[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19158-19164]
[FR Doc No: E9-9639]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 127

[Docket No. USCG-2007-27022]
RIN 1625-AB13

Revision of LNG and LHG Waterfront Facility General Requirements

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the requirements for
waterfront facilities handling liquefied natural gas (LNG) and
liquefied hazardous gas (LHG). The proposed revisions would bring the
regulations up to date with existing industry practices and current
Coast Guard policy implemented due to increased emphasis on security
since the events of September 11, 2001. These revisions would harmonize
the Coast Guard's regulations for LNG with those established by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency responsible for
permitting onshore and near-shore LNG terminals. This proposed
rulemaking would not affect LNG deepwater ports.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before June 29, 2009
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date. Comments sent to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information
must reach OMB on or before June 29, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2007-27022 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these methods. For
instructions on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation and
Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below.
    Collection of Information Comments: If you have comments on the
collection of information discussed in section V.D. of this NPRM, you
must also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget. To ensure that your
comments to OIRA are received on time, the preferred methods are by e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(include the docket number and
``Attention: Desk Officer for Coast Guard, DHS'' in the subject line of
the e-mail) or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. An alternate, though slower, method
is by U.S. mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call CDR Patrick Clark, CG-5222, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-
372-1410. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to
the docket, call Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Public Meetings
II. Abbreviations
III. Background and Purpose
    A. Discussion of FERC Regulations in Regard to LNG
IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule
V. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Small Entities
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Collection of Information
    E. Federalism
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. Taking of Private Property
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Indian Tribal Governments
    K. Energy Effects
    L. Technical Standards
    M. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2007-27022), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2007-27022'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.

    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert (USCG-2007-27022) in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. If you do not have
access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting 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. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

C. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

D. Public Meetings

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But, you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
a public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a notice in the Federal Register.

II. Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FR Federal Register
LHG Liquefied hazardous gas
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LOI Letter of Intent
LOR Letter of Recommendation
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
NVIC Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec.  Section symbol
U.S.C. United States Code
WSA Waterway Suitability Assessment

III. Background and Purpose

    Over the last few years, there has been a substantial increase in
the worldwide production and transportation of liquefied natural gas
(LNG). Currently, the United States consumes about 25 percent of the
world's annual natural gas production. Over the next 20 years, U.S.
natural gas consumption is projected to increase by 40 percent, and our
domestic gas production is not expected to meet this need. Therefore,
this likely shortfall may be resolved by increasing marine LNG imports.
Currently, there are eight waterfront LNG facilities in the United
States: seven are import facilities, and one is an export facility. To
meet rising demand, the energy industry has submitted dozens of
proposals to build LNG import terminals along our coasts, and an
unspecified number of proposals are in the early planning stages.
    We have not seen, and do not expect, a similar increase in the
production and transportation of other forms of liquefied hazardous gas
(LHG). Although LNG and LHG facilities and the cargoes they handle are
different in nature, we believe the vessels that transport these
cargoes pose similar risks to the waterway environment and the area
surrounding the facility when transfer operations are underway.
    Safety and security of our ports and waterways have become
paramount concerns since the events of September 11, 2001. Currently,
the owner or operator intending to construct, modify, or reactivate an
LNG or LHG facility must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the Coast
Guard. Information obtained in the LOI enables the Coast Guard to
provide specific recommendations, in a Letter of Recommendation (LOR),
to the agencies having jurisdiction. The LOR serves as the Coast
Guard's official recommendation to the jurisdictional agency as to the
suitability of the waterway for the proposed facility.
    In the case of LNG facilities regulated by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), the LOI has been augmented by a Waterway
Suitability Assessment (WSA). The WSA is a risk-based assessment
process designed to document and address all safety and security
concerns related to the movement of LNG in U.S. ports and waterways. As
discussed below, FERC regulations have required since 2005 that
prospective applicants for FERC authorization to site, construct and
operate LNG terminals submit WSAs to the Coast Guard; guidance on
submission of WSAs is provided in Navigation and Vessel Inspection
Circular (NVIC) 05-08, available online at http://uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/2000s.asp.
    The proposed rule would establish the WSA requirement in Coast
Guard regulations, better aligning the regulations of the Coast Guard
and FERC with regard to LNG. Although FERC generally does not regulate
LHG facilities, this proposed rule would establish the WSA requirement
for both LNG and LHG facilities because of the similarities between
these cargoes.

