[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57674-57676]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26431]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0595]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Jamaica Bay, Queens, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that
governs the Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges) Bridge across Jamaica Bay
(Rockaway Inlet), mile 3.0, at Queens, NY. This temporary interim rule
is necessary to accomodate Metropolitan Transportation Authority's
(MTA) (the owner of the Marine Parkway Bridge) unexpected emergency
repairs requiring a complete closure of the Bridge and an extension of
time for their completion. The active deviation allows for opening of
the bridge with two-hours of advance notice and expires at the 180th
day. Existing federal

regulations do not allow back-to-back deviations.

DATES: This temporary interim rule is effective without actual notice
from December 7, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on May 25, 2018. For the
purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on
November 27, 2017 until December 7, 2017.
    Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments or view documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Type USCG-2017-0595 in the ``SEARCH'' box and
click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated
with this rulemaking.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call or email Judy K. Leung-Yee, Bridge
Management Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On July 6, 2017, we published a temporary deviation entitled,
``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Marine Parkway Bridge, Jamaica Bay,
Queens, NY'' in the Federal Register (82 FR 31255). Although we did not
request public comments, we conducted a public outreach and received no
objections to the temporary deviation. No complaints have been
submitted during the current temporary deviation's operation.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under
section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause
finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is
impracticable. During the recent replacement/rehabilitation of lift
span systems, water was discovered inside the power and communication
cables from the main electrical rooms on the lower level of the towers
to the machinery rooms at the tops of the towers. In addition,
structural steel for riser conduit support is also in need of immediate
repairs and/or replacement. We must modify the opration schedule of the
Bridge by November 27, 2017 to allow the bridge owner to conduct
emergency repairs, but we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable
comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the
modification.
    We are issuing this rule and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and for the
reasons stated above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for
making it effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that governs the
Marine Parkway Bridge across Jamaica Bay, mile 3.0, at Queens, New
York. The Marine Parkway Bridge is a vertical lift bridge offering
mariners a vertical clearance of 55 feet at mean high water and 59 feet
at mean low water in the closed position.
    The normal operating schedule for the Bridge is listed at 33 CFR
117.795(a). MTA, the bridge owner, has requested this modification as
additional time is required to perform the emergency repairs as
described above.
    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational traffic as well
as commercial vessels, largely tug and barge combinations. The 55 foot
vertical clearance while the bridge is in the closed position offers
the bulk of commercial traffic sufficient room to transit under the
bridge in the closed position. During the time period of October 2016
to October 2017, there have been twelve (12) scheduled bridge openings
for commercial vessel transit, two of which were cancelled prior to
operation. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening
may do so at all times. The bridge will not be able to open for
emergencies. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable
to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.

IV. Discussion of the Temporary Interim Rule

    The Coast Guard has issued a Temporary Interim Rule from the
operating schedule that governs the the Marine Parkway Bridge across
Jamaica Bay, mile 3.0, at Queens, New York, in order to complete
emergency repairs. The rule is necessary to accommodate the completion
of the emergency repairs before the next boating season begins. This
rule allows the bridge to remain in the closed position from 12:01 a.m.
on November 27, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on May 25, 2018.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the
emergency bridge closure period is in the winter season and the
majority of vessels will be able to successfully transit through the
draw of the bridge without an opening.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above,
this interim rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator due to the clearance level while in the closed
position and the fact the rule would be applied during at a time of
year when vessel traffic is at its lowest.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
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. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this Temporary Interim Rule as being
available in this docket and all public comments, will be in our online
docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following
that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online
docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments
are posted or a final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.795, effective from December 7, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on
May 25, 2018, suspend paragraph (a) and add paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  117.795   Jamaica Bay and connecting waterways.

* * * * *
    (d) The draw of the Marine Parkway Bridge, mile 3.0 over Rockaway
Inlet, will not open for the passage of the vessels. The drawbridge
will return to its regular operating schedule on May 26, 2018.

    Dated: November 21, 2017.
S.D. Poulin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-26431 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Mr. Terry Schimmel

Vice President, Technical Services

Boral Bricks, Inc.

P.O. Box 1178

Columbus, Georgia 31902

Re:	Requirement to provide information according to Title 42 of the
United States Code, Chapter 85, Subchapter I, Part A, section 7414 (42
U.S.C 7414)

Dear Mr. Schimmel:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	We at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) are collecting information about your industry, brick and
structural clay products (BSCP) (SIC Codes 3251, 3253, and 3259). At
EPA, the development of regulations involves gathering and analyzing a
large amount of information. We are looking for your help in acquiring
information specific to your company’s facilities because we believe
that knowing about individual facilities is the key to knowing how an
industry operates, and what facilities do and/or can do about air
pollution. We are requesting this information under the authority given
to us within section 114 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as explained
further below, and request that you send the completed surveys for all
of your facilities to us by August 13, 2008. The law, as written in the
United States Code (42 U.S.C. 7414), requires that you complete the
enclosed survey and return it to us.

As you know, the EPA previously developed national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for BSCP manufacturing under
section 112(d) of the CAA. The NESHAP for BSCP manufacturing was
promulgated on February 28, 2003 and published in the Federal Register
on May 16, 2003. As a result of judicial review, the standards were
subsequently vacated. We are now in the process of collecting updated
information on the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission sources and
controls in the BSCP industry. This information will be used as the
basis for developing new standards and updating our inventory of BSCP
sources and facilities.

	In the enclosed survey, we request information on BSCP processes,
emissions, and controls. Enclosure 1 includes the survey form that you
should use to provide the information to us. An electronic version of
the survey form can be found on the compact disc (Enclosure 2). Please
complete either the hard copy survey form in Enclosure 1, or the
electronic survey form in Enclosure 2, for each of your facilities,
unless any of those facilities is part of another company and is
separately incorporated as a subsidiary or affiliate of your company. If
any one of your facilities is separately incorporated, please do not
complete the surveys in Enclosures 1 or 2 for that facility.
Instructions for completing the survey form are provided in Enclosure 3.

	Using the information you provide to us in this survey, along with
similar information we receive from other companies in your industry, we
will determine the amount of HAP emitted; define the present level of
emission control; and assess what would be the environmental, energy,
and economic impacts associated with installing and operating emission
control techniques that are feasible for your industry. We are sensitive
to the amount of time and effort required to complete this survey.
Therefore, we have tried to limit the information requested to only
those features important to developing the regulation so as to minimize
the time you need to spend. I would like to assure you that nothing is
being requested that we do not feel is necessary to achieve our goals
stated above. You may respond “Not Applicable” to questions that do
not apply to your facilities.

