better identify projects for which major NSR should apply than did our prior debottlenecking policies. Major NSR will continue to apply when projects cause an emissions increase greater than the significance levels. Thus, we believe the proposed approaches are sound interpretations of the statute and strike a better balance between Congress' desire to promote economic growth and the DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 7 need for environmental protection than does the current debottlenecking approach.

For this analysis, we examined the range of scenarios that could occur as a result of implementing the proposed debottlenecking provisions, and attempted to determine whether major NSR would be triggered for the changed unit under the current debottlenecking rules but would not be required under the proposed new approach. In cases where there is a potential difference in outcomes between the sets of rules, we further examine what, if any, emissions reductions could be achieved. There are three principal emissions unit scenarios, some of which have sub scenarios that require additional explanation. For simplicity, we base our conclusions on a legal causation test   our preferred option of the 3 causation approaches and the one that we believe is the easiest to implement. Also, we assume in each scenario that the debottlenecked unit's emissions are higher than historical emissions levels. Since those units are not physically or operationally changed by the project, to increase their operation or utilization would logically mean they would emit more than when bottlenecked.

Since we do not require unchanged units to install controls, we are only concerned with those projects that would apply controls at the changed unit under the old rules that would not apply the same level of control under the proposed debottlenecking provisions. Specifically, the affected types of projects are limited to those that involve changes to emissions units that themselves result in de minimis increases but would have triggered NSR under only the current rules ( and not the proposed rules) due to emissions increases at the debottlenecked unit( s) at the source. This is described in more detail below in the discussion of each scenario.

First scenario is where a plant is making a change at a nonemitting unit ( e. g., steam turbine) and, in doing so, it debottlenecks a unit upstream or downstream of it. For nonemitting units that undergo a change, since they have no emissions, we do not require application of BACT or LAER at the unit. Thus, for changes at nonemitting units, these proposed provisions do not change the BACT outcome.

The second scenario is where a well controlled unit ( e. g., has BACT or MACT controls) is changed and debottlenecks a unit upstream or downstream of it. This scenario has a few tiers of analysis, as explained below.

° For a project that causes a greater than significant emissions increase of a pollutant at the changed unit and debottlenecks a unit upstream or downstream of it, major NSR is triggered regardless of how the emissions increase at the debottlenecked unit is computed. Since BACT or LAER emissions controls would be required at the changed unit under both the current or proposed debottlenecking provisions, the proposed rules would provide that same environmental results as the current rules.

° For a project that causes a less than significant ( i. e., de minimis) emissions increase of a DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 8 pollutant at a changed unit and debottlenecks a unit upstream or downstream of it, but the debottlenecked unit emits a different pollutant, then there is also no difference in the control requirement   and, thus, in the environmental benefit   between the proposed and current rules. This is because our rules apply on a pollutant by pollutant specific basis; thus, BACT or LAER is only triggered at a changed emissions unit when the pollutant that has a significant net emissions increase is emitted by that unit. For example, it is common for recovery boilers at a pulp and paper mill to be initially constructed with additional capacity to handle plant expansion projects. Being oversized, the boilers are underutilized and, therefore, bottlenecked until the company expands its plant capacity. When the company does decide to expand   e. g., by installing a larger digester that will increase black liquor production   the recovery boiler is debottlenecked and will experience an emissions increase due to additional operation. However, the boilers emit NOx, SO2, PM, and CO, while the digester's blow tank emits a variety of volatile organic compounds ( VOC) and perhaps some total reduced sulfur ( TRS). Thus, the increased NOx and other emissions from the boiler would not count toward triggering the major NSR threshold at the changed unit, since those pollutants are not emitted by the changed unit.

° For a project that causes a de minimis emissions increase of a pollutant at a changed unit and debottlenecks a unit upstream or downstream of it, and the debottlenecked unit emits the same pollutant but does not have a practically enforceable permit, then there is no change in whether emissions controls would be required at the changed unit under the current or proposed debottlenecking provisions. This is because the proposed rules would require the same debottlenecking emissions test as the current rules ( i. e., actual to futureactual with presumed causation).