A. Discussion of FERC Regulations in Regard to LNG

    FERC regulates LNG import facilities located onshore or in state
waters, but generally does not regulate facilities receiving marine
deliveries of LHG. This section provides background information
specific to FERC-regulated LNG facilities.
    On October 18, 2005, FERC published a final rule in the Federal
Register (70 FR 60426) implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and
creating procedures for the review of LNG terminals and other natural
gas facilities. The FERC final rule amended 18 CFR parts 153 and 157 by
requiring LNG and other natural gas facility owners and operators
(referred collectively herein as ``LNG owners and operators'') to
submit WSAs to the U.S. Coast Guard as part of the FERC pre-filing
process. Although the WSA currently is required by FERC regulations,
not Coast Guard regulations, the Coast Guard considers the WSA in
developing its LOR.
    Prospective applicants seeking FERC's authorization to site,
construct, and operate new LNG facilities, and some prospective
applicants seeking authority to make modifications to an existing or
approved LNG terminal, are required by FERC to make an initial filing
to FERC and, concurrently, submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) and a
Preliminary WSA to the Coast Guard. After the submission of the initial
filing, the Director of FERC's Office of Energy Projects (Director)
determines whether the applicant may begin the pre-filing process. If
the prospective applicant meets the requirements to begin the pre-
filing process, the Director will issue a notice that begins the pre-
filing process.
    During the pre-filing process, the prospective applicant must
satisfy several requirements, including the requirement in 18 CFR
157.21(f) that a prospective applicant ``[c]ertify that a Follow-on WSA
will be submitted to the U.S. Coast Guard no later than the filing of
an application with the Commission