	Enclosure 4 contains a summary of our legal authority in section 114 of
the CAA to obtain the information requested in this survey. If you
believe that providing any specific information to us would reveal a
trade secret, please identify this information clearly in your response.
However, please do not label your entire response “Confidential” if
only a portion includes trade secrets. You can see in Enclosure 4 the
type of information that EPA may ask of you at a later time to prove
that any information you have so identified is truly confidential. Any
information determined to be a trade secret will be protected by 18
U.S.C. 1905. If you do not claim as confidential any of the information
in your returned survey, we can make this information available to the
public without notifying you further (40 CFR Part 2.203, September 1,
1976). Because section 114 of the CAA does not allow emission data to be
claimed as confidential, the emission data you provide to us can be made
available to the public. A detailed explanation of what we consider to
be emission data is contained in Enclosure 5.

	We have contracted RTI International (RTI) (Contract No. EP-D-06-118)
to help us gather information about your industry. As noted in Enclosure
6, we have designated RTI to be our authorized representative.
Therefore, RTI has the same rights discussed above and in Enclosure 4 as
EPA has. This means that RTI will have access to all information
provided to us in your completed survey. As a designated representative
of the Agency, RTI must, by law, also abide by the requirements of 42
U.S.C. 7414(c) in regard to the confidentiality of what you claim to be
trade secrets.

	Enclosure 7 summarizes our policies and procedures for handling trade
secret information and describes how our contractor also is required to
use the same procedures as we do. Because our contractors or other
authorized representatives are required to follow the requirements in
Enclosure 6, we believe that we can ensure your rights and protect any
privileged information you submit to us.

	Copies of this survey form have been given to representatives of your
industry for their comments. We have attempted to incorporate their
comments and suggestions into the final version. If you have questions
regarding the need for this survey or need clarification on the
information we are requesting, please contact Jeffrey Telander with
EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(e-mail: telander.jeff@epa.gov).

	Please return the completed survey form(s) to Mr. Telander at the
address below by August 13, 2008.

		Jeffrey Telander

		U.S. EPA Mailroom (D243-02)

		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

		Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

		Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

	I am sure you understand how important it is for the EPA to use the
very best information available to develop the most meaningful standard.
Your help in providing this information is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Peter Tsirigotis

Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

7 Enclosures

cc:	State AQM Office

	U.S. EPA Region (w/o Enclosures)

Identical letters also sent to:

Mr. Dennis Knautz, President

Acme Brick

P.O. Box 425

Fort Worth, TX 76107

Mr. J. David McKeown

Regional Environmental Manager

Hanson Building Products America

P.O. Box 3307

Columbia, SC 29230

Mr. Dave McNees

Director of Environment & Corporate Real Estate

General Shale Brick, Inc.

P.O. Box 3547

Johnson City, TN 37602

Mr. William Belden, Jr.

Chairman & CEO

The Belden Brick Co.

P.O. Box 20910

Canton, OH 44701

Mr. Steve Matsick, President

Glen-Gery Corporation

P.O. Box 7001

1166 Spring Street

Wyomissing, PA 19610

Mr. Michael Borden

President & Owner

Carolina Ceramics Brick Company

9931 Two Notch Road

Columbia, SC 29223

Mr. Norman Davis

General Manager

Morin Brick Company

P.O. Box 1510

Auburn, ME 04211

Mr. Charles Taylor, Jr., President

Taylor Clay Products, Inc.

P.O. Box 2128

Salisbury, NC 28145

Mr. Ronald Methier, Chief

Air Protection Branch

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

4244 International Parkway

Suite 120

Atlanta, GA 30334

Mr. James Brooks, Director

Bureau of Air Quality

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

17 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333-0017

Mr. B. Keith Overcash, Acting Director

Division of Air Quality

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

1601 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1601

Mr. Robert Hodanbosi, Chief

Division of Air Pollution Control

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

122 S. Front Street

Columbus, OH 43215

Ms. Joyce E. Epps, Director

Bureau of Air Quality,

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

P.O. Box 8468

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-8468

Ms. Myra C. Reece, Chief

Bureau of Air Quality

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

2600 Bull Street

Columbia, SC 29201

Mr. Barry R. Stephens, Director

Division of Air Pollution Control

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation

401 Church Street, 9th Floor

L & C Annex

Nashville, TN 37243-1531

Mr. John Steib, Director

Air Permits Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (MC 163)

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

Mr. Dave Conroy, Chief

Air Programs Branch

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region I

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100

Boston, MA 02114-2023

Mr. Judith Katz, Director

Air Protection Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Ms. Beverly Banister, Director

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IV

Atlanta Federal Center

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-3104

Ms. Cheryl Newton, Acting Director

Air Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region V

77 W. Jackson Boulevard

Chicago, IL  60604-3507

Ms. Becky Weber, Associate Director

Air Programs

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region VI

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, TX  75202-2733

 PAGE

  PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 31844]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR12-17-001]

New Mexico Gas Company, Inc; Notice of Revised Statement of
Operating Conditions

    Take notice that on May 18, 2012, New Mexico Gas Company, Inc.
(NMGC) submitted a revised Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC).
NMGC is revising the SOC proposed as part of its rate petition it filed
on March 2, 2012, as more fully detailed in the petition.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday May 25, 2012.

    Dated: May 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13002 Filed 5-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 248 (Friday, December 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 71406]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27879]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ20-6-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 13, 2019, the Western Area Power
Administration submitted its tariff filing per 35.28(e): Open Access
Transmission Tariff to be effective 2/11/2020.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 3, 2020.

    Dated: December 18, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27879 Filed 12-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 24294-24295]
[DOCID:fr02my07-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123; FRL-8124-8]

