[Federal Register: August 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 165)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52467-52470]
[DOCID:fr26au10-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-1186-201021; FRL-9193-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans:
Kentucky; Approval Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard for the Paducah Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the
Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the maintenance
plan addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone standards for the Paducah 1997 8-
hour ozone attainment area, which comprises Marshall County and a
portion of Livingston County (hereafter referred to as the ``Paducah
Area''). This maintenance plan was submitted to EPA on May 27, 2008, by
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and ensures the continued attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
through the year 2020. On July 15, 2009, the Commonwealth of Kentucky
submitted supplemental information with updated

emissions tables for this Area to reflect actual emissions. This plan
meets the statutory and regulatory requirements, and is consistent with
EPA's guidance. EPA is taking final action to approve the revisions to
the Kentucky SIP, pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is also in
the process of establishing a new 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and expects to
finalize the reconsidered NAAQS by August 2010. Today's action,
however, relates only to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Requirements for
the Paducah Area under the 2010 NAAQS will be addressed in the future.

DATES: This rule will be effective September 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2007-1186. All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that, if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Farngalo may be reached
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by electronic mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA Guidance and CAA Requirements
III. Today's Action
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    In accordance with the CAA, the Paducah Area, consisting of
Marshall County and a portion of Livingston County in Kentucky, was
designated as marginal nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
effective November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694) because the Area did not meet
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. On November 13, 1992, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky submitted a request to redesignate the Paducah Area to
attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. At the same time as the
redesignation request, Kentucky submitted the required ozone monitoring
data and maintenance plan to ensure that the Paducah Area would remain
in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for a period of 10 years,
consistent with the CAA section 175A(a). The maintenance plan submitted
by Kentucky followed EPA guidance for limited maintenance areas, which
applied to 1-hour ozone NAAQS areas with design values less than 85
percent of the applicable standard (0.12 parts per million). On
February 7, 1995, EPA approved Kentucky's request to redesignate the
Paducah Area (60 FR 7124) to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

II. EPA Guidance and CAA Requirements

    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (69 FR 23858), and published the final Phase I Implementation
Rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951) (Phase I Rule). The
Paducah Area was designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
effective June 15, 2004. The Paducah attainment area consequently was
required to submit a 10-year maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1)
of the CAA and the Phase I Rule, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(4). On May 20, 2005,
EPA issued guidance providing information as to how a state might
fulfill the maintenance plan obligation established by the CAA and the
Phase I Rule (Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman to Air Division
Directors, Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone
Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act, May 20, 2005--hereafter
referred to as ``Wegman Memorandum'').
    On December 22, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion that vacated portions of
EPA's Phase I Rule. See South Coast Air Quality Management District. v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). The Court vacated those portions of
the Phase I Rule that provided for regulation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas designated under Subpart 1 (of part D of the CAA),
in lieu of Subpart 2 among other portions. The Court's decision did not
alter any 8-hour ozone attainment area requirements under the Phase I
Rule for CAA section 110(a)(1) maintenance plans. EPA has determined
that Kentucky's May 27, 2008, proposed SIP revision satisfies the
section 110(a)(1) CAA requirements for a plan that provides for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Paducah attainment area.

III. Today's Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the SIP revisions concerning
the 110(a)(1) maintenance plan addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for the Paducah Area. This maintenance plan was submitted to EPA on May
27, 2008, by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to ensure the continued
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the year 2020. This
approval action is based on EPA's analyses of whether this request
complies with section 110 of the CAA and section 51.905(a)(4). EPA's
analyses for the Commonwealth of Kentucky's submittal are described in
detail in the proposed rule published January 4, 2010 (75 FR 97).
    The comment period for this proposed action closed on February 3,
2010. EPA did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, during
this public comment period. However, EPA noticed an inadvertent
omission of the July 15, 2009, supplement that Kentucky provided from
the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov. Since EPA
referenced this supplement in the January 4, 2010, proposed rulemaking,
EPA reopened the public comment period for this proposed action for the
limited purpose of allowing the public the opportunity to review and
consider this supplemental information in regards to EPA's proposed
rulemaking (75 FR 8574). EPA's reopening of the comment period ended on
March 25, 2010. During this additional comment period, EPA did not
receive any comments.
    In support of this final action, the Commonwealth of Kentucky
provided an analysis of emissions differences for the highway mobile
source emissions using a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) level of 9.0 pounds
per square inch (psi), which is the applicable standard during the
regulatory control period (i.e., May 1st through September 15th). See
40 CFR 80.27. In its original submission, the Commonwealth of Kentucky
had modeled 8.6 psi based on historical information that indicated that
summer