(for LNG terminal facilities and modifications thereto, if
appropriate). The applicant must certify that the U.S. Coast Guard has
indicated that a Follow-on WSA is not required, if appropriate.''
    The prospective applicant must wait at least 180 days after the
commencement of the FERC pre-filing process in order to start the FERC
filing process. Thus, the FERC regulations result in the LOI being
submitted at least 180 days before the applicant files its application
for authorization to construct the facility with FERC, even though the
existing Coast Guard regulations for new and modified facilities
require the LOI be submitted at least 60 days before construction
begins.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would align Coast Guard regulations for LNG in
33 CFR part 127 with the existing FERC requirements in 18 CFR parts 153
and 157. Due to the similarities between LNG and LHG, and between LNG
and LHG regulations throughout part 127, this rulemaking would maintain
the consistent application by the Coast Guard of these regulations for
both LNG and LHG.
    The Coast Guard proposes amending the LOI submission requirements
in Sec.  127.007 to provide more time for review and, in the case of
LNG, to ensure consistency with the requirements established by FERC.
Current Coast Guard regulations require an owner or operator seeking to
construct or modify an LNG or LHG facility to submit the LOI to the
Coast Guard at least 60 days before construction begins. For
reactivation of inactive facilities under current regulations, the LOI
is required at least 60 days before transferring LNG or LHG. The
proposed rule would require the LOI be submitted earlier and, to
accommodate FERC regulations, would result in slightly different LOI
submission requirements for LNG facilities as compared to LHG
facilities.
    For LNG facility owners or operators seeking to construct or modify
a facility, the LOI would be submitted no later than the date the owner
or operator files a pre-filing request with FERC under 18 CFR parts 153
and 157, but in all cases at least one year prior to the start of
construction. For inactive existing LNG facilities seeking
reactivation, the LOI would be submitted no later than the date the
owner or operator files a pre-filing request with FERC under 18 CFR
parts 153 and 157, but in all cases at least one year prior to the
start of transfer operations.
    For LHG facilities seeking construction or modification, the LOI
would be submitted no later than the date the owner or operator files
with the federal or state agency having jurisdiction, but in all cases
at least one year prior to the start of construction. For inactive LHG
facilities seeking reactivation, the LOI would be submitted no later
than the date the owner or operator files with the federal or state
agency having jurisdiction, but in all cases at least one year prior to
the start of transfer operations.
    With regard to the content of the LOI submitted by LNG and LHG
facilities, the Coast Guard proposes to add a requirement that the
owner or operator provide the name, address, and telephone number of
the federal, state, or local agency having jurisdiction. To accommodate
the possibility that an owner or operator may need to submit charts
showing waterways longer than 25 kilometers, we propose adding the
words ``at least'' in Sec.  127.007(c)(7).
    In order to harmonize this regulation with FERC's regulations
requiring the submission of a WSA, and to address emergent security
concerns that resulted from the attacks of September 11, 2001, we
propose to establish in Sec.  127.007(e) the requirement that a WSA be
submitted by an owner or operator seeking to construct or modify an LNG
or LHG facility. A WSA would not be required to reactivate an inactive
existing LNG or LHG facility, unless the owner or operator sought
modification or expansion of marine transfer operations.
    The proposed WSA would consist of a Preliminary WSA and a Follow-on
WSA, described in proposed Sec. Sec.  127.007(f) and (g). The
Preliminary WSA would be submitted at the same time as the LOI. The
Follow-on WSA would be submitted at least 180 days before transfer of
LNG or LHG, except in the case of an LNG facility that is required to
submit an application to FERC. An LNG facility required to submit an
application to FERC would submit the Follow-on WSA to the Coast Guard
no later than the date the owner or operator files its application with
FERC.
    The proposed regulations in 33 CFR 127.007(f) and (g) delineate the
content of the WSA. According to the proposed text, the Preliminary
WSA, which is an outline of what the fully detailed Follow-on WSA will
contain, must provide an introductory explanation of the following: (1)
Port characterization; (2) characterization of the facility and tanker
route; (3) risk assessment for maritime safety and security; (4) risk
management strategies; and (5) resource needs for maritime safety,
security, and response. The Follow-on WSA would contain a detailed
analysis of the topics in the Preliminary WSA, and a detailed analysis
of any other safety or security impacts to the port and waterway
identified by the Captain of the Port (COTP) and not otherwise covered
in the list of subjects discussed in the Preliminary WSA.
    The LOR described in 33 CFR 127.009 represents the Coast Guard's
recommendation as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG
marine traffic. Current regulations provide for an LOR issued by the
Coast Guard to the facility owner or operator and the state or local
agencies having jurisdiction. In order to better reflect the role of
federal agencies, including FERC's role in the permitting of LNG
facilities, the Coast Guard proposes to issue the LOR to the federal,
state, or local government agencies having jurisdiction. The Coast
Guard also proposes to add other identified safety and security issues
to the list of items considered by the COTP prior to issuing the LOR.
    Several years may pass between the issuance of the LOR and the
operation of the facility. Therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to add a
reporting requirement designed to keep the WSA up-to-date during the
period between the issuance of the LOR and the start of facility
operations. The new Sec.  127.007(h) would require owners or operators
of LNG and LHG facilities that have completed the Preliminary and the
Follow-On portions of a WSA, but not begun operation, to annually
review their WSAs and provide an annual written report to the COTP. The
owners or operators would be required to update the WSAs in the event
of any change in conditions affecting the suitability of the waterway
for LNG or LHG traffic. For example, changes to the port environment,
LNG or LHG facility, or the LNG or LHG tanker route may constitute
valid reasons when the WSA would need to be revised and updated. A
report also would be required at least 30 days, but not more than 60
days, prior to the start of operations.
    These proposed changes to Sec.  127.007 would require renumbering
of certain paragraphs mentioned in Sec.  127.001, ``Applicability,''
which references paragraphs in Sec.  127.007. The Coast Guard proposes
to update the paragraph references accordingly.
    Finally, to reflect security considerations by the Coast Guard
after the events of September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard proposes to add
46 U.S.C. Ch. 701 ``Port Security'' to its authority citation for these
regulations.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed
it under that Order.
    In this proposed rule, the Coast Guard seeks to revise the
requirements for waterfront facilities handling LNG or LHG. For LNG
waterfront facilities, this rulemaking proposes to align the Coast
Guard's submission deadlines with those of FERC. For LHG waterfront
facilities, this rulemaking would align the Coast Guard's submission
deadlines to match the application timeline for the federal, state, or
local agency having jurisdiction, but in no case less than one year
prior to the start of construction. The Coast Guard believes it is
necessary to require a WSA for both types of facilities and to provide
consistency with FERC's regulations regarding LNG facilities. This
proposed rule would also provide consistency for other Coast Guard
regulations that address both LNG and LHG facilities.
    As noted above, the LOI is not a new requirement for LNG
facilities. The WSA also is not a new requirement for LNG facilities:
Starting in 2005, FERC regulations required that LNG facility owners
and or operators submit the LOI earlier than required by the Coast
Guard regulations, and submit a Preliminary and Follow-on WSA to the
Coast Guard. The proposed procedure for the owner or operator to submit
a WSA to the Coast Guard would not be new for the LNG industry because
LNG facility owners and operators have been submitting WSAs to the
Coast Guard since 2005; guidance on submission is provided in NVIC 05-
08. As of July 22, 2008, we have received 18 WSAs for LNG waterfront
facilities.
    We expect new waterfront LNG facilities that become operational in
the future will not incur additional costs over and above existing
waterfront LNG facilities as a result of this proposed rule, because
the LNG industry has been conducting WSAs as a common industry
practice. We also expect existing LNG facilities will continue to
operate according to industry standards and similarly would not incur
additional regulatory costs. The proposed rule would eliminate industry
confusion as the Coast Guard aligns its regulations with those of FERC.
    As noted above, the submission of an LOI is not a new requirement
for LHG facilities. The submission of a WSA for LHG facilities would be
a new requirement and would apply only to new LHG facilities or
existing facilities that seek to expand or modify operations. Only one
LHG facility has submitted a proposal to the Coast Guard to expand
operations; this proposal currently is under review with regulatory
authorities pursuant to existing regulations. In the future, the Coast
Guard expects only one to two new or existing LHG facilities per year
may become operational or may seek to expand or modify maritime
operations.
    Additionally, the Coast Guard contacted several industry
representatives and obtained cost estimates for completing a WSA. The
estimates varied greatly and are a function of the waterway environment
and the geographic location and uniqueness of each facility. Cost
estimates were between $80,000 and $1.2 million per WSA. At the margin,
we believe that these costs would have minimal effect on an LHG
facility owner or operator's decision to expand operations.
    Finally, this proposed rule would benefit the economy by ensuring
the proposed waterway is suitable for the safe and secure navigation of
LNG or LHG vessels and the transfer of these cargoes.
    The collection of information burden associated with this proposed
rule is discussed in section D, below.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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.
    Large corporations own the eight existing waterfront LNG facilities
and we expect this type of ownership to continue in the future. This
type of ownership also exists for the approximately 101 LHG facilities
operating in the U.S. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think
that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant
economic impact on it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management
Facility at the address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why
you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would
economically affect it.