Methyl Bromide Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Soil,
Greenhouses, and Residential/Structural Uses, Notice of Availability,
and Solicitation of Risk Reduction Options (Phase 5 of 6-Phase Process)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability and seeks comments on
EPA's revised human health risk assessment for the pesticide methyl
bromide. In addition, this notice solicits public comment on two risk
mitigation options documents for methyl bromide and EPA's preliminary
benefits assessments. The Agency is also seeking comments on the
ecological risk assessment which, based on public comments in phase 3,
was not revised. The public is encouraged to suggest risk management
ideas or proposals to address the risks identified. EPA is developing a
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for the methyl bromide soil,
greenhouses, and residential/structural uses through the full, 6-Phase
public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public
in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment
decisions. EPA completed a red for commodity uses of methyl bromide,
including uses that have tolerances, in August 2006. EPA also is
concurrently assessing the risks of five other fumigant pesticides that
also have soil uses to ensure that its assessment approaches are
consistent, and to ensure that risk tradeoffs and economic outcomes can
be adequately predicted in reaching risk management decisions. The
Agency is seeking the same input from the public on these pesticides.
Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet
current health and safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0123. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web
site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either in the
electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available

in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Weiss, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all

the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is making available the Agency's revised human health risk
assessment and ecological risk assessment, initially issued for comment
through a Federal Register notice published on July 13, 2005 (70 FR
40336)] [(FRL-7721-3 )]; a response to comments; and related documents
for methyl bromide. EPA also is soliciting public comment on two risk
mitigation options documents and benefits assessments for methyl
bromide. EPA developed the risk assessments for methyl bromide as part
of its public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility
and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is
ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
    Methyl bromide is primarily used on terrestrial non-food use sites
but other commonly treated sites include indoor food and non-food use
sites, residential settings, and commercial/industrial facilities.
Strawberries (54 percent), eggplant (43 percent), peppers (17 percent),
and tomatoes (13 percent) are the crops with the highest percentage of
their overall acreage treated.
    EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for
interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise
comment on risk management for methyl bromide. Risks of concern
associated with the use of methyl bromide include bystander risks which
exceed the Agency's level of concern for several scenarios. Bystanders
would include any person living, working, or located near a fumigant
application that may be exposed to emissions coming off the treated
area (e.g., field). Worker risks also exceed Agency's level of concern
for the majority of scenarios considered, even when appropriate
mitigation measures were considered (e.g., respirators and emission
reduction technology such as tarps). Acute risks to birds and mammals
do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. However, there is a
potential for exposure over a prolonged period. For aquatic organisms,
the only aquatic LOC exceeded is the acute endangered species LOC for
aquatic invertebrates. In targeting these risks of concern, the Agency
solicits information on effective and practical risk reduction
measures.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004, (69 FR 26819)(FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
Due to its uses, risks, and other factors, methyl bromide is being
reviewed through the full 6-Phase public participation process.
    All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES,
and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments and
proposals will become part of the Agency Docket for methyl bromide.
Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked
``late'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    After considering comments received, EPA will develop and issue the
methyl bromide RED for soil, greenhouses, and residential/structural
uses.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission
of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in product
specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering
products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: April 17, 2007.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E7-8275 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


***E.O. 12866 Review  -  Draft  -  Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

E.O. 12866 NSPS Review Under CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B) 2060-AO60 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 20110609

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                40 CFR Part 60
                      [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0223; FRL-      ]
                                 RIN 2060-AO60
                New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review
                        Under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)
AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION:  Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
SUMMARY:  The purpose of this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANRPM) is to request public comment on a proposed approach the EPA has developed to carry out the statutorily required periodic evaluation of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Program. Consistent with Executive Order 13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review," issued on January 18, 2011, this proposed approach will provide a streamlined process to ensure that public and private resources are focused on the rules that provide the greatest public health protection and are most likely to warrant revision to include current technology and eliminate obsolete or unnecessary requirements. By demonstrating the continued efficacy of the standards, the Agency will be able to fulfill its statutory requirement to review, and, if necessary, revise NSPS at a minimum of every 8 years. This ANPRM is part of the EPA's effort to meet these statutory obligations. The Agency is seeking comment on the overall approach to managing the NSPS program, in particular the criteria used to determine that no review is needed for a subset of NSPS.
DATES:  Comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].
ADDRESSES:  The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0223. All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the NSPS Review Under CAA Section 111(b)(1)(B) ANPRM Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0223. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an "anonymous access" system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket:  All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Reading Room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Janice Godfrey, Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D205-02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline. The information in this ANPRM is organized as follows:
I.  General Information
      A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
      B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?
II. Background Information
      A. What is the NSPS program?
      B. What is the status of the NSPS program?
      C. What is the purpose of this notice?
III. Review Plan for the NSPS Program
      A. What are the goals of a review plan for the NSPS program?
      B. Which NSPS do not need review?
            1. What is the EPA's authority in determining whether to review NSPS?
            2. What are the criteria we believe are appropriate for determining the continued efficacy of NSPS?
            3. Which NSPS are potentially not in need of review?
            4. What are examples of how the "no review" criteria would be applied to NSPS Categories?
			a. Primary Zinc NSPS example
			b. Magnetic Tape NSPS example
                  c. Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing NSPS example
      C. NSPS Potentially in Need of a Review
IV. Request for Comment and Next Steps

I.  General Information
A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
      Please provide data and explanatory information in a format that is thorough and complete enough for use by the EPA to justify any modifications to the proposed approach. Do not submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?
      In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this notice will be available on the Worldwide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). The TTN provides information about various areas of air pollution control. Following signature, an electronic version of this document will be posted at www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg under "Recent Additions."
      The EPA has also created a technical support document (TSD) that provides supporting data and information for this ANPRM. The TSD will also be available in the docket and on the TTN at www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg under "Recent Additions."
II. Background Information
A. What is the NSPS program?
      Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111 requires the EPA Administrator to list categories of stationary sources if such sources cause or contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The EPA must then issue NSPS for such source categories. NSPS reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the "best system of emission reduction" which the EPA determines has been adequately demonstrated. The EPA may consider certain costs and non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements when establishing NSPS. Where the EPA issues standards for a NAAQS pollutant or a Hazardous Air Pollutant (one listed under 112), only new or modified or reconstructed stationary sources are regulated. Where other pollutants are regulated section 111(d) also requires states to set standards for existing sources.
      The EPA has the authority to define the source categories, determine the pollutants for which standards should be developed, identify the facilities within each source category to be covered, and set the emission level of the standards. Historically, the NSPS program has not set emission limits for all air pollutants emitted by a particular source category. Air pollutants currently regulated through various CAA section 111(b)standards include particulate matter (PM,PM2.5,PM10), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), volatile organic compounds (VOC), sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfuric acid mist, fluorides, hydrogen sulfide, reduced sulfur compounds, total reduced sulfur, and landfill gas.
      CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) generally requires the EPA to "at least every 8 years review and, if appropriate, revise" NSPS. While conducting a review of existing NSPS, the EPA has also promulgated emission limits for pollutants not currently regulated for that source category and added additional affected facilities where appropriate. The EPA need not conduct this review if the EPA determines that reviewing an NSPS "is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the efficacy of such standard."
      In setting or revising NSPS, CAA section 111(a)(1) provides that NSPS are to "reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated." The format of NSPS can vary from source category to source category (and even from facility type to facility type within an NSPS) including a numerical emission limit, a design standard, an equipment standard, or a work practice standard. In determining the best system of emission reduction, we typically conduct a review that identifies what emission reduction systems exist and how much they reduce air pollution in practice. This allows the EPA to identify potential emission limits. We evaluate each system in conjunction with cost of achieving such reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements. The resultant standard is usually a numerical emissions limit, expressed as a performance level (i.e., a rate-based standard or percent control). Although such standards are based on the effectiveness of one or more specific air pollution control systems, the EPA may not prescribe a particular technology that must be used to comply with a NSPS, except in instances where the Administrator determines it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of performance, as defined in section 111(h). Upon promulgation, NSPS become national standards to which all new, modified, or reconstructed sources must comply.
B. What is the status of the NSPS program?
      Since December 23, 1971, the Administrator has promulgated over 70 NSPS. These standards can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR part 60. A list of all NSPS promulgated under the authority of CAA 111(b)(1)(B) is provided in Table 1, which includes the promulgation date of the original standards and information on the most recent activity. Not all FR actions indicate a review of the standard. In many cases the most recent action includes only minor amendments. Seventeen standards have been promulgated or revised within the last 8 years. In addition to those standards that are current within their review cycle, there are also multiple standards in different phases of the review process, including some standards that are in various stages of the litigation process.
Table 1: List of CAA §111(b)(1)(B)NSPS
NSPS
                                    Subpart
                     Date of Promulgation
(FR Citation)
                   Date of Most Recent Action
(FR Citation)
Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture
PP
11/12/1980 (45FR74846)
10/17/2000[,]
(65FR61760)
Asphalt Concrete (Hot Mix Asphalt)
I
03/08/1974