time RVP supplied to the Paducah Area averaged 8.6 psi. EPA considers
the original submittal to model a more stringent RVP; however, in order
to ensure that Kentucky could demonstrate attainment with a higher RVP,
Kentucky provided the supplemental information. Subsequently, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky provided modeling at the 9.0 psi level. EPA
reviewed this additional information and noted that there was no change
in emissions for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and a slight increase
(less than a tenth of a ton per day) in emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) with RVP at the 9.0 psi level as compared to the 8.6
psi level. The difference in total highway emissions for each year
emissions was provided and is included in the following table:

                                  Paducah Area Highway Mobile Source Emissions
                                                 [Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  8.6 psi                 9.0 psi         Difference between 8.6
                                         ------------------------------------------------      psi & 9.0 psi
                                                                                -----------------------
                                              VOC         NOX         VOC         NOX         VOC         NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002....................................        1.14        1.90        1.19        1.90        0.05        0.00
2005....................................        1.62        3.36        1.67        3.36        0.05        0.00
2008....................................        1.47        3.00        1.52        3.00        0.05        0.00
2011....................................        1.32        2.49        1.36        2.49        0.04        0.00
2014....................................        1.14        1.90        1.19        1.90        0.05        0.00
2017....................................        1.04        1.51        1.07        1.52        0.03        0.01
2020....................................        0.94        1.27        0.97        1.27        0.03        0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has made the determination that, even with the slight increase
in VOC emissions due to the difference of modeling 9.0 psi versus 8.6
psi, Kentucky has demonstrated continued maintenance for the 1997 8-
hour NAAQS for the Paducah Area. Further, EPA believes that Kentucky's
110(a)(1) submission for the Paducah Area meets the CAA requirements in
addition to EPA policy and guidance.

IV. Final Action

    Pursuant to Section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving the
maintenance plan addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Paducah
Area, which was submitted by Kentucky on May 27, 2008, and ensures
continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the year
2020. EPA has evaluated the Commonwealth's submittal and has determined
that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA
regulations, and is consistent with EPA policy. EPA's rationale is
explained in the proposed action.
    On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone NAAQS. EPA
subsequently announced a reconsideration of the 2008 NAAQS, and
proposed new 8-hour ozone NAAQS in January 2010. A final 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is expected in August 2010. The current action, however, is being
taken to address requirements under the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Requirements
for the Paducah Area under the 2010 NAAQS will be addressed in the
future.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 25, 2010. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 11, 2010.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. Section 52.920(e), is amended by adding a new entry for the
``Paducah 8-Hour Ozone Attainment/1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Section
110(a)(1)'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Kentucky Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable        State submittal
     Name of SIP provision          geographic or      date/effective     EPA approval date      Explanation
                                 nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Paducah 8-Hour Ozone Attainment/ Marshall and        May 27, 2008......  August 26, 2010
 1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan    Livingston                              [insert citation
 Section 110(a)(1).               Counties.                               of publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-21107 Filed 8-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 93 (Monday, May 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26779-26780]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10479]

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

UNIFIED CARRIER REGISTRATION PLAN

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice; Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Board Subcommittee Meeting

TIME AND DATE: May 20, 2021, 12 p.m. to 2 p.m., Eastern time.