C. 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 proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please consult with the Coast Guard personnel
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed
rule. 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.

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for the collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). As
defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises
reporting, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other,
similar actions. The title and description of the information
collections, a description of those who must collect the information,
and an estimate of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of
data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection.
    We do not expect new collection of information burdens would be
placed on LNG facilities because these facilities are currently subject
to FERC's regulations. The current reporting requirements for LNG
facilities are in line with industry practices and would require only
an adjustment to an existing OMB-approved collection of information
(OMB control number 1625-0049) as LNG facilities update their paperwork
requirements. Similarly, the same collection of information for LHG
facilities regarding WSAs and LOIs would require a revision if these
facilities intend to

expand operations in the future or if there is new construction.
However, the existing collection of information requires a revision to
include WSAs for LHG facilities (WSAs that have been submitted to the
Coast Guard are from LNG facilities only). We request comments from the
public regarding the time it takes to complete a WSA, the burden hours
associated to perform a WSA, and the labor costs.
    This proposed rule modifies one existing OMB-approved collection,
1625-0049 (formerly 2115-0552). The request for approval of this
Collection of Information is available in the docket where indicated
under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section of
this preamble.
    The summary of the revised collection follows:
    Title: Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
and Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG).
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The Coast Guard requires
the submittal of a letter of intent (LOI) for LNG and LHG facilities
that plan new construction or intend to expand existing operations and
to alert the Coast Guard of transfers of LNG or LHG, in bulk. In
addition, a waterway suitability assessment would be required for a
facility that intends to expand maritime operations or a new
construction, which requires an LOI.
    Need for Information: The LOI is needed to alert the cognizant
Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) that a waterfront facility plans
to conduct transfers of LNG or LHG, in bulk. It also provides a point
of contact at the facility. Once the Coast Guard receives the letter,
the COTP can direct the necessary enforcement activity to ensure that
the operator complies with the other requirements in 33 CFR part 127.
The LOI also provides the information used by the COTP to determine the
suitability of the waterway, on which the waterfront facility is
located, for LNG or LHG vessel traffic. Changes to the information in
the LOI are required to be submitted whenever they occur.
    Proposed Use of Information: This information is required to ensure
COTPs learn of the opening or reopening of a waterfront facility
handling LNG or LHG far enough in advance to allocate resources, to
enforce construction and design standards, and to plan enforcement
strategy. Also, COTPs would have the information necessary to properly
evaluate the suitability of a waterway for vessels carrying LNG or LHG.
    Description of the Respondents: Respondents are the facilities
themselves.
    Number of Respondents: The existing OMB-approved number of
respondents is 109. There are plans now for future facilities to become
operational.
    Frequency of Response: The existing OMB-approved number of
responses is 3,059 annually. This proposed rule would increase that
number by 230. The total number of responses would be 3,289.
    Burden of Response: The existing OMB-approved burden of response is
the same for the proposed rule. We have maintained our estimates of the
frequency of response for each item in the collection based on industry
information, and we have added information regarding a WSA.
    Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The existing OMB-approved total
annual burden is 2,838 hours. This proposed rule would increase that
number by 5,077 hours, which includes 4,928 hours for the addition of a
WSA to the collection of information. All of the original items in the
collection, notwithstanding the WSA, only account for a 149-hour
increase. The estimated total annual burden would be 7,915 hours.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the collection of
information.
    We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can
minimize the burden of collection.
    If you submit comments on the collection of information, submit
them both to OMB and to the Docket Management Facility where indicated
under ADDRESSES, by the date under DATES.
    You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the
requirements for this collection of information become effective, we
will publish notice in the Federal Register of OMB's decision to
approve, modify, or disapprove the collection.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them.
    We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

F. 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 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed 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.

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 0023.1 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 made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, this rule is categorically
excluded, under section 2.B.2. Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(a), of the
Instruction and neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is required. This proposed regulation
concerns the submission of an LOI and a WSA. This involves the
gathering of data and information that would involve no physical change
to the environment. A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List''
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments''
section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 127

    Fire prevention, Harbors, Hazardous substances, Natural gas,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Security measures.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 127 as follows:

PART 127--WATERFRONT FACILITIES HANDLING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS AND
LIQUEFIED HAZARDOUS GAS

    1. Revise the authority citation for part 127 to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  127.001  [Amended]

    2. In Sec.  127.001(c), remove the words ``Sections 127.007(c),
(d), and (e)'' and add in their place the words ``Sections 127.007(b),
(c), and (d)''.
    3. In Sec.  127.001(e), remove the words ``Sections 127.007(c),
(d), and (e)'' and add in their place the words ``Sections 127.007(b),
(c), and (d)''.
    4. Revise Sec.  127.007 to read as follows:

Sec.  127.007  Letter of intent and waterway suitability assessment.