02/14/1989[5]
(54FR6667)
Asphalt Processing and Roofing Manufacture
UU
08/06/1982 (47FR34147)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61762)
Auto/Light Duty Truck Surface Coating
MM
12/24/1980 (45FR85410)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61760)
Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces
N
03/08/1974 (39FR9318)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61756)
Basic Process Steelmaking Facilities (Integrated Steel Plants)
Na
01/02/1986 (51FR161)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61756)
Beverage Can Surface Coating
WW
08/25/1983 (48FR38728)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61763)
Bulk Gasoline Terminals
XX
08/18/1983 (48FR37578)
12/19/2003
(68FR70965)
Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries
UUU
09/28/1992 (57FR44496)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61778)
Coal Prep Plants
Y
01/15/1976 (41FR2234)
10/08/2009 (74FR51977)
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units
Da
06/11/1979 (44FR33581)
01/28/2009[5]
(74FR5078)
Ferroalloy Production Facilities
Z
05/04/1976 (41FR18501)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61758)
Flexible Vinyl/Urethane Coating and Printing

FFF
06/29/1984 (49FR26885)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61768)
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators[4]
D
12/12/1971

01/28/2009[4,5] (74FR5078)
Glass Manufacturing
CC
10/07/1980 (45FR66742)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61759)
Grain Elevators
DD
08/03/1978 (43FR34347)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61759)
Graphic Arts Industry/Publi-cation Rotogravure Printing
QQ
11/08/1982 (47FR50644)
04/09/2004[5]
(69FR18803)
Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Steam Generating Units
Db
11/25/1986 (51FR42768)
01/28/2009[5] (74FR5084)
Kraft Pulp Mills
BB
02/23/1978 (43FR7568)
09/21/2006[5] (71FR55127)
Large Appliances Surface Coating
SS
10/27/1982 (47FR47778)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61761)
Lead Acid Batteries
KK
04/16/1982 (47FR16564)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61760)
Lime Manufacturing
HH
03/07/1978
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61760)
Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities
SSS
10/03/1988 (53FR38892)
02/12/1999
(64FR7467)
Metal Coil Surface Coating
TT
11/01/1982 (47FR49606)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61761)
Metal Furniture Surface Coating
EE
10/29/1982 (47FR49278)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61759)
Metallic Mineral Processing Plants
LL
02/21/1984 (49FR6458)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61760)
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
WWW
03/12/1996 (60FR9905)
09/21/2006
(71FR55127)
New Residential Wood Heaters
AAA
08/02/1985 (50FR31504)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61764)
Nitric Acid Plants
G
12/23/1971
02/14/1989[5]
(54FR6666)
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants
OOO
08/01/1985 (50FR31328)
04/28/2009 (74FR19309)
Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants - Equipment Leaks
KKK
06/24/1985 (50FR26122)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61773)
Onshore Natural Gas Processing: SO2 Emissions
LLL
10/01/1985 (50FR40158)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61773)
Petroleum Dry Cleaners
JJJ
09/21/1984 (49FR37331)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61773)
Petroleum Refineries
J
03/08/1974 (39FR9308)
06/24/2008 (73FR35865)
Petroleum Refineries
Ja
06/24/2008 (73FR35867)
12/22/2008[5]
(73FR78552)
(Stay)
Phosphate Fertilizers - Diammonium Phosphate Plants
V
08/06/1975
(40FR33155)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61757)
Phosphate Fertilizers - Granular Triple Superphosphate Storage Facilities
X
08/06/1975
(40FR33156)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61757)
Phosphate Fertilizers - Superphosphoric Acid Plants
U
08/06/1975
(40FR33155)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61757)
Phosphate Fertilizers - Triple Superphosphate Plants
W
08/06/1975
(40FR33156)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61757)
Phosphate Fertilizers - Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
T
08/06/1975
(40FR33154)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61757)
Phosphate Rock Plants
NN
04/16/1982 (47FR16589)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61760)
Polymeric Coating of Supporting Substrates
VVV
09/11/1989 (54FR37551)