° For a project that causes a de minimis emissions increase of a pollutant at a changed unit and debottlenecks a unit upstream or downstream of it, and the debottlenecked unit emits the same pollutant but when applying the current debottlenecking rules ( i. e., actual tofuture actual with presumed causation) the collective emissions increase remains beneath the de minimis threshold, then there is no change in whether emissions controls would be required at the changed unit under the current or proposed debottlenecking provisions.

° For a project that causes a de minimis emissions increase of a pollutant at a changed unit and debottlenecks a unit upstream or downstream of it, and where the debottlenecked unit emits the same pollutant but its post change emissions do not exceed its permit, and the emissions from the unchanged units, when added to the de minimis increase at the changed unit, exceed the significance threshold for that pollutant when applying the current rules for debottlenecked units, the proposed rule changes would mean the difference between triggering major NSR requirements and, thus, requiring a BACT or LAER assessment at the changed emissions unit. We expect that, in most of these cases, if the changed unit is well controlled, then an BACT or LAER review would not result in DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 9 additional emissions reductions since, at least for BACT, the cost effectiveness of applying additional controls on an already well controlled process unit would likely be unreasonably high ( i. e., the incremental amount of emissions that could be reduced by applying additional controls is unreasonable considering the capital and operating cost of the new control equipment). Likewise, if the source is in a nonattainment area and has already undergone a recent LAER review, it is very unlikely that controls would have advanced so much in a short period of time that a control review would result in application of additional controls. Thus, we expect that additional controls would not be required for sources in attainment or nonattainment areas. For example, at a surface coatings plant, where a MACT limit or a recent BACT analysis could have resulted in the plant capturing and controlling emissions from their spray booths and dryers at greater than 95 percent with an oxidizer. It is unlikely that a new BACT or LAER analysis would require that the plant achieve greater control than their current limit.

The third scenario is where an uncontrolled, or a poorly controlled, emissions unit is changed and debottlenecks a unit upstream or downstream of it. All of the variants of this scenario have the same outcomes as the variants of the previous well controlled unit scenario, except for the last one. It is conceivable that if an uncontrolled emissions unit experiences a physical change and has a de minimis emissions increase of a pollutant and the debottlenecked unit has a " within its permitted" emissions increase of that same pollutant, and their collective emissions exceed the significance threshold for that pollutant, then a BACT or LAER assessment could result in control review under the current rules but not under the proposed rules. However, we strongly expect that many of these changes to poorly controlled emissions equipment will actually cause emissions to decrease, rather than increase, at the uncontrolled unit. This is because many of the poorly controlled units are older and are being replaced or modified with cleaner technology, even without application of controls. Thus, there are very few units that replace older equipment with new modern equipment that would actually see a significant emissions increase for the project, unless the debottlenecked unit experiences a very large emissions increase   i. e., enough to outweigh the decrease at the changed unit plus the significance level for that pollutant. Also, it is important to note that even in the absence of major NSR for this limited set of circumstances, minor NSR requirements may require controls on even de minimis emissions increases. And, finally, this scenario likely represents a very small number of projects, if any, that are triggering NSR under the current debottlenecking policy. This is because the source will examine a number of options on how to proceed, will weigh the benefits of additional production against the cost of state of the art controls, and likely choose to avoid triggering major NSR   e. g., by accepting permit limits, cancelling the project, etc.

As described above, we recognize that the proposed emissions test for debottlenecked units, when final, could theoretically result in fewer projects undergoing major NSR than would the current rules. There are a number of reasons why, in practice, this rule will not impact many projects at all, and why avoiding permit review will not necessarily correlate to a foregone DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 7 See 40 CFR 51.165( a)( 3).

10 opportunity to put on emission controls. We have described a few of these reasons in the discussion above, and offer the following additional points that we expect will further minimize, and potentially eliminate, any environmental effect of the proposed debottlenecking provisions.