    (a) An owner or operator intending to build a new waterfront
facility handling LNG or LHG, or an owner or operator planning new
construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an
existing waterfront facility handling LNG or LHG, must submit a letter
of intent (LOI) to the Captain of the Port (COTP) of the zone in which
the facility is or will be located. The LOI must meet the requirements
in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator of an LNG facility must submit the LOI to
the COTP no later than the date that the owner or operator files a pre-
filing request with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
under 18 CFR parts 153 and 157, but, in all cases, at least one year
prior to the start of construction.
    (2) The owner or operator of an LHG facility must submit the LOI to
the COTP no later than the date that the owner or operator files with
the federal or state agency having jurisdiction, but, in all cases, at
least one year prior to the start of construction.
    (b) An owner or operator intending to reactivate an inactive
existing waterfront facility must submit an LOI that meets paragraph
(c) of this section to the COTP of the zone in which the facility is
located.
    (1) The owner or operator of an LNG facility must submit the LOI to
the COTP no later than the date the owner or operator files a pre-
filing request with FERC under 18 CFR parts 153 and 157, but, in all
cases, at least one year prior to the start of LNG transfer operations.
    (2) The owner or operator of an LHG facility must submit the LOI to
the COTP no later than the date the owner or operator files with the
federal or state agency having jurisdiction, but, in all cases, at
least one year prior to the start of LHG transfer operations.
    (c) Each LOI must contain--
    (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the owner and
operator;
    (2) The name, address, and telephone number of the federal, state,
or local agency having jurisdiction;
    (3) The name, address, and telephone number of the facility;
    (4) The physical location of the facility;
    (5) A description of the facility;
    (6) The LNG or LHG vessels' characteristics and the frequency of
LNG or LHG shipments to or from the facility; and
    (7) Charts showing waterway channels and identifying commercial,
industrial, environmentally sensitive, and residential areas in and
adjacent to the waterway used by the LNG or LHG vessels en route to the
facility, within at least 25 kilometers (15.5 miles) of the facility.
    (d) The owner or operator who submits an LOI under paragraphs (a)
or (b) must notify the COTP in writing within 15 days of any of the
following:
    (1) There is any change in the information submitted under
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this section; or
    (2) No LNG or LHG transfer operations are scheduled within the next
12 months.
    (e) A facility owner or operator who intends to build a new
waterfront LNG or LHG facility, or a facility owner or operator who
plans new construction on an existing waterfront LNG or LHG facility,
must file a waterway suitability assessment (WSA) with the COTP of the
zone in which the facility is or will be located. The WSA must consist
of a Preliminary WSA and a Follow-on WSA. A COTP may request additional
information during review of the Preliminary WSA or Follow-on WSA.
    (f) The Preliminary WSA must:
    (1) Be submitted to the COTP with the LOI; and
    (2) Provide an initial explanation of the following:
    (i) Port characterization;
    (ii) Characterization of the LNG or LHG facility and LNG or LHG
tanker route;

    (iii) Risk assessment for maritime safety and security;
    (iv) Risk management strategies; and
    (v) Resource needs for maritime safety, security, and response.
    (g) The Follow-on WSA must:
    (1) Be submitted to the COTP as follows:
    (i) The owner or operator of an LNG facility must submit the
Follow-on WSA to the COTP no later than the date the owner or operator
files its application with FERC pursuant to 18 CFR parts 153 or 157, or
if no application to FERC is required, at least 180 days before the
owner or operator begins transferring LNG.
    (ii) The owner or operator of an LHG facility must submit the
Follow-on WSA to the COTP in all cases at least 180 days before the
owner or operator begins transferring LHG.
    (2) Contain a detailed analysis of the elements listed in
Sec. Sec.  127.009(d) and (e) of this part below.
    (h) Until the facility begins operation, owners or operators must:
    (1) Annually review their WSAs and submit a report to the COTP as
to whether changes are required. The deadline for the required annual
report should coincide with the date of the COTP's letter of
recommendation, which indicates review and validation of the Follow-on
WSA has been completed.
    (2) In the event that revisions to the WSA are needed, report to
the COTP the details of the necessary revisions, along with a timeline
for completion.
    (3) Update the WSA if there are any changes in conditions, such as
changes to the port environment, the LNG or LHG facility, or the tanker
route, that would affect the suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG
traffic.
    (4) Submit a final report to the COTP at least 30 days, but not
more than 60 days, prior to the start of operations.
    5. Revise Sec.  127.009 to read as follows:

Sec.  127.009  Letter of recommendation.