Polymers Manufacturing Industry
DDD
12/11/1990 (55FR51035)
12/14/2000
(65FR78278)
Portland Cement
F
12/23/1971
(36FR24877)
08/09/2010 (75FR54970)
Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations
RR
10/18/1983 (48FR48375)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61761)
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
S
01/26/1976 (41FR3826)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61757)
Primary Copper Smelters
P
01/15/1976
(41FR2338)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61756)
Primary Lead Smelters
R
01/15/1976
(41FR2340)
02/14/1989[5]
(54FR6668)
Primary Zinc Smelters
Q
01/15/1976 (41FR2340)
02/14/1989[5] (54FR6668)
Refineries: Equipment Leaks
GGG
05/30/1984 (49FR22606)
06/02/2008[4,5] (73FR31376)
Refineries: Wastewater
QQQ
11/23/1988 (53FR47623)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61778)
Rubber Tire Manufacturing
BBB
09/15/1987 (52FR34874)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61765)
Secondary Brass and Bronze Production Plants
M
03/08/1974 (39FR9318)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61756)
Secondary Lead Smelters
L
03/08/1974 (39FR9317)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61756)
Small Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Steam Generating Units
Dc
09/12/1990 (55FR37674)
01/28/2009 (74FR5091)
SOCMI Air Ox Unit Processes
III
06/29/1990 (55FR 26922)
12/14/2000
(65FR78278)
SOCMI Distillation
NNN
06/29/1990 (55FR 26942)
12/14/2000
(65FR78279)
SOCMI Equipment Leaks
VV
01/18/1983 (48FR48335)
06/02/2008[5] (73FR31375)
(Stay)
SOCMI Reactor Processes
RRR
08/31/1993 (58FR45962)
12/14/2000
(65FR78279)
Stationary Combustion Turbines
KKKK
06/06/2006 (71FR38497)
3/20/2009[5] (74FR11858)
Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines
IIII
7/11/2006 (71FR39172)
06/08/2011 (75FR32612)
Stationary Gas Turbines
GG
09/10/1979 (44FR 52798)
02/24/2006[5] (71FR9458)
Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines
JJJJ
01/18/2008
(73FR 3591)
06/08/2011 (75FR32612)
Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces
AA
09/23/1975 (40FR43850)
02/22/2005 (70FR8532)
Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels
AAa
10/31/1984 (49FR43845)
02/22/2005 (70FR8533)
Sulfuric Acid Plants
H
12/23/1971 (36FR24877)
02/14/1989 (54FR6666)
Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines
TTT
01/29/1988 (53FR2676)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61778)
Synthetic Fibers
HHH
04/05/1984 (49FR13651)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61768)
Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels

Ka
04/04/1980 (45FR23379)
12/14/2000
(65FR78275)
Volatile Organic Liquid Storage Vessels (incl.
Petroleum Liquid Storage Vessels)
Kb
04/08/1987 (52FR11429)
10/15/2003[5]
(68FR 59333)
Wool Fiberglass Insulation Manufacturing Plants
PPP
02/25/1985 (50FR7699)
10/17/2000[4,5]
(65FR61778)

C. What is the purpose of this notice?
      The purpose of this ANRPM is to request public comment on a process we have identified for focusing reviews of the NSPS so as to maximize the public health and welfare benefits while ensuring that the resources of stakeholders, state and local agencies, and the federal government are used most efficiently and effectively. The process proposes several criteria that would be used to assess whether review of a particular NSPS is necessary during the review cycle. A listing of any NSPS for which we recommend not reviewing the standard based on these criteria (after considering comments to this notice) will be published in the Federal Register for public comment, along with valid and verifiable documentation to support such findings. If public comments provide sufficient evidence that review of a standard is warranted, the EPA would reconsider its no review conclusion.
      In addition to fulfilling the mandate in CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), this process is also responsive to Executive Order 13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review," issued on January 18, 2011, which directs each Federal agency to "periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives." The EPA's proposed approach will allow this process to be made more efficient, so that both public and private resources can be focused where it makes the most sense.
      By demonstrating the continued effectiveness of the standards, the Agency will be able to fulfill its statutory obligations under 111(b) with respect to the 8-year review requirement. Under the proposed process, the EPA first makes a determination of which NSPS continue to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The 8-year reviews can then focus on the remaining NSPS that are in need of revision (or at least a closer review to determine if revision is needed). This notice is seeking comment on this proposed process and on the appropriateness of the proposed criteria for making a finding that a current NSPS does not need review, and the application of those criteria in this evaluation of the NSPS program. Additionally, this notice is seeking comment on pertinent factors for the prioritization of NSPS to be reviewed, and potentially revised.
III. Developing an NSPS Evaluation Strategy
A. What are the goals of an evaluation strategy for the NSPS program?
      The primary goal of the NSPS evaluation strategy is to assist the Agency in fulfilling our statutory obligations in a streamlined process that ensures both public and private resources are focused on the rules that provide the greatest improvement in air quality, health and welfare benefits and are most likely to warrant review and revision to include current technology and eliminate obsolete or unnecessary requirements. At the same time, this focus on NSPS where greatest emission reductions can be achieved promotes better use of resources for industry, government agencies, environmental organizations, and all other stakeholders and participants in the regulatory review process. The EPA recognizes that many of the standards have not been evaluated within their appropriate review cycle. However, we are aware that despite this, in some instances, sources remain well controlled through other CAA programs, such as the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), that have provided similar, if not more stringent, regulations than what would be required through the revision of existing NSPS or implementation of new NSPS. We are also aware that, in some instances, an evaluation of NSPS may show the current requirements of the standard continue to meet the statutory requirements, and no review is required.
      To optimize the air quality, health and welfare benefits of the NSPS program, the EPA is proposing to prioritize NSPS reviews such that those NSPS likely to bring about greater benefits to public health and welfare through air quality improvements, including environmental justice considerations, are reviewed first. This prioritization is being done with consideration of multiple pollutants and processes, and synchronization of regulatory efforts as the primary driver, allowing the EPA to seek opportunities for increased air quality, health and welfare benefits, and greater administrative efficiency.
      Additionally, the Administrator is seeking to exercise her discretionary authority under CAA section 111(b), and only review those standards where the data do not support a finding that the standard continues to meet the requirements of the statute.
B. Which NSPS do not need review?