° The universe of emissions units that are now potentially subject to the debottlenecking provisions of our rules has been reduced as a result of recently finalized NSR rule provisions, such as " Plantwide Applicability Limitations."

° The current debottlenecking emissions methodology provides an inherent incentive to keep actual emissions high, since the baseline for determining emissions increases at modified units is based on a source's actual emissions. Through removing incentives to keep pollution high, and through removing barriers to emissions reducing changes, EPA believes there could be environmental benefits that result from switching to the proposed debottlenecking emissions test. However, it is difficult to model the behavior of individual sources in sufficient detail to quantify these benefits, either locally or nationally.

° By implementing this proposed debottlenecking approach, facilities will no longer be discouraged from undertaking more energy efficient projects and lower emitting processes than in the past, which will result in decreased emissions from the changed emissions units per unit of production while maintaining the debottlenecked unit within its permitted allowable emissions.

In the rare case that a project at a source in a nonattainment area avoids triggering major NSR under the proposed new debottlenecking rules, but its emissions increase would have triggered major NSR under the current rules, we acknowledge that the project could cause an emissions increase as a result of our emissions offset regulations. 7 However, CAA § 173( a)( 1)( A) requires States to monitor new sources and minor source growth through a nonattainment area plan that achieves reasonable further progress toward attaining the NAAQS based on allowable emissions; thus, States must account for these new emissions in their inventory and attainment demonstrations, even when major NSR is not triggered. Similarly, the CAA § 163 requires States to address overall emissions in attainment areas by monitoring and tracking PSD increment consumption based on allowable emissions of specified pollutants. Thus, the CAA authorizes States to address and mitigate allowable emissions increases through SIP planning, and we expect that States will use this mechanism to properly mitigate increased emissions caused by debottlenecking at sources. We are asking for comment on how our proposed provisions will affect air quality in light of our emissions offset requirements and reconciliation of attainment demonstrations. DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 11 For these reasons, we expect the environmental impact of requiring our proposed emissions test for debottlenecked units will be negligible. As discussed in the scenarios above, we expect the vast majority of sources will be unaffected by this change.

B. Aggregation The term " aggregation" is relevant to Step 1 of the NSR applicability test, and describes the process of grouping together multiple projects ( i. e., physical changes or changes in the method of operation) and summing their emissions changes for purposes of determining whether a significant emissions increase occurs at the major stationary source. Specifically, when undertaking multiple projects, the source must consider whether NSR applicability should be determined collectively or whether the emissions from each of the projects should separately undergo a Step 1 analysis.

We are proposing to add our aggregation policy to our NSR regulations to achieve greater national consistency and provide further clarity in aggregation determinations. This will codify the provisions of our existing policy and provides specific circumstances where emissions should be aggregated for purposes of NSR applicability. EPA proposes to revise the regulations to state that a source must aggregate emissions from projects that are technically or economically dependent. This will reduce the uncertainty that industry and regulators have faced in the past with the lack of documentation of our aggregation policy.

The impact of this rule proposal is environmentally neutral because we are simply proposing to codify our existing aggregation policy.

C. Project Netting This proposal proposes to revise and change the current rules with respect to projects that involve both increases and decreases in emissions. We are concerned with inconsistent implementation of our past policy that considers only emissions increases in Step 1 of the NSR applicability test. We are proposing that all emissions changes ( i. e., both increases and decreases) that occur within the scope of a project be counted in Step 1 of the NSR applicability test. This proposed change would streamline permitting by moving the consideration of creditable decreases associated with the project from Step 2 of the NSR test ( i. e., the contemporaneous netting step) to Step 1.

As with our debottlenecking analysis, we expect the emission consequences of this proposed action are best analyzed by reviewing the range of scenarios. There are four scenarios to consider. In each case, a project occurs at a major stationary source and results in an emissions increase of 60 tons per year ( tpy) of NOx at one emissions unit and a decrease of 30 tpy NOx at DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 8 Significance level for NOx is 40 tpy.