    After the COTP receives the letter of intent under Sec.  127.007(a)
or (b), the COTP issues a letter of recommendation to the federal,
state, or local government agencies having jurisdiction, as to the
suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic, based on
the--
    (a) Information submitted under Sec.  127.007;
    (b) Density and character of marine traffic in the waterway;
    (c) Locks, bridges, or other man-made obstructions in the waterway;
    (d) Following factors adjacent to the facility such as:
    (1) Depths of the water;
    (2) Tidal range;
    (3) Protection from high seas;
    (4) Natural hazards, including reefs, rocks, and sandbars;
    (5) Underwater pipelines and cables;
    (6) Distance of berthed vessel from the channel and the width of
the channel; and
    (e) Other safety and security issues identified.

    Dated: April 22, 2009.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. E9-9639 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 55 (Thursday, March 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 17422]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06484]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4103-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Major Disaster and Related
Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (FEMA-4103-DR), dated
March 1, 2013, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: March 1, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 1, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage to the lands associated with
the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians resulting from severe storms,
flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of January 14-
17, 2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists for
the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and associated lands.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance and Hazard
Mitigation for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and associated
lands. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael Bolch, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas have been designated as adversely affected by
this major disaster:

    Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and associated lands for Public
Assistance.
    The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is eligible to apply for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-06484 Filed 3-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group Response to EPA Preliminary Framework for ECAs on PFOA June 6, 2003 On behalf of SPI's Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group, I would like to make a few brief comments regarding the s preliminary framework for ECAs involving PFOA.

After receiving this information over a week ago, the FMG assembled a team oftechnical professionals from their member companies to evaluate and comment on the information and concepts that were presented by the EPA. The detailed results of that effort have been submitted to the EPA in written form.

For purposes of this meeting, I would like to summarize our findings and commitment:

° First: I think it is important to say that we believe we understand the content, specifics and reasoning behind the 11 items that were requested ofthe fluoropolymer industry. ° Second: The FMG supports the need for data in each ofthe broad categories in the framework document. ° Third: There are no issues raised in the framework that the FMG categorically rejects. ° Fourth: The FMG is encouraged by its belief that much of what is being requested is either already available within the tremendous amounts of existing information developed around PFOA, or will be provided as a result of the commitments made in the LOT signed by the FMG. ° Fifth: The FMG believes that the key to meeting the data needs of all interested parties is identical to the process used earlier this year to develop its LOl   specifically, close cooperation between the senior technical professionals in the EPA and the fluoropolymer industry, as well as other stakeholder groups.

In summary, the FMG supports the ECA process for completing the development and analysis of critical data needed to assess the regulatory implications for PFOA. The FMG is committed to cooperating with the EPA and other stakeholders in creating ECAs to help understand the routes of exposure to PFOA.

Thank you for the opportunity to share these comments. FLUOROPOLYMER MANUFACTURERS GROUP RESPONSE TO EPA PRELIMINARYFRAMEWORK FOR JUNE 6, 2003 MEETING ° Introduction In preparation for the June 6, 2003 public meeting for developing enforceable consent agreements ( ECAs) on perfluorooctanoic acid ( PFOA) and fluorinated telomers, EPA issued a document dated May20, 2003 and entitled Preliminary Framework for Enforceable Consent Agreement Data Development for PFOA and Telomers ( referred to below as the EPA preliminary framework). The Fluoropolymers Manufacturing Group ( FMG) has reviewed this document with respect to the fluoropolymer data needs outlined in Table II of the EPA preliminary framework and offers the comments below as a means to facilitate development of consensus fluoropolymers ECAs.

Note that in the discussion below, Item Numberpertains to the Item Number listed in Table IIof the EPApreliminary framework.

° Summary For the most part, the FMG is supportive ofthe work detailed in the EPA preliminary framework for fluoropolymers. Our level of support is demonstrated by inclusion of most ofthese items in the LOIs already submitted to the EPA, along with many other supportive documents given to the EPA over the past couple of years. Our detailed response to each individual item number is provided below.

° FMG Response to Individual Items Item 1 Item 1 calls for " comprehensive fluoropolymer market information, including CAS numbers, chemical names, production volumes/ import volumes, and uses/ applications." We agree that this type ofinformation is needed to enhance the understanding of potential sources ofPFOA in the environment and pathways by which human exposure to PFOA may be occurring.

The CAS numbers and chemical names for the relevant fluoropolymers made by the FMG companies are included in Addendum 1 of the FMG LOT. 1 The uses, applications, and benefits of fluoropolymers are covered in a document2 submitted to this docket by I OPPT 2003 0012 0012, FMG ( PFOA Users) Letter of Intent, as corrected by OPPT 2003 0012 0034 2 OPPT 2003 OO 12 0059 Benefits of Fluoropolymers Manufactured Using PFOA FMG Response June 5, 2003 Preliminary ECA Framework Page 2 the Society ofthe Plastics Industry, Inc. ( SPI) forthe FMG and have also been covered in other informal communications to EPA on end use applications. 3 EachFMG member company will provide under CBI production and import volumes by CAS numbers and plant locations. Other supporting information canbe found in SRI CEH Marketing Research Reports as well as CEFIC fluoropolymer industry sales reports. Copies ofthe latter document will be provided by the FMG.