1. What is the EPA's authority in determining whether to review NSPS?
      As described previously, CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the Agency to review and, if appropriate, revise NSPS "at least every 8 years". Section 111(b)(1)(B) also gives the EPA authority to determine that reviewing an NSPS "is not appropriate in light of readily available information on the efficacy of such standard." In most instances, the EPA has met the requirement of this section solely through formal review and revision (when deemed appropriate) of standards.
      We believe that the majority of NSPS should be reviewed and considered for revision, as there are likely potential process improvements and technology advances that would alter the best system of emission reduction. In addition, a regular evaluation gives the EPA and the public the opportunity to consider whether requirements of a particular NSPS are outmoded or no longer necessary. However, there are some NSPS where we believe that there are no potential gains to public health and welfare from a review of the NSPS. The Agency believes that using its authority to not devote resources to a rulemaking in these cases should also be considered as an option when the continued efficacy of a standard is demonstrated. All NSPS, including those that we determined do not need review, will be subject to continual evaluation cycles, at least every 8 years. This notice presents three independent criteria that the Agency believes can be used to demonstrate that review of NSPS would not provide emission reductions and associated air quality, health and welfare benefits.
2. What are the criteria we believe are appropriate for determining the continued efficacy of NSPS?
      We have identified three criteria that we believe are appropriate to determine that review of existing NSPS would not result in any health and welfare benefits, and, thus, should not be reviewed in the current review cycle. For this programmatic evaluation, we believe that NSPS that meet any one of these criteria do not need to be reviewed.
      The first criterion focuses on the existence of updated or new control technology. We address the following questions with this criterion:  Have there been advances in control technologies, process operations, design or efficiency improvements, or other factors that would lead to selection of a more stringent best system of emission reduction?  Are there available controls for pollutants or emission sources that were previously uncontrolled?  If available information indicates that review of the standard would not result in more stringent emission limits, and would not provide improvements in air quality and health and welfare benefits, such standard would be listed as a potential candidate for no review.
      There are certain source categories for which we believe that information available from national databases (e.g., the National Emissions Inventory), publicly available data, the EPA's interaction with stakeholders from industries, State, local, and Tribal governments, and environmental organizations on other rulemakings, provides a strong technical basis to assess the availability and economic feasibility of employing new control technologies, or design or efficiency improvements that could result in a revised best system of emission reduction determination. In addition, information developed under the CAA section 112 air toxics program provides a significant amount of information on control technologies and pollution control measures for stationary sources.
      We specifically request comment on the level of certainty required in making a finding that no review is needed based upon an evaluation of readily available information that indicates no greater level of control would be expected at the conclusion of an evaluation under this criterion.
      The second criterion considers whether we anticipate any new, modified, or reconstructed sources within a source category, which would trigger applicability under the NSPS in question over the next 8 years. The predicted growth rate of an industry is used as an indicator of satisfying this criterion, but would not sufficiently represent this criterion in the absence of other information. It is possible to have a predicted negative growth rate, and still trigger NSPS applicability through modification or construction of new sources at a rate less than the closure rate of existing facilities. Some of the source categories covered by the NSPS represent very mature industries for which there is currently no growth, and this trend has existed for numerous years. For example, industries that rely on metal and mineral raw materials have tended to move out of the country to be closer to the sources of the raw materials. Copper mines in U.S. have closed while new mines have opened in South America where there is greater access to raw materials. In some industries there have historically been multiple processes used to make some products, but cost, efficiency, and other forces have reduced the variety of processes in use. The result of these trends may be that NSPS address emission sources which are no longer in use, technology is outdated, and which likely will not be used in the future. Some other source categories represent industries whose primary product has been superseded by a substitute product which serves the same purpose, but is produced using an entirely different process (e.g., magnetic tape and optical storage media) and as a result there are no expected new facilities or modifications of existing facilities. In considering this factor, we will also evaluate if there are new or updated processes that could be addressed through a review of the NSPS. If this criterion were met, the rule would remain in effect for the remainder of the review cycle in the event that sources no longer in operation were to begin operation again. In subsequent NSPS reviews, the EPA would then consider whether rescinding the rule permanently is an appropriate action in accordance with E.O. 13563.
      The Agency is requesting comment on the appropriateness of this second criterion. Specifically, we request comment on the level of certainty required in making a finding that no review is needed based on the expectation that no new sources are to be constructed, reconstructed or modified in the source category within the current 8 year review cycle.
      The third criterion that we believe may support a finding that review is not necessary, is the existence of other regulatory programs that are applicable to the same pollutants (either directly or as surrogates) and emission sources as the NSPS, such that a revision of the NSPS would result in best system of emission reduction requirements that are no more stringent than another applicable CAA requirement. When evaluating a standard by this criterion, we will also ensure that no inconsistencies or conflicts exist with these other rules. The intent of this criterion is to avoid reviewing NSPS to adopt more stringent emission limitations that are already being achieved by another regulation, and, thus, providing no or limited actual additional health and welfare benefit while redirecting resources from revision of standards where there are potential significant emission decreases.
      For example, the air toxics program implemented under CAA section 112(d) includes standards for major sources of toxic air pollutants based on Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT). Although the CAA section 112(d) program regulates air toxics, rules under the program sometimes regulate the air toxics through the use of criteria pollutants such as PM and VOC, as surrogates for a specific air toxic or group of air toxics. Section 112 establishes a minimum baseline or "MACT floor" for standards, which, for existing sources in categories or subcategories with 30 or more sources, is based on the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources.  For new sources, the standards for a source category or subcategory cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar sources, as determined by the Administrator (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The MACT floors form the least stringent regulatory option the EPA may consider in the determination of MACT standards under section 112(d) for a source category. The EPA must also determine whether to control emissions ``beyond-the-floor,'' after considering the costs, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements of such more stringent control (CAA section 112(d)(2)).
       MACT for new sources is the most stringent level of control identified under CAA section 112(d). Therefore, where the EPA regulated air toxics through regulation of criteria pollutants as surrogates for the toxic pollutant(s), it would be expected in most cases that the level of the MACT standard would reflect a level that would meet or exceed the best system of emission reduction when the same pollutants are covered. Therefore, where the MACT and NSPS have comparable applicability (e.g., covers the same emission sources and effectively controls the same pollutants), the MACT would in many cases accomplish emissions reductions that would be equivalent to or greater than those achieved by a revised NSPS. In such cases, even if new facilities are constructed, the MACT would serve to achieve the level of control that would otherwise be achieved through updating the NSPS through the review process. Under CAA section 112(d)(6), the MACT standards are also subject to technology reviews every 8 years.
      Another potential consideration for applying this criterion is the potential interaction with other CAA programs such as Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements for New Source Review (NSR). The CAA and corresponding implementing regulations require that a permitting authority conduct a BACT analysis on a case-by-case basis, and the permitting authority must evaluate the amount of emissions reductions that each available emissions-reducing technology or technique would achieve, as well as the energy, environmental, economic and other costs associated with each technology or technique.  Based on this assessment, the permitting authority must establish a numeric emissions limitation that reflects the maximum degree of reduction achievable for each pollutant subject to BACT through the application of the selected technology or technique. BACT requirements must be at least as stringent as the best system of emission reduction set by the NSPS.
      The Agency is requesting comment on the appropriateness of this third criterion. Specifically, we solicit comment on whether interaction with other Clean Air Act requirements would make source categories meeting this criterion more appropriate for a streamlined review that incorporates the level of control achieved by the MACT into the NSPS, rather than a no review determination. We also solicit comment on how interaction with the Clean Air Act's NSR programs (including the BACT, offset and netting regulations) should be accounted for in developing and implementing this criterion.
      In addition to the three detailed criteria, several possible conditions exist that could affect the decision to review NSPS even if one or more of the criteria described above are met. If there are emissions units not addressed by the existing NSPS, or if there has been stakeholder interest in an updated NSPS, including environmental justice concerns, then additional deliberation would be necessary before a decision not to review NSPS could be made. In addition, if there are pollutants that are not currently regulated by an NSPS, but which the Agency believes should be, we would likely take the opportunity to review the existing standards to see if they should be updated at the same time. If the NSPS is outdated, or could be made less burdensome without lessening the public health protection it provides, or conflicts with another applicable requirement, review might well be appropriate. These conditions have been considered in addition to a standard's ability to meet one or more of the three criteria as the Agency developed the NSPS evaluation. In instances where one of the above conditions indicated the need for further consideration, those NSPS would be recommended to undergo a traditional review, with subsequent potential revision.
      We are requesting comment on the following: (1) are the three criteria appropriate for determining whether NSPS should be reviewed, (2) are there additional criteria that should be used to make a finding that NSPS remains efficacious and, therefore, review of the standard is not needed, and (3) are there different criteria that should be used. In judging the appropriateness of criteria, commenters should also consider Executive Order 13563, which calls for periodic review of regulations "to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives."
3. How many NSPS are potentially not in need of review?