12 another emissions unit at the source. 8 At issue is whether, for any of the scenarios, major NSR ( and, thus, a control technology review) would be triggered under the current rules that do not allow for project netting, but would not be triggered under the proposed rule provisions. Each of these scenarios is shown in Table 1 for illustrative purposes and further described below.

Scenario Rule Version projected increase ( tpy) projected decrease ( tpy) contemp. increase ( tpy) contemp. decrease ( tpy) Step 1 ( tpy) Step 2 ( tpy) Major NSR?

1 ( No other increases or decreases) old rules 60 30 60 30 No proposed rules 60 30 30 N/ A No 2 ( Other contemp. decreases only) old rules 60 30 + 5 60 25 No proposed rules 60 30 5 30 N/ A No 3 ( Other contemp. decreases & increases) old rules 60 15 30 + 5 60 40 Yes proposed rules 60 30 15 5 30 N/ A No 4 ( Other contemp. increases only) old rules 60 15 30 60 45 Yes proposed rules 60 30 15 30 N/ A No Table 1. Project Netting Scenarios Under the first scenario, the source has an emissions increase ( 60 tpy) and decrease ( 30 tpy) associated with the project, and has no other increases or decreases that have occurred within a contemporaneous period ( i. e., 5 years). As the table shows, allowing for project netting in this scenario does not change the outcome of the overall NSR applicability test. It simply means that the decreases are counted in Step 1 rather than Step 2. Since there are no other increases or decreases to consider, the outcome of NSR applicability is the same under either rule. DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 13 Under the second scenario, considering the same project, the source has contemporaneous decreases, but not increases. As in the first scenario, counting the decrease in the Step 1 rather than Step 2 makes no difference in the outcome of NSR applicability, since there are only other decreases ( in this case, 5 tpy).

Under the third scenario, considering the same project, the source has contemporaneous decreases and increases. In this case, NSR applicability depends on whether a source would have netted out under the current rules. If netting under the current rules ( i. e., only contemporaneous netting) would allow the source to avoid major NSR, then there is no difference in whether project netting is allowed. However, if the source applying netting under the current rules would have still triggered major NSR, then it is theoretically possible that the new provisions for project netting would allow the source to avoid major NSR. For example, a source expects a project to increase emissions by 60 tpy at an emissions unit and decrease emissions by 30 tpy at another unit at the source. The source has contemporaneous increases and decreases totaling 15 tpy and a decrease of 5 tpy. Under the current rules, project netting is not allowed, so a Step 1 analysis would reveal a 60 tpy emissions increase, and the Step 2 analysis would equal 40 tpy ( i. e., 60  30 + 15  5), which is a significant net emissions increase, thereby triggering major NSR. Under the proposed rule provisions, in which project netting would be allowed, the Step 1 analysis reveals a 30 tpy increase ( i. e., 60  30), which is not a significant emissions increase and therefore major NSR is not triggered ( i. e., no requirement to proceed to Step 2). However, it should be noted that if the contemporaneous decrease is 6 tpy instead of 5 tpy, then there is no net effect of the proposed project netting rules for this scenario. Thus, the outcome is highly dependent on the quantity of the contemporaneous decrease. But even in cases where there is a different projected outcome between the proposed and current rules, rather than automatically assuming that NSR will be triggered, it is important review the types of project and anticipate whether the owner would still proceed in doing the project in light of major NSR being triggered. For example, if the source is removing older, deteriorated equipment and replacing it with a new highly efficient unit that pollutes less even without control, then there is a potential emissions benefit under proposed rule.

Under the fourth scenario, considering the same project, the source has contemporaneous increases only. This scenario mirrors closely the third scenario   i. e., there may be cases, depending on the amount of contemporaneous emission increase and the project decrease, that NSR could be triggered under the current rules and not triggered under the proposed rules. However, if this happens, it is likely that a source could weigh the benefits of the project and may opt to avoid NSR by either taking a permit limit or cancelling the project. In cases where these NSR triggered projects would cause a net environmental benefit, this would be an unfortunate outcome of not proceeded with finalizing the proposed rules. And, for well controlled units, it is likely that an additional BACT or LAER review would result in no added control.