The FMG understands the need for information covered by Item 1, and we believe we have already provided the majority ofthe requested information in Item 1. Given that the industry group volunteers to supply the remaining information, we suggest Item 1 may not need to be included in an ECA for the FMG companies.

Items 2, 3 and 4 Item 2 calls for " P chem properties to inform fate testing" of representative fluoropolymers. Item 3 calls for " elucidation of degradation pathways and identification of degradation products" for representative fluoropolymers. Item 4 calls for the " determination ofp chem, fate and transport properties of major degradation products," to be determined based on test results. We agree that this type ofinformation would be called for in any generic study to understand potential sources of a particular material in the environment.

In addition to the information already provided to EPA, additional sources are provided in Appendix A.

Given the public availability ofthe information requested and the fact that the information does not support degradation offluoropolymers as a potential route ofPFOA exposure, the FMG questions whether generation of the requested information would be additive to understanding potential PFOA exposure routes. The FMG member companies would be interested in further discussing this activity with the EPA.

Item 5 Item 5 calls for the " determination ofPFOA FPA contamination ofprocessed fluoropolymer ( solid), including a detailed material balance focusing on interstage transfers and releases to environmental compartments." The industry group agrees that this determination needs to take place and as such, has included a plan to do so in the LOl submittals.

The results ofFMG LOl section D 2 for polymer resins will determine if any PFOA can migrate from the resin and quantify the amount. Ifa significant quantity were found to migrate from the dry resin, a discussion would be relevant to determine the fate ofthe material in polymer processing.

3OPPT 2003 0012 00109, Fluoropolymer End Use Applications The Society ofthe Plastics Industry, Inc. Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group FMG Response June 5, 2003 Preliminary ECA Framework Page 3 FMG LOT section D 4 signifies the FMG's intent to conduct article of commercetesting to determine if APFO can migrate from a representative sample ofconsumer and industrial articles ofcommerce. This testing will be conducted using approved FDA migration testing protocols, with the FDA recommended solvents as judged to be relevant for the particular application. Since water is the only FDA recommended solvent that has an analytical protocol with the required QAIQC capability, a significant element ofthis effort will be developing validated analytical procedures.

FMG LOI section D 3 provides forperforming a material balance for fluoropolymer dispersion customers. Since PFOA is known to be present in fluoropolymer dispersions, the study ofthe fate in fluoropolymer dispersion processing is justified at this time.

FMG LOT section D 2 calls forwater monitoring and air modeling at a representative sample ofthe US fluoropolymer manufacturing locations. The protocol for conducting this effort will be based on the work conducted by DuPont with the State ofWest Virginia. This protocol was developed and approvedby the States of West Virginia and Ohio and EPA Regions 3 and 5.

Since the FMG believes the intent ofItem 5 is fully met in the LOI, the FMG does not see the need to include Item 5 in an ECA at this time. We believe it would be more appropriate to consider inclusion of additional work in this area in an ECA once the results ofthe LOl investigations are completed.

Item 6 Item 6 calls for determination ofthe " presence ofPFOA in fluoropolymer and fluoropolymer treated products and articles." The industry group supports the need for the determination for the presence ofPFOA in fluoropolymer articles ofcommerce.

The industry group has identified a list of representative products and has committed to doing this analysis in FMG LOT section D 4. We fully support the need to discuss what are representative articles ofcommerce and include those articles in the study committed to under section D 4 ofthe FMG LOT. However, as a whole, the list suggested in Item 6 of Table II is not considered appropriate since fluoropolymers are not used in most ofthe suggested applications. For example, FMG's fluoropolymers are not used in paper and carpet products.

The industry group does fully support the intent of Item 6, but does not understand the need to include Item 6 in the ECA process since our understanding is that the intent of Item 6 is fully covered in the FMG LOT.

Item 7 Item 7 calls for determination of the " presence of PFOA emitted from fluoropolymer treated products and articles as they age during use." The test substances are to be " representative fluoropolymers from manufacturers and importers in indoor air adjacent The Society of the Plastics Industry, liw. Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group FMG Response June 5, 2003 Preliminary ECA Framework Page 4 to   and dust from or adjacent to   carpet, textile, and paper." The FMG understands that fluoropolymers are generally not used in carpet and paper applications. However, we are willing to discuss this with EPA to discover if there are any relevant materials to test.

Item 8 Item 8 calls for " determination ofincineration byproducts offluoropolymer and fluoropolymer treated products and articles." Although some information is available on incineration offluoropolymers and this information is publicly available in the SPI' s " Guide to Safe Handling ofFluoropolymer Resins," 4 the industry group supports the need for incineration testing to better characterize potential byproducts from fluoropolymer incineration. However, discussion to gain agreement on the appropriate materials and protocols for testing needs to take place since most ofthe applications ( i. e., paper and carpet) suggested in the EPA preliminary framework document do not contain fluoropolymers.