	Of the NSPS requiring periodic review, we believe that the majority of NSPS would be subject to review and potential revision, and would not meet the criteria for establishing no review as defined in this document. However, using the criteria outlined in this notice, the Agency has identified a limited number of NSPS as potential candidates to not undergo review. These NSPS are listed in Table 2 along with the applicable criteria.
Table 2: NSPS potentially meeting criteria to not be reviewed based on CAA 111(b)(1)(B) authority
                                    Subpart
                                     NSPS
                              No Review Criterion

           Level of control in current standard remains appropriate
  No expected applicability of NSPS (No new/modified/ reconstructed sources)
          Equivalent/more stringent requirements in Other CAA actions
                                       P
Primary Copper Smelters
                                       x
                                       x
                                       x
                                       Q
Primary Zinc Smelters
                                       x
                                       x
                                       x
                                       T
Phosphate Fertilizers - Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Plants

                                       x
                                       U
Phosphate Fertilizers - Superphosphoric Acid Plants

                                       x
                                       V
Phosphate Fertilizers - Diammonium Phosphate Plants

                                       x
                                       W
Phosphate Fertilizers - Triple Superphosphate Plants

                                       x
                                       x
                                       X
Phosphate Fertilizers - Granular Triple Superphosphate Storage Facilities

                                       x
                                       x
                                      EE
Metal Furniture Surface Coating

                                       x

                                      MM
Auto/Light Duty Truck Surface Coating

                                       x
                                      NN
Phosphate Rock Plants
                                       x
                                       x

                                      QQ
Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing

                                       x
                                      BBB
Rubber Tire Manufacturing

                                       x
                                      HHH
Synthetic Fibers
                                       x