We do not have enough information to determine whether, or how much of, an emissions DRAFT: Deliberative and Privileged; do not cite, quote, or distribute July 10, 2006 14 increase could result from allowing for project netting in Step 1 of the NSR applicability test. For the reasons cited in this section, many projects will be unaffected by this change. However, in cases where allowing project netting could theoretically allow a change to avoid major NSR that otherwise could not, it is possible, and perhaps very likely, that owner or operator of the source would choose to forego the project simply to avoid the expense and time necessary with major NSR. Also, it should be noted that under no scenario would the proposed project netting rule change cause a new increase to the environment that exceeds the significant emissions threshold   i. e., the triggering of major NSR would be entirely a result of past changes at the source that previously avoided major NSR.

For these reasons, we expect the environmental impact of requiring project netting will be trivial. As discussed in the scenarios above, we expect the many sources will be unaffected by this change, and of those that are affected, the permit review will not result in further emission reductions.

IV. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS This document, while acknowledging limitations on EPA's current ability to quantify the environmental impact of these proposed regulations, nonetheless addresses qualitatively the expected changes. We expect that these three reforms will have little, if any, environmental impact compared to the current program. Through our rule proposal, we will seek comment and data to determine if a more refined analysis of the rule impacts can and should be done. We will update this environmental analysis to incorporate any new information and our final conclusions upon finalizing the rule.


From:        Richard S Vickery<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To:        Bill Neuffer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc:        John A Dege<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date:        01/17/2012 02:24 PM
Subject:        DuPont Nitric Acid Plant NOx Data - Beaumont

Bill,

Attached is data concerning NOx emissions from the DuPont Beaumont nitric
acid plant. It is a small, single-pressure plant with NSCR control.

Please note that the CEM NOx data for this plant, and that submitted
yesterday for Pascagoula, contain data associated with periodic CEM QA/QC
activities such as calibrations.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

Regards,
Rick

(See attached file: Beaumont NOx.xls)(See attached file: DuPont Beaumont
Data Sheet.doc)

==========================================
Richard S. Vickery, P.E.
Air Quality Consultant
DuPont Engineering Research and Technology (DuET)
DuPont Building - D12036-1
1007 Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19898
(302)774-9829
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be Privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by
return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless explicitly
and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended", this e-mail does
not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance
of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to the
use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for
transfers of data to third parties.

Francais Deutsch Italiano  Espanol  Portugues  Japanese  Chinese  Korean

          http://www.DuPont.com/corp/email_disclaimer.html


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65118-65120]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20485]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1212; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00423-E;
Amendment 39-22538; AD 2023-17-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG (RRD) Model RB211 Trent 768-60,
772-60, and 772B-60 engines. This AD was prompted by reports of cracks
on affected intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC) rotor shaft balance
lands. This AD requires repetitive on-wing or in-shop borescope
inspections (BSIs) of the affected IPC rotor shaft balance land for
cracks and replacement of any IPC rotor shaft if necessary and
prohibits the installation of an affected IPC rotor shaft on any
engine, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, which is incorporated by reference (IBR). The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 26, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 26,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No.FAA-2023-1212; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA service information identified in this final
rule, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
phone: +49 221 8999 000; email: [email protected]; website:
easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1212.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sungmo Cho, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-
7241; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all RRD Model RB211
Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 engines. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on June 14, 2023 (88 FR 38759). The NPRM was prompted
by AD 2022-0055, dated March 23, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0055) (also
referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states that
cracking on the IPC rotor shaft balance land has been historically
observed on RRD Model Trent 700 engines. To address this unsafe
condition, Rolls-Royce plc (RR) originally developed Modification 72-
AG402, which introduced a revised balancing method that removed the
original balancing weights from the IPC rotor shaft balance land and
published RR Service Bulletin (SB) RB.211-72-