PLACE: This meeting will be accessible via conference call and via Zoom
Meeting and Screenshare. Any interested person may call (i) 1-929-205-
6099 (US Toll) or 1-669-900-6833 (US Toll) or (ii) 1-877-853-5247 (US
Toll Free) or 1-888-788-0099 (US Toll Free), Meeting ID: 974 4919 4997,
to listen and participate in this meeting. The website to participate
via Zoom Meeting and Screenshare is https://kellen.zoom.us/j/97449194997.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Finance
Subcommittee (the ``Subcommittee'') will continue its work in
developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and
Agreement. The subject matter of this meeting will include:

Proposed Agenda

I. Call to Order--Subcommittee Chair
    The Subcommittee Chair will welcome attendees, call the meeting

to order, call roll for the Subcommittee, confirm whether a quorum is
present, and facilitate self-introductions.
II. Verification of Publication of Meeting Notice--UCR Executive
Director
    The UCR Executive Director will verify the publication of the
meeting notice on the UCR website and distribution to the UCR contact
list via email followed by the subsequent publication of the notice in
the Federal Register.
III. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Agenda and Setting of Ground
Rules--Subcommittee Chair
    For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The Agenda will be reviewed, and the Subcommittee will consider
adoption.
Ground Rules
    [rtarr8] Subcommittee action only to be taken in designated areas
on agenda.
IV. Review and Approval of Subcommittee Minutes from the March 25, 2021
Meeting--Subcommittee Chair
    For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    Draft minutes from the March 25, 2021 Subcommittee meeting via
teleconference will be reviewed. The Subcommittee will consider action
to approve.
V. MCS-150 Retreat Audit Program--Subcommittee Chair and DSL
Transportation
    The Subcommittee Chair and DSL Transportation will lead a
discussion regarding the MCS-150 retreat audit program provided by the
UCR Plan and the progress made with participating states. States may
opt into the program. States that opt in will remain engaged in the
audit process but may have a lesser burden of having to attend to
unresponsive/unproductive retreat audits.
VI. Non-Participating States Unregistered Solicitation Campaign--
Subcommittee Chair and DSL Transportation
    The Subcommittee Chair and DSL Transportation will lead a
discussion regarding the non-participating states unregistered
solicitation campaign and the option to hire a contractor to perform
this service.
VII. 2020 State UCR Audit Reports--Subcommittee Chair
    The Subcommittee Chair will lead a discussion regarding the states
upcoming obligations regarding 2020 audit reports and issue a reminder
that the 2020 UCR state annual audit reports have been subject to UCR
review starting on April 1, 2021.
VIII. 2020 and 2021 State UCR Registration Percentages--Subcommittee
Chair and Vice Chair
    The Subcommittee Chair and Vice Chair will lead a discussion
regarding the national and states registration percentages and ways to
increase the percentages.
IX. 2021 Inspection Audits--Subcommittee Chair and Vice Chair
    For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The Subcommittee Chair and Vice Chair will lead a discussion
regarding possibly requiring participating states to audit 100% of the
motor carriers identified through roadside inspection. The Subcommittee
may take action to recommend to the Board that participating states
audit all unregistered motor carriers identified through roadside
enforcement.
X. Review the Current Focused Anomaly Reviews (FARs) Audits Assigned to
the States--Subcommittee Chair and Vice Chair
    For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The Subcommittee Chair and Vice Chair will lead a discussion
regarding the current number of FARs assigned to the states and
consider options to increase the number of FARs assigned to the states.
The Subcommittee may take action to recommend to the Board an increase
in the number of FARs required to be processed annually by each
participating state.
XI. Definition of Commercial Motor Vehicle for UCR Purposes--
Subcommittee Chair and UCR Executive Director
    For Discussion and Possible Subcommittee Action
    The Subcommittee Chair and the UCR Executive Director will provide
potential adjustments to the definition of a ``Commercial Motor
Vehicle'' for UCR purposes. The adjustments are clarifying language
that retains the definition as set forth by reference in the UCR Act
(49 U.S. Code 31101.) The Subcommittee may take action to adopt the
clarifying language and recommend to the Board that it be used in the
Handbook.
XII. State Compliance Reviews--UCR Depository Manager
    The UCR Depository Manager will provide an update on plans to
conduct state compliance reviews and will remind states that have been
selected for reviews in 2021.
XIII. UCR Depository Audit for 2019--UCR Depository Manager
    The UCR Depository Manager will provide an update on the financial
statement audit of the Depository for each of the years ended December
31, 2019 and December 31, 2018.
XIV. Other Business--Subcommittee Chair
    The Subcommittee Chair will call for any other items Subcommittee
members would like to discuss.
XV. Adjournment--Subcommittee Chair
    The Subcommittee Chair will adjourn the meeting.
    The agenda will be available no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time,
May 12, 2021 at: https://plan.ucr.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elizabeth Leaman, Chair, Unified
Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Alex B. Leath,
Chief Legal Officer, Unified Carrier Registration Plan.
[FR Doc. 2021-10479 Filed 5-13-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-YL-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39031-39035]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17235]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0382; FRL-9966-31-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Revisions To Implement the Revocation of the 1997 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia state
implementation plan (SIP). The revisions pertain to amendments made to
the Virginia Administrative Code. These amendments updated the State
Air Pollution Control Board's Regulations for the Control and Abatement
of Air Pollution to be consistent with EPA's final rule implementing
the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and
revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). The
amendments revised a regulation listing nonattainment areas under the
1997 ozone NAAQS and a regulation regarding the 1997 ozone standard to
reflect the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which was effective
April 6, 2015. The amendments also added clarifying text to two
transportation and general conformity regulations in order to reflect
the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving these
revisions updating the Virginia Administrative Code to reflect the
revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 16, 2017 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 18,
2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0382 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any