                                      SSS
Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities

                                       x

      We are requesting comment on the list of NSPS provided in Table 2 as potentially not in need of review. Specifically, we are soliciting comment on the appropriateness of NSPS not undergoing review based on the criteria indicated in Table 2. We are also soliciting comment on any additional NSPS that should be considered as potentially not in need of review based on the criteria provided in this document. For example, the following three NSPS, may meet the third criteria that revision of the NSPS would result in best system of emission reduction requirements that are no more stringent than another applicable CAA requirement (i.e., NESHAP), however a more detailed assessment would be necessary to ensure that the emission points covered by the other regulatory programs are comparable to those covered by the NSPS:
         * Large Appliances Surface Coating, Subpart SS
         * Flexible Vinyl/Urethane Coating and Printing, Subpart FFF
         * Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines, Subpart TTT
EPA is soliciting comments as to the extent to which the NESHAP sufficiently covers the above NSPS categories.
4. What are examples of how the no review criteria would be applied to NSPS categories?
      Evaluation of NSPS categories for which no review is recommended may be influenced by comments received regarding the criteria as discussed in this document. However, we present as examples three NSPS categories that meet one or more of the criteria for which we believe, based on a preliminary evaluation, review of the standards is not necessary. These three categories are described below, along with a brief description of the reasons for their selection. A more detailed description of these three examples, including the rationale for recommending no review, is provided in the TSD. All NSPS for which no review is recommended, including the three examples presented in this ANPRM, will be presented in a proposal following this notice and will have further and full opportunity for public comment.
a. Primary Zinc Smelters NSPS example
      Primary Zinc Smelters is a source category for which currently available information indicates that there is no need at this time for review of the NSPS (40 CFR 60 subpart Q). Following an evaluation of the currently available technologies (i.e., double-absorption on sulfuric acid plant), we believe that a revised standard would not result in a more stringent level of control because no new control technologies, or design or efficiency improvements exist that would result in more stringent requirements. We do not find the current requirements of the rule to be outmoded or unnecessarily burdensome. We also do not expect any applicability of the standard over the next 8 years as no new, modified, or reconstructed facilities subject to the NSPS are expected, due to changes in the types of processes typically used (i.e., there have been no new facilities since 1974, and only one facility remains in operation). Furthermore, this category meets the criterion presented in this document that another CAA requirement would apply to any new, modified, or reconstructed facility with provisions that are effectively as stringent as what would likely be considered the best system of emission reduction under NSPS review. Specifically, in complying with the NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart GGGGGG), the source must use control technologies that provide equal or more stringent SO2, PM, and opacity requirements than would result from revisions to the NSPS for both roaster and sinter processes. The Agency believes that the Primary Zinc Smelters NSPS (subpart Q) meets all three of the criteria to not review a standard as described in this document. Therefore, the current standard would remain in effect until the next review cycle.
b. Magnetic Tape Production Operations NSPS example
      The second example of an NSPS category for which currently available information indicates that there is no need at this time for review of the NSPS is Magnetic Tape Production Operations (40 CFR 60 subpart SSS), consisting of coating and mixing operations at affected facilities. The Agency concluded this because this industry has been in continual decline for over 20 years. As a result, there is no growth anticipated in the industry over the next 8 years, and there are no anticipated new sources, reconstructions, or modifications that would trigger NSPS applicability. Consumer preferences and technology have changed such that the primary product of this industry has been superseded by a substitute product(s) which serves the same purpose, but is produced using an entirely different process (i.e., optical storage media). On this basis, we believe that there would be no emission reductions and associated air quality and health and welfare benefits in reviewing the best system of emission reduction for the magnetic tape production operations NSPS category. The new process for manufacturing optical storage media (e.g. compact disks) is assessed under the NESHAP for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products (40 CFR 63 subpart PPPP). Therefore, the current rule would remain in effect for the remainder of the review cycle. In subsequent NSPS reviews, the EPA would consider whether rescinding the rule permanently is an appropriate action in accordance with E.O. 13563.
c. Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing NSPS example
      The third example of an NSPS category for which currently available information indicates that there is no need at this time for review of the applicable NSPS is Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing (40 CFR 60 subpart QQ). In accordance with criteria 3, the NESHAP (40 CFR subpart KK) for Printing and Publishing is significantly more stringent than the NSPS under subpart QQ. The NESHAP recently went through the EPA's Risk and Technology Review (RTR) process and no additional technology standards were adopted pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Only two new facilities have been built in the past 15 years since the NESHAP was promulgated in 1996. Both of these facilities placed their presses in permanent total enclosures using carbon adsorbers to achieve very efficient solvent recovery. As part of the EPA's Risk and Technology Review (RTR) it was determined that no new advancements in practices, processes or control technologies beyond those in place at the two new facilities were identified. The BACT level control at the two new facilities is representative of current industry practice and is state of the art technology, and a revised best system of emission reduction for the solvent recovery practice listed in the NSPS would not be more stringent. Under criteria 2, there has been almost no growth in the industry in the past decade. The number of publication rotogravure printing facilities has declined from 27 to under 20 in the last 10 years. Only two facilities have been built in the last 15 years. No new facilities are anticipated during the next 8 year review cycle. Therefore, we do not expect applicability of the NSPS in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we believe no additional emission reductions would be achieved from a revision to the current standard. Thus the Agency believes that the Publication Rotogravure Printing NSPS (subpart QQ) meets the criteria to not review as described in this document.
      Detailed evaluations of the Primary Zinc Smelters source category, the Magnetic Tape Production Operations source category, and the Graphic Arts Industry/Publication Rotogravure Printing source category can be found in the TSD. Following comment on this notice, more detailed analyses will be completed for other NSPS that meet one or more of the criteria listed in this document. The EPA is seeking comment on the appropriateness of the application of the proposed criteria as shown in these three examples. We are also seeking comment on any additional independent criteria that could be used in making a determination to not review NSPS.
C. NSPS Potentially in Need of Review
      After identifying those NSPS that do not currently need review, the focus of the NSPS strategy will be on reviewing, and potentially revising, those remaining standards as required by the statute. This will be done through prioritization of NSPS based on multi-pollutant and sector-based approaches. The benefits of multi-pollutant and sector-based analyses and approaches include the ability to identify optimal strategies that consider feasibility, costs, and benefits across multiple pollutant types  -  criteria, toxics, and others  -  while streamlining administrative and compliance complexities and reducing conflicting and redundant requirements.
      We believe the majority of NSPS that have not been recently reviewed will not meet one of the three criteria listed in this ANPRM. Prioritization of these NSPS reviews will be based on a number of criteria. Possible prioritization criteria would include the types and magnitude of emissions, population exposure, trends in industry growth, advances in control measures and technologies, level and accuracy of monitoring required by the existing standards, expected NSPS applicability, ability to synchronize NSPS review with other CAA requirements (e.g., risk and technology reviews under CAA sections 112(f) and 112(d)(6)), and availability of relevant information. The EPA is seeking comment on the factors listed for prioritization of NSPS to be reviewed and potentially revised. We also seek comment on any additional factors that should be considered in prioritizing NSPS reviews.
IV. Request for Comment and Next Steps
      As described throughout this notice, the EPA is soliciting comments to develop an evaluation plan for the NSPS program. We also encourage readers to submit other comments and supporting data that could help us further improve NSPS review strategies. To ensure a well balanced response and develop the best possible product, we encourage the submittal of both comments offering suggestions and changes and those supporting the strategies included in this ANPRM.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
	Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this is a "significant regulatory action" because we expected this action to raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations will be documented in the docket for this action.  Because this action does not propose or impose any requirements, and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various statutes and Executive Orders that normally apply to rulemakings do not apply in this case. Should the
                New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Review
                        Under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B)

EPA subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking, the EPA will address the statutes and Executive Orders as applicable to that rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
	Environmental protection, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

________
Dated:

________________
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.


[Federal Register: December 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 246)]
[Notices]
[Page 78355]
[DOCID:fr22de08-71]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0855; FRL-8394-3]

Registration Review; Citric Acid, and Salts Docket Opened for
Review and Comment

Correction

    In notice document E8-29974 beginning on page 76648 in the issue of
Wednesday, December 17, 2008, make the following correction:
    On page 76650, in the first column, the signature block should
appear as follows:

    Dated: December 7, 2008.
Joan Harrigan Farrelly,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. Z8-29974 Filed 12-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: October 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 57587]
[DOCID:fr03oc05-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-312-151]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing

September 23, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 20, 2005, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company (Tennessee) tendered for filing a negotiated rate arrangement
between Tennessee and Atmos Energy Corporation. Tennessee states that
the filing seeks to clarify its September 19 filing which inadvertently
indicated that the arrangement involved rates below Tennessee's minimum
fuel, rather than commodity rates. Tennessee states that the filing is
unchanged in all other respects.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5373 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 37358]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty Ninth Meeting: Special Committee 213 (SC 213)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Twenty ninth meeting notice of Special Committee 213.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
twenty ninth meeting of the Special Committee 213.

DATES: The meeting will be held July 21st-23rd from 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Boeing 2-122 Building,
Conference Room 102L2, North End of Boeing Field, 7755 East Marginal
Way S, Seattle, WA 98108, Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Jennifer Iversen, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 330-0662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Special Committee 213. The agenda
will include the following:

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

1. Plenary discussion (sign-in at 08:00 a.m.)
2. Introductions and administrative items
3. Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting
4. Review of terms of reference (if needed)
5. WG1, WG2 and WG3 status updates
6. Industry updates
7. SVGS Draft AC Discussion
8. WG2 Draft Document

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

1. Plenary discussion
2. WG2 Draft Document
3. WG3 Draft Document
4. WG1 Discussion

Thursday, July 23

1. Plenary discussion
2. WG2 Draft Document
3. Administrative items (new meeting location/dates, action items etc.)
4. Introductions
5. Agenda Overview
6. Approval of Meeting #14 Minutes
7. Overview of Planned Work Program for the Week
8. FRAC Resolution for DO-283A Update
9. Plenary Review/Discussion
10. Planned Work Schedule
11. Review of FRAC comments/worksheet, and committee resolution of
comments
12. Approval of the document to go to the PMC
13. 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. each day (start and end times may be
adjusted after opening plenary session)
14. Other Business
15. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-16054 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P