AG402 to provide instructions for an in-service modification. In
addition, RR published Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-
72-AG085, Revision 3, dated August 27, 2021, to provide instructions
for an in-shop eddy current inspection (ECI) of the IPC rotor shaft
balance land. Consequently, EASA issued EASA AD 2018-0049R2, dated
September 13, 2021 (EASA AD 2018-0049R2).
    Since EASA issued EASA AD 2018-0049R2, RR determined that some RRD
Model Trent 700 engines (post-RR SB RB.211-72-AG402) were not inspected
in accordance with RR NMSB RB.211-72-AG085 during engine refurbishment
due to the policy applied previously from RR NMSB RB.211-72-AG085,
Revision 2. RR identified the affected batch of IPC rotor shaft balance
lands and published RR NMSB RB.211-72-AK706, Initial Issue, dated
November 24, 2021, which describes procedures to perform a BSI of the
IPC rotor shaft balance land until the in-shop ECI is accomplished in
accordance with RR NMSB RB.211-72-AG085. To address this, EASA issued
the MCAI.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require accomplishing the actions
specified in the MCAI described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1212.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and
determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is
adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0055, which specifies procedures for
performing repetitive on-wing or in-shop BSIs of the IPC rotor shaft
balance land and, if any discrepancies are detected, accomplishing the
applicable corrective actions or replacing the IPC rotor shaft. The
MCAI also specifies prohibiting the installation of an affected IPC
rotor shaft on any engine and that accomplishing an in-shop ECI of the
IPC rotor shaft balance land or replacing the IPC rotor shaft
constitutes as terminating action for the repetitive BSIs.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    EASA AD 2022-0055 applies to RRD Model RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60,
772B-60, and 772C-60 engines. This AD does not apply to RRD Model RB211
Trent 772C-60 engines, as this model engine does not have an FAA type
certificate.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 62 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSI of IPC rotor shaft balance land.  4.50 work-hours x $85                $0          $382.50          $23,715
                                       per hour = $382.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace IPC rotor shaft......................  50 work-hours x $85 per hour =       $2,120,000       $2,124,250
                                                $4,250.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2023-17-12 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG Engines: Amendment
39-22538; Docket No. FAA-2023-1212; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-
00423-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 26, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd. & Co. KG Model
RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, and 772B-60 engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the intermediate-
pressure compressor (IPC) rotor shaft balance land. The FAA is
issuing this AD to detect cracks on the IPC rotor shaft balance
land. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to IPC
rotor shaft failure and consequent uncontained high-energy debris,
possibly resulting in damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD:
Perform all required actions within the compliance times specified
in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD
2022-0055, dated March 23, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0055).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0055