information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Calcinore,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Ground level ozone is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight.
NOX and VOC are referred to as ozone precursors and are
emitted by many types of pollution sources, including motor vehicles,
power plants, industrial facilities, and area wide sources, such as
consumer products and lawn and garden equipment. Scientific evidence
indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure
to ozone. These effects are more pronounced in children and adults with
lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function
and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and
aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. In response to this scientific
evidence, EPA promulgated in 1979 the first ozone NAAQS, the 0.12 part
per million (ppm) 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8,
1979).
    EPA is required to review and reevaluate the ozone NAAQS every 5
years in order to consider updated information regarding the effects of
ozone on human health and the environment. Since February 8, 1979, the
date of the first ozone NAAQS promulgation, EPA has reviewed and
revised the ozone standard to protect the public health and welfare. On
July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS, referred to as
the 1997 ozone NAAQS, of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 62 FR
38855. This 8-hour ozone NAAQS was determined to be more protective of
public health than the previous 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In 2008, EPA
revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. The 0.075 ppm
standard is referred to as the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March
27, 2008).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the ground-level ozone
NAAQS to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). This
rulemaking addresses the 2008 ozone NAAQS and does not address the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 6, 2015, EPA established a final rule addressing a range
of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 80 FR
12264. This final rule also revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS as of April 6,
2015 and established anti-backsliding requirements that became
effective once the 1997 ozone NAAQS was revoked. The anti-backsliding
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1105 require States to retain all applicable
control requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, while enabling areas,
where possible, to focus planning efforts on meeting the more
protective 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    On February 10, 2017, the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) submitted a formal SIP revision (Revision
G16). The SIP revision consists of amendments made to the Virginia
Administrative Code to reflect the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
according to the final rule established by EPA on March 6, 2015
implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    The February 10, 2017 SIP revision submittal includes amended
versions of provisions in the State Air Pollution Control Board's
Regulation for the Control and Abatement of Air Pollution including
9VAC5-20-204, 9VAC5-30-55, 9VAC5-151-20, and 9VAC5-160-30, which were
adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on September 9, 2016
and effective November 16, 2016. Virginia requests that EPA approve
this submittal so that these amended regulations become part of the
Virginia SIP.
    The amendment to 9VAC5-20-204 added text to the section stating
that the list of Northern Virginia moderate nonattainment areas under
the 1997 ozone NAAQS is no longer effective after April 6, 2015, the
effective date of the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR
12264 (March 6, 2015). The amendment to 9VAC5-30-55 added text to the
section stating that the primary and secondary ambient air quality
standard of 0.08 ppm shall no longer apply after April 6, 2015.
Virginia also amended the Regulation for Transportation Conformity and
the Regulation for General Conformity by adding clarifying text to
9VAC5-151-20 and 9VAC5-160-30 stating that ``The provisions of this
chapter shall not apply in nonattainment and maintenance areas that
were designated nonattainment or maintenance under a federal standard
that has been revoked.'' These revisions to the Virginia Administrative
Code reflect EPA's revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    EPA's review of this material indicates the February 10, 2017
submittal is approvable as it revises regulations to be consistent with
EPA's final rule implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264
(March 6, 2015). The revisions update regulations to reflect the
revocation of the 1997 NAAQS, which was effective April 6, 2015.
Therefore, the revisions do not affect emissions of air pollutants or
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of
reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirements in the
CAA. Thus, EPA finds the revision approvable in accordance with section
110, including section 110(l), of the CAA.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Virginia SIP revision submitted on February
10, 2017, which includes revisions to several sections of the Virginia
Administrative Code, including 9VAC5-20-204, 9VAC5-30-55, 9VAC5-151-20,
and 9VAC5-160-30 which will be incorporated by reference into the
Virginia SIP. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal
because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of
today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse
comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 16, 2017
without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by September
18, 2017. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule
will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule,

EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the
subject of an adverse comment.

V. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec.  10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.'' Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides
that ``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the revisions
to 9VAC5-20-204, 9VAC5-30-55, 9VAC5-151-20, and 9VAC5-160-30 of the
State Air Pollution Control Board's Regulation for the Control and
Abatement of Air Pollution discussed in Section II of this preamble.
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update of the SIP compilation.\2\ EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region III Office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined

in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 16, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action.
    This action to approve revised provisions of the Virginia
Administrative Code including 9VAC5-20-204, 9VAC5-30-55, 9VAC5-151-20,
and 9VAC5-160-30 for inclusion in the Virginia SIP may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 3, 2017.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entries for Sections 5-20-204, 5-30-55, 5-151-20, and 5-160-30. The
revised text reads as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State                             Explanation [former SIP
     State citation           Title/subject      effective date    EPA approval date           citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     9 VAC 5, Chapter 20 General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Part II Air Quality Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-20-204................  Nonattainment Areas..        11/16/16  8/17/17, [Insert      Addition of Subdivision
                                                                  Federal Register      C.
                                                                  Citation].           Previous approval 8/14/
                                                                                15.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          9 VAC 5, Chapter 30 Ambient Air Quality Standards [Part III]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-30-55.................  Ozone (8-hour, 0.08          11/16/16  8/17/17, [Insert      Subdivision D. is revised
                           ppm).                                  Federal Register      to read that the 1997 8-
                                                                  Citation].            hour ozone NAAQS no
                                                                                longer apply after April
                                                                                6, 2015.
                                                                                Previous approval 6/11/
                                                                                13.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                 9 VAC 5, Chapter 151 Transportation Conformity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Part II General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-151-20................  Applicability........        11/16/16  8/17/17, [Insert      Subdivision B. is amended
                                                                  Federal Register      to address revoked
                                                                  Citation].            federal standards.
                                                                                Previous approval 11/20/
                                                                                09.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     9 VAC 5, Chapter 160 General Conformity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Part II General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-160-30................  Applicability........        11/16/16  8/17/17, [Insert      Subdivision A. is amended
                                                                  Federal Register      to address revoked
                                                                  Citation].            federal standards.
                                                                                Previous approval 12/12/
                                                                                11.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2017-17235 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 54035-54036]
[DOCID:fr13se06-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket Nos. RP06-397-001 and RP01-350-016]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 31, 2006, Colorado Interstate Gas
Company (CIG) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's order issued August 7, 2006 in Docket
Nos. RP06-397-000 and RP01-350-015.
    CIG states that the tariff sheets implement the pro forma tariff
provisions included in CIG's Offer of Settlement filed June 20, 2006 in
Docket Nos. RP06-397-000 and RP01-350-015.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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 (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15155 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The National Center for Healthy Housing requested a meeting with EPA. EPA met with representatives of the National Center for Healthy Housing ( NCHH), on February 16, 2006 In attendance:

Jack Anderson, Healthy Houses Solutions, Inc Tom Nelter, National Center for Healthy Housing Rebecca Morley, Executive Director, National Center for Healthy Housing Johnathan Wilkson, National Center for Healthy Housing ( via teleconference) Maria Doa, Director, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, USEPA Jackie Mosby, Chief, Program Assessment and Outreach Branch, National Program Chemicals Division, USEPA John Schwemberger, Statistician, Program Assessment and Outreach Branch, National Program Chemicals Division, USEPA Dan Reinhart, Statistician, Program Assessment and Outreach Branch, National Program Chemicals Division, USEPA Andrew Simons, Attorney, Office of General Counsel, USEPA Representatives of the National Center for Healthy Housing raised the following issues related to the Swiffer Study and the Proposed R& R Rule were raised:

  NCHH was unable to locate the final economic analysis in the docket. EPA provided information to NCHH concerning how to obtain/ access the most current economic analysis.

  NCHH stated that they felt standardization ( or reliability evaluation) of the ` white glove' ( WG) decision rule was very important, and suggested that perhaps 50 raters could be used in a study to compare the WG decision and this data could be used to evaluate the precision of raters.

  It was noted that no ` lay person' had been involved in conducting the DCC protocol even though they would constitute the population that would be conducting the DCC testing. Suggestions were made that both a trained/ experienced individual and an inexperienced ` lay person' might conduct the DCC protocol under matched, side by side conditions.

  It was also noted that there was no mention of Carpets in the proposed rule, and believed this was a serious omission. In addition, it was noted that empirical data had been collected that demonstrated a correlation between lead from wipe samples ( of the carpets) and children's BLLs. The question of whether Swiffers can be used on carpets came up. Since many homes have wall to wall carpets, this is a serious issue.   NCHH emphasized that they would like to see greater geographic diversity and a large overall sample size in a future study.

  Suggestions were made that EPA form some type of cooperative arrangement with CDC or some other program where the DCC protocol could be targeted in housing of EBL kids ( or some other direct way of implementing and assessing the DCC protocol).

  Another issue/ question raised was floors in poor condition. What should be done when the floor is not in good enough shape to use a DCC? EPA noted that floors in poor condition still passed the hazard std. after DCC treatment.

  Concerns were expressed that the proposed rule, as currently written, essentially denied the use of a wet vacuum technology that he personally had found to be very effective at reducing lead loading to below the hazard standard. They asked if this technology could be used as an option for the second part of the prescribed cleanup.

  NCHH stated that they hoped EPA would also develop a Dust lead kit that was practical for contractors/ homeowners to use.

  The NCHH also noted that the DCC protocol that was described in the proposed rule had not been tested, and a study to verify the efficacy of this protocol was essential.

  It was noted that additional data for the economic analysis was needed. Data to estimate the time, effort, and cost of conducting the DCC protocol should also is generated by any future research.

  NCHH asked about the application of the DCC protocol to areas no bigger than 40 square feet, and noted that if a typical 100 square foot floor was tested with the DCC protocol, it would take three separate implementations of the testing protocol and this would be very time and energy consuming. Was this the intent of EPA?