Item 9 Item 9 calls for " determination ofp chem, fate and transport properties of incineration products", Industry supports a commitment to study the results ofincineration testing called for in Item 8 and to determine p chem, fate and transport of any incineration products that can reasonably be considered a precursor to APFO.

The FMG is willing to consider Item 9 in an ECA, but also believes that the need for Item 9 is premature and speculative at this time. Once the results of Item 8 are obtained, the FMG is willing to meet with the EPA and assess on a scientific basis whether there are any relevant byproducts that need p chem, fate and transport data developed and are generated in any significant quantity to justify the required effort.

Item 10 Item 10 calls for " release and exposure assessments adjacent to PFOA and fluoropolymer manufacturing and use facilities; also ofcontrol areas". The FMG fully supports the need for release and exposure assessments adjacent to PFOA and fluoropolymer manufacturing and use facilities.

As such, per Appendix 3 ofthe FMG LOT, Dupont has committed to conduct an exposure assessment adjacent to its APFO manufacturing. DuPont has also submitted a complete work plan for this effort to the EPA record based on the above referenced work plan developed in West Virginia. 5 Similarly, in FMG LOI section D 2, the FMG has committed to conduct exposure assessments adjacent to a representative sample of fluoropolymer manufacturing facilities in the US. The protocol for these assessments will be based on the protocol developed ~ AR226 1064 ~ Documents previously submitted to the EPA.

The Society ofthe Plastics Industry, Inc. Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group FMG Response June 5, 2003 Preliminary ECA Framework Page 5 and approved by DuPont, the states of West Virginia and Ohio, along with Regions 3 and 5 of the US EPA. The entire work plan, quality assurance plan, and results from the study in the area of DuPont's Washington Works have been submitted to the EPA record. 6 This work plan includes sampling ofsurface water, as well as groundwater and soil sampling.

Finally, in FMG LOT section D 3, the FMG has committed to conduct a material balance assessment at representative fluoropolymer dispersion processing customers. The fluoropolymer dispersion customers' assessment will be based on an industry developed protocol using appropriate methods and protocols. For example, see reference OPPT 2003 0012 0040. Since dry resin is not expected to contain any significant amount of PFOA, the FMG does not feel it would be appropriate to include dry resin processors at this time. However, the FMGwould be willing to have a discussion with EPA, to review the final reports from the fluoropolymer dispersion processors material balance and the articles ofcommerce testing to determine if this perspective needs to be reconsidered.

The FMG supports the overall intent ofItem 10 and believes the critical elements ofItem 10 are included in the LOT. DuPont has also provided a detailed example protocol in its submittal to the ECA record. By reviewing the data collected in the area ofDuPont's Washington Works submittal ( in cooperation with the states ofWest Virginia and Ohio, and the US EPA Regions 3 and 5) and data from other sites currently being investigated, the FMG is of the opinion that Item 10 is covered in the FMG LOT. Nevertheless, the FMG is willing to discuss those results when available with a view towards determining what additional work, if any, is warranted.

Item 11 Item 11 calls for " product stewardship information concerning PFOA and fluoropolymer products and article manufacture, use, and disposal." The FMG is committed to providing appropriate product stewardship information to fluoropolymer processors.

The FMG believes our LOI provides a good example of the commitment of the FMG companies to assure thorough understanding ofany potential product stewardship issues. Additional examples ofthe industry's commitment to product stewardship are evidenced by the Guide to Safe Handling of Fluoropolymer Resins and the Guide to the Safe Handling ofFluoropolymer Dispersions; they are currently in AR226 1064 and AR226 1063. Along with the above, each company also has company specific MSDS forms that further cover the handling and use of fluoropolymers. In addition, we will provide the Association ofPlastics Manufacturers in Europe ( APME) " Guide for the Safe Handling ofFluoropolymer Resins" 2nd edition: January 2003.

The FMG believes that the industry's product stewardship programs are consistent with the principles ofResponsible Care7 ® but are willing to meet with the EPA to discuss the adequacy of its efforts.

~ Documents previously submitted to the EPA. ~ American Chemistry Council " Responsible Care ® Code Book"

The Society ofthe Plastics Industry, Inc. Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group FMG Response Preliminary ECA Framework June 5, 2003 Page 6 Appendix A 1) " Modem Fluoropolymers" by John Scheirs ( John Wiley & Sons, 2002) ISBN 0 471 97055 7 2) " Technology ofFluoropolymers" by Jiri George Drobny, ( CRC Press, 2001) ISBN 0 8493 0246 3 3) " Fluoroplastics: vol. 1 & 2", Sina Ebnesajjad, ( Plastic Design Library, 2000 & 2003) ISBN 1 884207 84 7 & ISBN 1 884207 96 0 4) " Encyclopedia ofPolymer Science & Engineering", 2nd ed., ( John Wiley & Sons, 1989) 5) " Kirk Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology" 4th ed., ( John Wiley & Sons, 1994) 6) " The Guide to the Safe Handling of Fluoropolymer Resins" 3 rd ed., ( Fluoropolymers Division, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., 1998)

The Society ofthe Plastics Industry, Inc. Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group