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0055 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD
2022-0055.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0055 specifies to use certain tooling, equivalent tooling may be
used.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0055
specifies to notify the manufacturer or supply pictures to the
manufacturer of any cracks, dents, or nicks, this AD does not
include that requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)
of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sungmo Cho, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0055,
dated March 23, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0055, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]; website: easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 18, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-20485 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Air and Radiation/ Office of Transportation and Air Quality 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060 0048 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Emission Defect Information Reports and Voluntary Emission Recall Reports ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 0282.13 9. Keywords: engines, emissions, defects, reports, recall, on highway heavy duty engines, non road, compression ignition, spark ignition, marine, locomotives 10. Abstract: Engine manufacturers are required to submit Defect Information Reports ( DIRs) if emission related defects are found on engines of the same model year that may cause the engines' emissions to exceed the standards. EPA uses these reports to target potentially nonconforming classes of engines for future testing, to monitor compliance with applicable regulations and to order a recall, if necessary. Manufacturers can also initiate a recall voluntarily by submitting a Voluntary Emission Recall Report ( VERR). VERRs and VERR updates allow EPA to determine whether the manufacturer conducting the recall is acting in accordance with the CAA and to examine and monitor the effectiveness of the recall campaign.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 17 b. Total annual responses 30 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 80 % c. Total hours requested 4,417 d. Current OMB inventory 4,925 e. Difference  508 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment  508 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 1 c. Total annualized cost requested 1 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 1 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 1 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. X Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Nydia Y. Reyes Morales Phone: 202.343.9264 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Merrylin Zaw Mon, Director Certification and Compliance Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality Date January 27, 2003 Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19988-19990]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07745]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0074]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; BWRC Spring Classic, Parker, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone within
the Lake Moovalya region of the navigable waters of the Colorado River
in Parker, Arizona for the Blue Water Resort and Casino Spring Classic.
This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of
the participants, crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other
vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited
from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. on April 5, 2013, until 6
p.m. on April 7, 2013. It will be enforced from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on
April 5, 6, and 7, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0074]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Deborah Metzger, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because delay would be impracticable.
Immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels,
spectators, participants, and others in the vicinity of the marine
event on the dates and times this rule will be in effect.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the same reasons mentioned above, the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying
the effective date would be contrary to the public interest and
impracticable, since immediate action is needed to ensure the public's
safety.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish safety zones
(33 U.S.C 1221 et seq.).
    The Southern California Speedboat Club is sponsoring the Blue Water
Resort and Casino Spring Classic, which is held on the Lake Moovalya
region of the Colorado River in Parker, Arizona. This temporary safety
zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew,
spectators, sponsor vessels, and other vessels and users of the
waterway. This event involves powerboats racing along a circular
course. The size of the boats varies from 10 to 21 feet in length.
Approximately 85 boats will be participating in this event. The sponsor
will provide two patrol boats and two rescue boats to act as river
closure boats that help facilitate the event and ensure public safety.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 5, 2013, through April 7, 2013. This
safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crews,
spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway.
Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring with this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. This temporary
safety zone includes the waters of the Colorado River between Headgate
Dam and 0.5 miles north of the Blue Water Marina in Parker, Arizona.
Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a Local
Notice to Mariners (LNM).

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic
impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation
is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size and location of
the safety zone. Commercial vessels will not be hindered by the safety
zone. Recreational vessels may transit through the established safety
zone if authorized to do so by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Colorado River from
6

a.m. to 6 p.m. on April 5, 2013, through April 7, 2013.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the river,
traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission
of the designated representative. Before the effective period, the
Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-552 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-552  Safety zone; BWRC Spring Classic, Parker, AZ.

    (a) Location. This temporary safety zone includes the waters of the
Colorado River between Headgate Dam and 0.5 miles north of the Blue
Water Marina in Parker, Arizona.
    (b) Enforcement Periods. This section will be in effect from 6 a.m.
on April 5, 2013 to 6 p.m. on April 7, 2013. It will be enforced from 6
a.m. to 6 p.m. each day (April 5, 6 and 7, 2013). Before the effective
period, the Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).
If the event concludes prior to the scheduled termination time, the
Captain of the Port will cease

enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Patrol Commander. The
Patrol Commander may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 23.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: March 20, 2013.
S.M. Mahoney,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2013-07745 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 39243-39244]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-1634-000]

California Independent System; Operator Corporation; Notice of
Filing

June 30, 2010.
    Take notice that on June 29, 2010, the California Independent
System Operator Corporation (CAISO) and the City of Riverside,
California (Riverside) filed a Joint Petition For Limited Waiver Of
Tariff Provisions And Request For Shortened Comment Period And
Expedited Commission Order (tariff waiver) to allow CAISO to correct an
inadvertent data entry error that resulted in an erroneous wheeling
access charge to Riverside in the amount of $30 million dollars. The
tariff waiver would exempt Riverside from the obligation of paying the
erroneous amount of $30 million due on July 1, 2010, exempt Riverside
from the obligation to post Financial Security to secure this amount,
and also exempt CAISO from the obligation to pay this amount to
Southern California Edison Company.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed

docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 10 a.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 1, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16556 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P