While EPA listened to NCHH's concerns, we stated at the beginning of the meeting that all concerns ( comments) related to the proposed rule and the Swiffer Study would have to be submitted in writing to the docket.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26562-26564]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10669]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-1106]

Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Dynamic Positioning Guidance

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Recommended Interim Voluntary Guidance.

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

SUMMARY: On December 29, 2011, the Coast Guard published a notice of
availability and request for comments regarding a draft policy letter
on Dynamic Positioning (DP) Systems, Emergency Disconnect Systems,
Blowout Preventers, and related training and emergency procedures on a
Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit. We received comments both as submissions
to the docket and at a public meeting held on February 9, 2012, at
Coast Guard Headquarters. Based on the comments received, the Coast
Guard intends to adjust the scope of the policy described in that
notice. The Coast Guard is publishing this notice to recommend interim
voluntary DP system guidance and recommend DP incident reporting
criteria.

DATES: The policy outlined in this document is effective May 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2011-1106 and are available for inspection or
copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find this
docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2011-1106 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call Commander Joshua Reynolds, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, Human Element and Ship Design Division (CG-
5211), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General

A. Background and Intent To Publish Rule

    Over the past several decades, the expansion of offshore
exploration, development and production into deeper water has
transformed an industry once characterized by relatively simple,
domestic shallow water fixed platforms and small logistical vessels
into an industry with complex, international floating vessels supplied
and serviced by other large, international multipurpose vessels. This
has given rise to the use of DP as a practical means for keeping these
vessels within precise geographic limits. Failure of a DP system on a
vessel conducting critical operations such as oil exploration and
production could have severe consequences including loss of life,
pollution, and property damage. This is particularly true for Mobile
Offshore Drilling Units (MODUs), where a loss of position could result
in a subsea spill and potentially catastrophic environmental
consequences. The Deepwater Horizon incident demonstrated the serious
challenges associated with subsea spill response. In a preliminary
effort to better understand critical systems, training, and emergency
procedures put in place to prevent or mitigate a loss of position on a
dynamically positioned MODU and inform any related future rulemaking,
the Coast Guard published a notice in the Federal Register (76 FR
81957) requesting public comment on a draft policy. We received
comments both as submissions to the docket and at a public meeting held
on February 9, 2012. The Coast Guard was encouraged to publish a rule
for areas where no standard has been set and to consider industry
standards and guidance when developing the rule. The Coast Guard agrees
and intends to initiate a rulemaking that addresses DP incident
reporting requirements and minimum DP system design and operating
standards.

B. Immediate Areas of Concern

    As discussed in the draft policy letter published with the notice
of availability on December 29, 2011, there have been several DP
incidents in the Gulf of Mexico involving both DP system equipment
failures and human error on MODUs. Because of the consequences
associated with a deepwater subsea spill, the Coast Guard believes DP
incidents on MODUs engaged in drilling represent the most immediate
concern and chooses to address them first.
    To ensure sufficient safety measures are developed, the Coast Guard
needs to improve its awareness of DP incidents on MODUs. The existing
regulations on the reporting of marine casualties have proven ill-
suited for reporting of DP related incidents, as they do not require a
MODU (either U.S. or foreign) to report DP incidents to the Coast
Guard. There are also reporting disparities between U.S. and foreign
flagged MODUs. For example, U.S. flagged MODUs are required by 46 CFR
4.05 to report some equipment failures to the Coast Guard, but there is
confusion and ambiguity over how these requirements apply to DP related
incidents, and they do not apply to foreign flagged MODUs. Some MODU
vessel operators have voluntarily reported some DP incidents to the
Coast Guard, but the Coast Guard believes this practice is not
universal. The Coast Guard is considering updates to its marine
casualty reporting requirements, and will consider past
recommendations, including public comments on a notice of proposed
rulemaking, ``Outer Continental Shelf Activities,'' published on
December 7, 1999 (64 FR 68416) and the recommendations of the National
Offshore Advisory Committee (NOSAC) subcommittee on incident reporting,
and will provide further opportunity for public comment.
    Coast Guard regulations currently do not include specific DP system
design and operating standards. In addition, there is a disparity
between requirements for U.S. and foreign flagged MODUs. For U.S.
dynamically positioned MODUs, the Coast Guard views a DP system, as
defined in International Maritime Organization (IMO) Maritime Safety
Committee Circular 645 paragraph 1.3.2, as a vital system under our
regulations in 46 CFR part 62. While Part 62 contains a ``failsafe''
concept that could be directly applied for an Equipment Class 1 DP
system, it does not have an equivalent concept that directly applies to
DP system reliability for Equipment Class 2 or 3 as discussed in
paragraph 2 of the Circular. Because the Coast Guard believes that a
dynamically positioned MODU engaged in drilling should meet a minimum
of Equipment Class 2 as defined in paragraph 2.2 of the Circular, Part
62 should be updated to make it more directly applicable to U.S.
dynamically positioned MODUs. Foreign flagged MODUs have several
options for compliance with coastal state regulations in 33 CFR
143.207, one of which is compliance with the 1979 MODU Code (IMO
Assembly Resolution A.414(XI)). This Code does not contain any
standards applicable to DP systems. Although more recent versions of
the MODU Code reference IMO circulars with DP system guidelines, the
Coast Guard has not yet adopted these Codes in its regulations. The
Coast Guard is considering adopting updated versions of the MODU code,
including any DP circulars referenced by these versions, and any DP
related recommendations by the NOSAC. These areas of concern are likely
to be the subject of a future rulemaking.

II. Interim Voluntary DP System Guidance

    On July 7th, 2010, in response to a request from the Coast Guard,
NOSAC issued the report ``Recommendations for Dynamic Positioning
System Design and Engineering, Operational and Training Standards.''
The report contained draft guidelines from the Marine Technology
Society (MTS) Dynamic Positioning Committee, which the MTS has since
completed. The Coast Guard has reviewed the guidance, referred to it
when responding to known DP incidents and found it to be comprehensive
and highly useful. Until the Coast Guard publishes a DP Rule, the Coast
Guard recommends owners and operators of dynamically positioned MODUs
(not leaseholders who contract MODUs) operating on the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) voluntarily follow guidance provided in the
``DP Operations Guidance Prepared through the Dynamic Positioning
Committee of the Marine Technology Society to aid in the safe and
effective management of DP Operations'', March 2012 Part 2 Appendix 1
(dynamically positioned MODUs), available at http://www.dynamic-positioning.com/dp_operations_guidance.cfm.
    It is particularly important they identify the DP System's Critical
Activity Mode of Operation (CAMO) and ensure Well Specific Operating
Guideline (WSOGs) are developed for operations at every well and
location. A MODU attached to the seafloor of the U.S. OCS should be
operated in accordance with the appropriate WSOG. The WSOG should
clearly state which

well operations are critical and require the DP System configured in
its CAMO for these operations.
    In addition to following the MTS DP Operations Guidance, MODU
owners or operators are encouraged to voluntarily report to the Coast
Guard reactive changes of DP status from ``green'' to ``red'' as
described paragraph 4.11 using the procedures listed in 46 CFR 4.05.

III. Authority

    This document is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 43
U.S.C. 1331, et seq., and 33 CFR 1.05-1. The guidance contained in this
notice is not a substitute for applicable legal requirements, nor is it
itself a regulation. It is not intended to nor does it impose legally
binding requirements on any party. It represents the Coast Guard's
current thinking on this topic and may assist industry, mariners, the
general public, and the Coast Guard, as well as other Federal and State
regulators, in applying statutory and regulatory requirements. You can
use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the requirements
of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    Dated: April 27, 2012.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-10669 Filed 5-2-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P